1984-04-18

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Paul-Andre Masse (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Supply and Services):: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, the National Assembly PQ Member for the riding of Saint-Jean alleged that I had sent to a group of senior citizens of my riding a threatening letter concerning a Canadian Government grant for the construction of a community and recreation centre for the elderly. First of all, Mr. Speaker, it is despicable to insinuate that I would have done such a thing to the detriment of any group of my fellow Canadians, particularly senior citizens. In fact, it was an attempt by the PQ Member to deceive the population and gloss over a commitment he failed to keep concerning the senior citizens of our region, unlike the Government of Canada and the Municipality of Saint-Jean which did live up to their promise. Besides, the information media in my riding unanimously reported that the PQ Member spent so much time pondering over the issue that he completely forgot all about his promise.
Mr. Speaker, no wonder the PQ Member for the riding of Saint-Jean could not care less about senior citizens, because his leader, Mr. Rene Levesque, admitted himself during a trip to France in the summer of 1983 that the elderly are an obstacle to the independence of Quebec, which happens to be the true option of the PQ Government.

the beginning of April. In the case of this year, it would have been April 2. At the same time they usually receive a statement of the amount of funds allotted to them for the year, with a guarantee of funds on a quarterly basis.
This year no cheques were received, and no official communication has been received by any of the sport federations as to why the funds are not coming from the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport. There is a total lack of communication between the sport federations and the Minister of State responsible for Fitness and Amateur Sport (Mr. Olivier).
The only information any of the federations have is by way of rumours going around the Fitness and Amateur Sport branch. It looks as if even the sport consultants in the Department of Fitness and Amateur Sport do not know what is going on. The rumours are, however, that the Minister has decided to examine each of the sports on an individual basis in order to familiarize himself with each respective sport and with the funding system.
One of the other rumours floating around is that one aspect which is receiving the Ministers' attention is the question of bilingualism within each sport. It seems that he is looking at a way of getting the sport federations to sign agreements on the level of bilingualism in each sport, by way of a contractual agreement. The initial reaction of the sport federations, of course, is that this would not be acceptable, but-


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


AID TO MUNICIPALITIES
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, last weekend and again today, the newspapers have referred to the negotiations between Quebec and Ottawa on the issue of financial assistance for municipalities and have pointed out that the situation was worse than ever.


FUNDING FOR FEDERATIONS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Mr. Speaker, according to information I received today from the Vice-President of the Council of Executive Directors of the National Sport and Recreation Centre, none of the sport federations have received funding as yet for this fiscal year. The normal procedure is for the federations to receive their first cheque at
Mr. Speaker, we should remember that, with respect to the conversations which began in October 1983, the negotiations carried on between Quebec and the federal Department of Employment and Immigration have always dealt with temporary job creation programs such as Canada Works and the local job creation projects, as well as, according to an agreement signed some time ago, with "any other program which

April 18, 1984
could be added with the agreement of both parties". The new provincial Minister of Municipal Affairs seems to be saying that the Province was cheated by the federal Government. When his predecessor, the Elon. Jacques Leonard, came to Ottawa early in October and later on to negotiate, the programs mentioned were for temporary job creation. This is what happened. Then this is why the non-profit organizations and the other groups which submitted projects under the Canada Works Program could get the grants. Under the agreement on temporary job creation programs, the new phase of the programs will begin next fall. Following an exchange of letters between the governments, the municipalities will be able to know what their share will be. These are the agreements which were negotiated. It is also important to point out that there will be correspondence between the Quebec Government and the federal Government about this situation.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The time allotted to the Hon. Member has expired.


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION DECISION SOUGHT ON GANANOQUE CABLE TELEVISION LICENCE
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to bring the attention of this House to the continuing saga of the Town of Gananoque and its seven-year battle with CRTC to obtain cable television service. This town is located in the Toronto-Montreal corridor, and it is amazing in today's technologically advanced society that Gananoque is still in the stone age.
Seven years ago a licence to provide cable service was approved by CRTC but the company had difficulty in fulfilling the requirements, and CRTC was forced to lift the licence from the company. Last September CRTC received two submissions to provide cable service to Gananoque. Eight months have passed with no decision forthcoming, despite my repeated communications with the Chairman, and his assurances that it was a high priority item.
No response to my representations can only lead me to conclude that the Government cares little for the needs of a small community which cannot compete with the mandarins in their ivory towers. It is unthinkable that a government Department given a mandate to provide service to the public is so insensitive that it refuses to cut through its own bureaucratic red tape and produce a decision on whether company A or company B should be licensed.
It is long past the time when Gananoque should have had cable service, and I call upon the Minister of Communications (Mr. Fox) to intervene on its behalf to obtain a decision immediately, ending a seven-year long battle to obtain what most communities in this country have, cable vision service.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, at the end of this month workers at the Gardiner Denver plant in Woodstock, Ontario, will be laid off because the plant is closing its doors. All of the workers have earned holiday pay for the amount of time they were employed by the plant. The Revenue Canada District Office in London, Ontario, has instructed the payroll clerk at the plant to consider holiday pay as bonus pay and to withhold 40 per cent of the employee's final cheques. Revenue Canada claims that when workers take holiday pay instead of holidays, they are attempting to increase their annual salary, and the 40 per cent deduction is there to discourage this practice.
There is, however, another provision of the Employer's Guide issued by Revenue Canada which allows a 15 per cent tax withholding. This is more in line with the standard payroll deductions for these workers. If the 15 per cent figure were used instead of 40 per cent, it could mean an increase of between $600 and $2,000 immediate cash for the workers at this plant who are about to be laid off with little prospect of further employment. Revenue Canada is penalizing laid-off workers by using a provision in the Guide designed in times of greater employment, and which today is simply and needlessly taking money out of people's pockets. The Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Bussieres) should immediately instruct his Department to apply the 15 per cent standard deduction instead of the 40 per cent penalty.


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

[ Translation]


AID TO MUNICIPALITIES
[Stage Direction]
ATTITUDE OF PARTI QUfeBECOIS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, with reference to the statement made by my colleague the Hon. Member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Dubois), I should like to denounce the hypocrisy of the PQ Government which claims that the federal Government will not contribute certain amounts of money to municipalities, while Minister Garon refuses to let the federal Government contribute $10 million to help Quebec's Middle and Lower North Shore fishermen build processing plants and install ice-houses.
The money is there. Yet, for the past 15 days, the Quebec minister of fisheries has been refusing to meet Middle and Lower North Shore fishermen, while the federal Government is ready to spend $10 million on fishing facilities.
I find, therefore, the attitude of the PQ Government hypocritical, for it claims that there is no federal money available for a particular program when he had known all along that
April 18, 1984

none was available, while refusing the contribution of the federal Government which is willing to invest $10 million.
I think that by refusing to meet with these fishermen, the minister of fisheries is showing contempt for those people while the federal Government is always ready to cooperate when need be, for the common good.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, there is a real concern that the Department of Supply and Services is contemplating a move from Saint John. The Minister has confirmed the matter is being considered. Should this closure take place, it will mean a loss to Saint John of about 16 permanent jobs. However, that is just the tip of the iceberg. That Department spends approximately $35 million annually from the Saint John office, about half of which goes into the immediate area. Should that dry up, it could chop another 100 to 200 jobs.
The City is already staggering under an intolerable unemployment rate which the Government has done nothing but exacerbate. Despite our efforts to have additional grain shipments originate from one of the finest ports in North America, the Government does nothing. It crows about the great rail expansion in the West, and watches complacently while the CRP hangs another five or six jobs out to dry in Saint John. Speaking of the railway, this Liberal bunch cancels one of the most popular passenger runs in the nation, the Atlantic Limited, for purely political concessions, leaving New Brunswick's industrial centre with no direct link with upper Canada, and throwing more people onto the dole.
They close down Revenue Canada offices and cut back on post office operations. When is this outfit going to wake up to the fact that there is a part of this country which deserves more than an occasional visit by the Minister responsible for unemployment, mouthing platitudes which do nothing for the hundreds in that city who, along with thousands of other Canadians, can hardly wait for the chance to show their gratitude?


FINANCE
Mr. Bud Bradley (Haldimand-Norfolk):: Mr. Speaker, I am on my feet again to address the problems in the tobacco and related industries. A 32 per cent cut in tobacco production is proposed for this year. That will relate directly to 800 farms not in production, a loss of some 10,000 jobs, and a $100
million loss to growers. Using an economic factor of six, that means a $600 million loss to local communities and businesses.
We agree that there is a slow natural progression away from cigarettes, Mr. Speaker. They can adapt to that. They cannot adapt to the stupid taxation spiral being placed on their product by the Government. Why does the federal Government need to tax a $280 million product in the amount of $1.14 billion? The devastating effect of this action cannot be adapted to by anyone. We need a halt to the taxation spiral, and a consideration of reductions. We need an increase in the Delhi Research Station budget from $1.6 million to $5 million to find other acceptable crops. We need the Minister of Agriculture to sign the amendment to the Farm Products Marketing Act, which apparently has been sitting on his desk since Christmas. Above all, Mr. Speaker, we need the Government to listen to the problems, show concern, and take action.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, today is the twenty-third day without food for Kazimiera Cebula, a courageous 50 year old woman who asks nothing more than to be reunited with her son, Janusz Lata, and his wife and children. She has been outside the Polish consulate in Montreal in rain and snow, with her companion, Ewa Szypura, who has learned that her husband and daughter will receive exist visas from Poland, but who has chosen to continue her 19 day old fast out of solidarity with her compatriot. They are dangerously weak, but determined to see their families.
Since the hunger strikes of other desperate people at Polish consulates, both in Montreal and Toronto last year, all of which were ended without tragedy, the Polish Government continues to violate the most basic of human rights, the reunification of families, guaranteed in the Helsinki Accord to which Poland is a signatory. With calculated inhumanity, some Polish citizens, often former members of the trade union Solidarity, continue to be blackmailed into leaving their homeland, while others are held to ransom and denied exit visas.
I wish to extend my deep felt sympathy and encouragement to these two brave women and to the many families suffering a similar plight. I urge the Department of External Affairs, which I understand has issued visas for all the persons concerned, to strengthen its representations to the Polish Government.


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

April 18, 1984
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of 29 of his Cabinet Ministers, my question is for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister comment on the propriety of county court judges in Ontario, whose political independence should be paramount even though most of them have been appointed by a Liberal Government, now receiving individually addressed dunning letters on behalf of the Liberal Party of Canada, asking for financial contributions, with these letters having a purported signature of P. E. Trudeau, and a return address on the envelope of 24 Sussex Drive, Ottawa?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, is the Hon. Member suggesting that I signed those letters and have some knowledge of them? I have to know what he is talking about.


USE OF PRIME MINISTER'S SIGNATURE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, would the Prime Minister indicate whether he actually authorized his signature to be used on such letters to the judiciary, or has the Liberal Party of Canada forged his signature?


An Hon. Member:: Or is there another P. E. Trudeau?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Thank God for the Opposition, there is only one of those, Mr. Speaker.


An Hon. Member:: Thank God, and we would like to get rid of him.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have no idea what the Hon. Member is talking about. I do know that I have received fund raising letters signed by the Leader of the Opposition, or the former Leader of the Opposition. Somehow I got on that mailing list. I was not disgraced, and I did not suspect that the Leader of the Opposition was unloyal to his Party and trying to come over to my side.


USE OF SIGNATURE MACHINE INQUIRY
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, is the Prime Minister of Canada indicating that almost any Tom, Dick or Harry can utilize the signature of the Prime Minister of Canada? Also, would the Prime Minister mind indicating if the rather expensive signature machine provided by taxpayers' funds in the Prime Minister's office was used for this particular purpose, and if government paid employees, for instance, are being used to collect and collate the returned letters, either at the official residence of the
Prime Minister-not the Prime Minister's home but the official residence of the Prime Minister-or at the Post Office here in Ottawa?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I say for the second time that I have no idea what the Hon. Member is talking about. He may be fabricating, as he sometimes does.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If he were really honest in his desire to obtain information, he would have had the courtesy of giving me notice of this and sending me at least a copy of what he is talking about.
I do not know. I do know that my name is sometimes used in vain. I do not know the circumstances of this particular case.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. A few days ago, he met with all the leadership candidates to ensure that there would be no breach in Cabinet solidarity and also, I believe, to set some guidelines for the conduct and liberty of action of those ministers who are candidates for the leadership. Yesterday, the Minister of Labour ferociously criticized the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and former President of the Treasury Board, when he said that he was largely to blame for the problems the Minister of Agriculture had with milk quotas in 1976.
Can the Right Hon. Prime Minister tell the House today whether he feels that the Minister of Labour is to be censured for taking such a stand? I think that all Canadian farmers and dairy producers would be very glad to know was actually responsible for the problems they had in 1976.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member had the courtesy, as opposed to his colleague from Ontario, to send me something in writing about the matter which worried him. I would like to thank him for this. He sent me a clipping from the Canadian Press which has one sentence between quotation marks. I do not know whether the quote is accurate. I could check on it, but, for the moment, I shall simply read it:

Mr. Chretien was at the origin of Mr. Whelan's problems in 1976.

Concerning the problems with the milk quotas, this looks to me like a product of the reporter's imagination since he says that this may be what the Minister was talking about. I see
April 18, 1984

nothing here which would justify the Hon. Member in saying that this is what the Minister of Labour meant. He referred to a problem in 1976. What problems did the Minister of Agriculture have in 1976? If he is like everyone else, he must have had many! Are they problems which come under his ministerial responsibility? I really cannot say. However, on the basis of this article, I do not see why anyone should be concerned, least of all the Hon. Member for La Salle, or rather Joliette.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER GIVE DETAILS
Roch La Salle: The Right Hon. Prime Minister is well aware that the constituency of Joliette is La Salle's constituency.
Mr. Speaker, I can well understand that the Prime Minister does not want to look at this article seriously. In fact, I sent him the press clipping because I did not want to hear him say that he knew nothing about this statement. Obviously, the Minister of Labour ferociously criticized his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and former President of the Treasury Board, right in front of the press.
The Prime Minister recalls quite well the problems that come up in 1976 because of a reduction in dairy production. In view of the circumstances and because of the importance of the leadership race in which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is a candidate, does the Prime Minister find it appropriate for the Minister of Labour to blame, in a manner I would call disgraceful, his colleague for the problems which came up in 1976 and for which the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is supposed to have been mainly responsible as President of the Treasury Board? What do the guidelines on Cabinet solidarity specifically prescribe? Will the Prime Minister feel like giving his Minister of Labour a good dressing-down or does he find it normal and helpful for the sake of Government management that his Ministers should tear each other's eyes out in public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, 1 am greatly touched by the concern expressed by the Hon. Member for Joliette. He worries about solidarity on this side of the House. I am very thankful for this and consider it another indication that he is quietly withdrawing from his party to sit as an independent. In fact, this does not surprise me since we all recall that, a few years ago, he decided to cross the floor of the House to sit as an independent Member because of the hypocrisy displayed by his party concerning the language issue.
This having been said, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member used words like "disgraceful" and "ferociously criticized". He added nothing to the problems I raised. Mr. Chretien, or rather Mr. Ouellet was quoted as making the statement to which I have referred. Concerning the milk problem and other issues, there is nothing to show that this is what Mr. Ouellet was referring to. He said exactly this:
Oral Questions
Mr. Chretien was at the origin of Mr. Whelan's problems in 1976. [Translation]
What problem? Mr. Whelan had many problems in those days; so did I and so did the Hon. Member. I shall therefore have to see what it is all about, I mean, whether this is the newspaper's or the Hon. Member's interpretation, or whether Mr. Ouellet actually made these accusations, in which case, I shall have the opportunity to study them.


Mr. Speaker:: One last supplementary.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER REVIEW SITUATION
Roch La Salle: First, Mr. Speaker, let me say that the Prime Minister is no longer as clear-sighted as he used to be, for I have no intention of leaving my Party.
The question is this: it seems that the Prime Minister does not give much credence to that statement. Could the Prime Minister make a small effort-and I know he can do that and remember-he remembers very well the unrelenting fight of dairy producers against the Minister of Agriculture over the 1976 milk quota cutbacks. Could the Prime Minister tell us quite simply today whether his Minister of Labour's statement is true? Farmers and dairy producers would like to know if the then President of the Treasury Board was indeed responsible for those policies.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, according to the newspaper clipping which the Hon. Member himself sent me, Mr. Ouellet said a sentence which 1 will repeat for the third time:

Mr. Chretien was at the origin of Mr. Whelan's problems in 1976.
What problem? Which problem? Which of Mr. Whelan's many problems?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dick:: Leader problems.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Member of Parliament is specifying a problem. He assumes that is the one Mr. Ouellet talked about. I repeat to him: do we know what Mr. Ouellet talked about? I went on to say that we all have problems. The Hon. Member has had problems with his own Party, for gosh sakes. Now he says he still wants to sit there. I said, Mr. Speaker, I will try and find out what Mr. Ouellet said. Nothing can be more fair than that. I think it is less than fair, when the Hon. Member assumes that, when he was talking of problems, he was talking of specific problems, and that is what the press is doing too.

April 18, 1984
Oral Questions CRIMINAL CODE


VIDEO FILMS PORTRAYING VIOLENCE
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Justice. The Toronto police have reported that snuff video films that show an actual murder for entertainment are being rented out to children as young as 12 years of age. Is the Minister aware of this explosion of video films that peddle obscene violence? If the Minister is aware, and if he respects the opinion of police who say that we have lost control over pornography in the video boom, is the Minister taking time out of his leadership campaign for urgent action to help stop or curtail this culture of commercialized murder for fun?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that we are way ahead of him. The amendments which I have introduced to the Criminal Code will deal very explicitly with pornography, violence, and cruelty. I would suggest to all Hon. Members on the other side that if they co-operated in getting Bill C-19 through, we would have an earlier end to this problem.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: It is not as simple as that. I am sorry that the Minister does not consider either the urgency of this Bill or the fact that he could have taken action much sooner.
It reminds me of how, six years ago, it took the murder of a 12-year old boy in Toronto to sting senior government Members into some kind of action on a similar problem.


PRESENTATION OF AMENDMENT
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, nearly a year ago the Minister introduced a draft Bill on this very subject. If he had introduced it as a Bill, as legislation last fall, instead of it only being a draft, it would have been passed with widespread support and could now be used by the police.
Instead of introducing it when he could have done so, why did the Minister choose to bury it along with 306 pages of detail in the Criminal Code amendments? We do not know when he and his committee will be able to get it passed. Why did he not proceed with that one specific amendment which would have had immense support across the country?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, the hon. gentleman well knows that because of Opposition obstruction last year to our legislation, we were not introducing new legislation. We were awaiting the end of the session and the new Speech from the Throne. This legislation has now been before the House for over two months, and we have yet to have any enouragement from his Party in getting it through.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Mr. Speaker, could the Secretary of State for External Affairs inform the House whether the Government has voiced its outrage and condemnation to the Libyan Government with respect to the recent, needless killing of peaceful demonstrators outside the Libyan embassy in London, England?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, like the Hon. Member, we are deeply shocked at the indiscriminate violence, and unjustified violence which has taken place from the Libyan headquarters or embassy in London, where a loss of life and injury to peaceful demonstrators have occurred, as I understand it.
We join with the British Government in condemning this terroristic act and urge the Libyan Government to take whatever steps are required to end it as quickly as possible. I have asked that our views be conveyed to the Libyan Government.


REQUEST FOR CANADIAN INITIATIVE IN LEADING WORLD-WIDE PROTEST
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, would the Government, through the Secretary of State for External Affairs, originate some initiative, either within the United Nations or within the Commonwealth, to ensure that the United Kingdom is not left alone in protesting and condemning this savage breach of international order? Would Canada take the lead in a world-wide process with respect to this atrocity?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we would associate ourselves with the British Government in the statements and actions which it is taking. If that Government finds it useful in the resolution of the situation to undertake measures such as the one suggested by the Hon. Member, we would be receptive to our association and support. However, I think in the present circumstances we ought to allow the British Government, which in the past has shown particular skill in handling these situations, to take the lead. We would support it in whatever actions it thought useful.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDING FOR FEDERATIONS
Jennifer Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Fitness and Amateur Sport. Will the Minister tell the House why he is holding Canada's amateur athletes hostage for the $30.6 million allocated for amateur sport in the Estimates, and why he has refused to sign the sport federations' funding agreements
April 18, 1984

for this fiscal year, thereby jeopardizing the competitiveness of our athletes in the summer Olympics?


Hon. Jacques Olivier (Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport)):: Mr. Speaker, I have already signed the funding agreements with most sports federations for the first quarter of this fiscal year.
We are merely demanding that certain federations fully respect the laws and principles of this Parliament.


CRIMINAL CODE
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of Justice. It follows on the questions of the Hon. Member for Spadina. The Minister knows that he has my support and the support of the New Democratic Party for the obscenity amendment to the Criminal Code. He must realize that 306 pages of amendments will take a great deal of time to process, even with every extensive co-operation. Would he consult with the Official Opposition and, if he obtains support, would he undertake to bring in a specific Bill with that one amendment so that we can deal with violent pornography immediately after the Easter recess?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, of course 1 am prepared, as I have been, to discuss these questions with the Opposition and to be as accommodating as members of the opposition Parties are prepared to be. I should remind the Hon. Member that there are many parts of the Criminal Code Bill which are of the utmost urgency. For instance, the drinking and driving provisions are of extreme urgency. If she is suggesting that the only thing which matters in this whole piece of legislation is that one provision; let me indicate that we need all that Bill, not just parts of it.

[ Translation]


CORRECTIONAL SERVICE CANADA
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. There are in my riding several major penitentiaries, including the Archambault Institute, the regional admission centre and the minimum security facilities at Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines.
Very often staff members let me know of their concerns, Mr. Speaker; their assignment is getting increasingly more difficult, for they have to deal with individuals accused of
Oral Questions
aggressions and other violent crimes. In fact, we are all aware of the situation at the Sainte-Anne-des-Plaines institution.
It is difficult for people outside the Correctional Service to fully realize what is involved. Mr. Speaker, in its report the subcommittee has recognized the complexity of these people's assignment and has made recommendation as to the possibility of early retirement.
My question is this: What progress, if any, has been made concerning this recommendation which aims at preserving the health of these staff members who have greatly contributed to the Canadian judiciary system?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very glad to inform the House that the Government is ready to recognize the stress under which prison guards and other employees dealing with convicts have to labour, and Treasury Board is now ready to start negotiating with Correctional Service Canada and the unions for the purpose of setting up and early retirement scheme for members of the Correctional Service who have lived under stress throughout their careers.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister who, in July of last year, appointed the Hon. Mitchell Sharp and the Hon. Michael Starr to joint chairmanship of a task force to review conflict of interest guidelines relating to Ministers, Parliamentary Secretaries, exempt staff, full-time Governor in Council appointees, and public servants. In letters to the co-chairman, the Prime Minister asked that the matter be dealt with and that the report be submitted by the end of last year.
Last month Mr. Sharp indicated that the report would be ready and available for distribution at the end of this month. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not that deadline will be met so that he may table in the House of Commons, upon receipt, the report of the task force?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I would think that the deadline is likely to be met, but I cannot give a precise assurance. I talked to Mr. Sharp, perhaps a month and a half ago, and my recollection is that his report was finished, or almost finished, in English, and that it was going to be translated. If I recall correctly, I undertook to table it in the House when it was received. I will check on that latter point, but I think I made that undertaking. If so, I will be happy to inform the Hon. Member as soon as I know when it will be ready for tabling.

April 18, 1984
Oral Questions


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of External Affairs. The Minister has received a number of telegrams requesting his support on behalf of the families of two Polish women on a hunger strike in front of the Polish consulate in Montreal.
The Minister knows that the condition of those two women is rapidly deteriorating. Could he indicate if he has attempted to persuade the Polish government to allow those families to leave Poland?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we have been quite active on these particular cases. We know that the blockage is not as a result of Canadian practice because the persons involved can receive visas for admission to Canada. I understand, as a result of representations made by the Canadian Ambassador, that one particular case has been solved. The Polish authorities have indicated that Mrs. Szypu-ra and her family will be reunited in Canada. That is very good news. I am not sure whether the Polish authorities have conveyed that directly to the persons concerned. We are still working on the second case. We hope to have good results.
I should add that among the Eastern European countries the Polish authorities have been the most receptive in this area of easing the reunification of families. I hope that their attitude will prevail in this second, unresolved case.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. The Minister will know a report says that the memorandum of understanding on the NATO frigate project which was to be signed on April 6 last, was in fact not signed because of last minute demands by the United States. The report further said that the other seven countries involved in the project were outraged at the U.S. action and decided to go it alone without Washington. Can the Minister confirm this report and advise us if Canada is one of the seven outraged countries that plan on going ahead with the project without Washington?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I, with the Hon. Member, was disappointed at the indication that the Americans, although they had initially indicated they would sign the agreement, at the last minute identified some difficulties and did not sign. However, I want
the hon. gentleman to consider that, in view of the advantages of having the largest possible group involved in the NATO frigate program, we are making every effort in order to rectify any difficulties that might have been identified by the United States in order to have them join in the program.


CANADIAN POSITION
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows the effect this loss of American technology will have on the project, not the least of which will be the increased sharing of costs and the increased sharing of the development. From the Minister's comments, we are obviously committed to go ahead. Will the Minister tell us what will be the additional cost to Canada if the United States stays out? What steps are being taken to ensure that Canada gets her share of the work on the project that was previously targeted for the United States?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, I might indicate to the Hon. Member that the NATO frigate program is one that I identified in my previous responsibility as being one for us to participate in, in the national interest. Therefore I have insisted that we proceed within that agreement and that arrangement. However, as he will know, we are at a relatively preliminary stage. In effect, we would not be in a position to identify the total cost of the program nor the total involvement of Canada within that program.
I want to advise the Hon. Member that there would be a very close rapport between the amount of Canadian involvement and the industrial benefits that could be extracted from it. I might also indicate to the hon. gentleman that within the Canadian frigate program there is an amount of American technology that will be integrated. Of course our participation may include the aspect of weapons management and systems integration within the NATO frigate program.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Agriculture I will direct my question to the Minister of Transport. He will recall that the question of amending the Western Grain Stabilization Act has been before this House, the Minister, and Cabinet, for some time. It is crucial to get a payment to farmers in this cash-short period when seeding is beginning. There has been agreement from this side of the House, and assurance, as to speedy passage of any amendments which might be proposed. Since the Minister of Agriculture said outside the House yesterday that he was discussing final arrangements with his Deputy, can the Minister of Transport tell us what progress has been made,
April 18, 1984

and how soon the amendments will be presented to the House so that farmers can get this much needed cash?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, as I responded in the House yesterday, to virtually an identical question, we treat the matter of western grain stabilization as a very high priority, but it is a matter that has a number of complicated financial provisions to it because of the nature of the joint contributions that come from both farmers and government. As the Minister of Agriculture was rightly reported, he is now discussing those arrangements with his officials. As soon as the proper and complete amendments are ready and available, they will, of course, receive the highest priority from this Government.


TIMING OF PRESENTATION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister and his Government have had considerable time to look at these amendments, can he assure the House, with an ironclad guarantee, that any amendments will produce a payment before the end of June so that finance companies will know that the farmers are expecting some money and that there is some guarantee for short-term loans as a result?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what I can provide to the Hon. Member is the same kind of ironclad guarantee of assurance that this Government has always provided to protect the interests of the western farmers.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


FISHERIES
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Is he ready to announce the new catch limits for the sports fishery on the West Coast and, if so, what they will be?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as you know, three years ago the Department entered into an agreement with the Sport Advisory Board, called the seven points agreement, whereby the sports fishermen of British Columbia accepted a reduction of about 30 per cent in their catch, particularly of Chinook.
In view of the very serious situation that we are facing this year, I have decided that other measures will have to be added to the seven point program. What I am aiming for is to reduce the catch of our sports fishermen, not through a blanket closure, but through spot closures, or catch and release, and other means, to a target of about 160,000 pieces. I have asked my officials to sit with the Sport Advisory Board to see how that target can be achieved through mutual agreement. An option I have rejected, because I do not think it fits in with our tourist industry in British Columbia, is a total closure on a
Oral Questions
certain date when an automatic figure is reached. That is not appropriate for our tourist industry, so we will try for a target of about 160,000 pieces.


MANAGEMENT OF GENERAL FISHERY
Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, the Minister seems to be prepared to reveal some things which have been kept secret from us. Is he therefore prepared to give us some views on the buy-back program for commercial fishing boats, as well as some views on the native food fishery?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, my colleague is asking me questions that relate to the annual management plan. That information, of course, is made public as quickly as possible. He asked if there would be a buy-back program or not. Those questions, of course, are ones of policy which are before Cabinet. As I said some time ago, Cabinet will be making such decisions, and I trust that the Hon. Member and every Member in the House will support the new Pacific fishery policy when it is made public.


MINING INDUSTRY
Mr. Alain Tardif (Richmond-Wolfe):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of State (Mines). As everyone knows, Mr. Speaker, the asbestos industry is plagued with extremely serious and awkward problems.
Would the Minister tell the House what the Canadian government is doing or plans to do to help the asbestos industry?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of State (Mines)):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the Government certainly feels that, if the international standards are followed, there will be no risk to either workers or the public as far as asbestos is concerned. We have been lobbying very hard in the United States for that Government to accept the international standards as well.
I might tell the Hon. Member that we hosted an international conference on asbestos in Montreal last year. My colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, recently announced that an asbestos institute would be located in Quebec. The Government is fully in support of that industry, both in this country and internationally.
Oral Questions FORESTRY

April 18, 1984


NEGOTIATION OF AGREEMENTS WITH PROVINCES ON FOREST RENEWAL
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment who is responsible for forestry. Since it is now apparent that it will not be possible for the Minister to negotiate forestry sub-agreements with the Provinces of British Columbia, Ontario, and Quebec, may I ask the Minister why it is not possible for him to gain the acquiescence of the provinces to these agreements in the area of forest renewal? Is it because of the very stringent criteria that have been attached by the federal planners to the national priorities, with which incidentally I agree, or is it because the Minister really does not have the money to take to the bargaining table? In that connection, could the Minister tell us just how much of the $130 million, which was earmarked for that program, he has authority to spend in this current year?


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of the Environment: Mr. Speaker, I will try to bring the Hon. Member up to date. I think he should know that the forestry agreement with British Columbia has been renewed, and we have negotiated with the Government of British Columbia an extension of one year to the end of March, 1985. We have also concluded agreements with Manitoba and Saskatchewan. We are in the process of negotiating an agreement with Ontario. In the case of Quebec the matter is still in the hands of those who must negotiate an over-all ERDA agreement which, if agreed upon, will likely lead to the conclusion of a forestry agreement under the general ERDA heading.
I might also draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that during the fiscal year which concluded at the end of March, the federal Government provided well over $200 million to forestry in a number of ways which are too numerous to list.


Mr. Speaker:: Supplementary. The Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, if you would permit me to do so, I would like to direct my supplementary question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. As the Minister knows, another critical problem related to the forestry industry is that if the industry were to convert to a more intensive management style, there would be a critical shortage of skilled manpower and scientists. The Minister has before him a proposal for the development of an internship program which would permit-


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's question should be supplementary to his first question, and not a different question asked of a different Minister. In this case the Chair will recognize the Hon. Member for Skeena.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and deals with the transfer of A and L licences. I know that the Minister is aware that in some cases transfers have been stalled in his Department for up to five months. As the Minister also knows, the transfers are supported by the Appeal Board, and I know the Minister is personally interested in seeing those licences issued expeditiously. Because the Fisheries and Oceans offices in British Columbia will be closed from Friday through Easter Monday, will the Minister telex those offices today in an attempt to assure the House that the fishermen affected will be able to pick up their tags from those offices today or tomorrow, so that they can participate in the halibut season which opens next Wednesday?


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I can give the assurance to the Hon. Member that if the Department's legal adviser tells me that I can issue those licences, I will gladly issue them. The only thing that could prevent me from doing so would be a legal obstacle rather than the lack of will.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I trust that means that those fishermen will be able to get out on the fishing grounds next Wednesday.


FISH PLANTS IN PRINCE RUPERT AND PORT EDWARD
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, some of those affected vessels have historically made deliveries to Cassiar Packing Company in Prince Rupert and Port Edward. I wonder if the Minister would give us the assurance that he will contact the receiver to see that those plants will be reopened, either for this coming halibut season or certainly for the coming salmon season. The Minister should keep in mind that there are hundreds of jobs involved, and that some $600 million has been directed to eastern Canadian industrial fishing concerns for similar restructuring of the industry.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I cannot be more forthright than I have already been. I am telling the Hon. Member that I will gladly issue those licences if, according to the legal adviser of the Department, 1 have the legal authority to do so. I am sure that if the Hon. Member were himself the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans he would abide by the law and by the advice of legal counsel. If the regulations as they have existed for years do not allow what the Hon. Member has suggested, then we must consider amending those regulations. It is a legal problem; it is not that I do not wish to issue those licences.
April 18, 1984


INCOME TAX ACT
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. The Minister was responsible for piloting Bill C-2, an amendment to the Income Tax Act, through the House. That Bill provided for 50 per cent tax credits to those who invested in companies with R and D components and provided that R and D tax credits would transfer to the investor. Is the Minister aware that Canadair has sold a government guaranteed debenture for $33.4 million to Imperial Oil in order that Imperial Oil could save $16.7 million in corporate tax? Does he view this use of government debenture by a Crown corporation as an appropriate transfer of funds to fund that Crown corporation?


Hon. Roy MacLaren (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of the specific case mentioned by the Hon. Member. I would gladly look into it and discuss it with him. Broadly speaking, however, the tax incentives for research and development which were provided for by Bill C-2 are proving to be successful and effective in promoting R and D in Canadian industry.


DE HAV1LLAND-ISSUANCE OF DEBENTURE
Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister also aware that because of the intelligent approach taken by Joel Bell and his cohorts at CDIC, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited issued a $25 million debenture to Gulf Oil of Canada to save Gulf Oil from paying $12.5 million in corporate tax? Again, I would ask the Minister if it is government policy to fund these losing aircraft companies through the back door by using gimmicky tax systems.


Roy MacLaren: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member opposite had given me some notice of his intention to ask these two specific questions about these two specific cases, I, of course, would have been happy to provide him with the information he seeks. However, I shall take his question as notice.


AMATEUR SPORT
Mr. Raymond Savard (Verdun-Saint Paul):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister responsible for Amateur Sport. Yesterday's Globe and Mail reported that the Leader of the Official Opposition has promised that a Conservative Government would contribute to the construction costs of a domed stadium in Toronto. I dare hope it would do the same thing for the Verdun stadium.
Oral Questions
My question is this: could the Minister tell the House if, in light of the remarks made by the Leader of the Official Opposition, and I quote:
"It's only fair" ... in reference to the Liberal Government's financial bail-out of the 1976 Olympic Games where one of the biggest cost overruns was the Olympic Stadium.

Since the Leader of the Opposition is deeply shocked at the huge amounts of money spent on the Montreal stadium, could the Minister tell me how much money the Government did spend in Montreal?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: One thing is quite clear, Mr. Speaker: I think that the Leader of the Official Opposition has absolutely no idea of the federal Government's contribution.
The federal Government did not directly fund the Montreal Olympic Games; it was all indirect funding with revenues from the Olympic coins and the Loto Canada lottery. Those are the very revenue sources which the Progressive Conservative Government gave away to the provinces when it was in office, and those are the funds we will not have to build stadiums elsewhere in the country, not only in Toronto. We did not pay for similar facilities in Edmonton and Vancouver.
It is in that respect that the Leader of the Opposition has yet to understand that we will not be able to provide that kind of funding for amateur sports as a result of his unrelenting battle against sports pools.
Mr. Speaker, I think that the Leader of the Official Opposition needs more information on this issue and I am quite prepared to enlighten him.


WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Mr. Speaker, my brief supplementary is directed to the Minister of Transport and it follows on the question of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre regarding the western grain stabilization fund. The Minister said-if I got him down right-that there are complicated financial matters associated with revising the Bill. I would like to remind the Minister that producers in western Canada are going through some financial complications this spring; they do not have any money with which to operate.
There is willingness on this side of the House to co-operate and do anything we can to facilitate amendments to that Act. We are prepared, if the Government is serious about it, to pass

April 18, 1984
Business of the House
amendments very quickly if they will benefit Canadian farmers. I would like to ask the Minister, and encourage him, to bring some of those amendments forward as quickly as he possibly can. When is he going to do it?


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, of course we are always pleased to receive any gestures of co-operation on behalf of the Opposition.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: We are nothing but helpful.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is a welcome change, and one which we will certainly take into account when we bring forward the legislative package after the spring break.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to call to the attention of the House, on the assumption that we adjourn at six o'clock, that all Hon. Members will be welcome in Room 16 for a short reception and the usual liberation. That invitation is extended also to the Hansard staff.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: I recognize the Hon. House Leader of the Opposition on the usual question relating to government business which is to be dealt with today on a Wednesday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, you have received notice of a subsequent question of privilege which I hope I can raise right after we have dealt with business of the House. Since osten-sively we are about to adjourn for the Easter recess, I wonder if I could ask the Government House Leader, the President of the Privy Council, to tell us the intentions of the Government with respect to business for the days following our return from the Easter recess.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, when we come back, we will resume debate on Bill C-24. The back-up legislation will be Bill C-25. That is for Monday and Tuesday when we come back. On Wednesday, we will go to finance Bills C-7, C-8, C-ll, C-16, C-6 and C-14. Thursday will be an allotted day. I hereby designate Thursday, when we come back, as an Opposition day.
For the rest of the new semester, under the new rules, and to respect the spirit of the new rules, I will send a letter to my colleague House Leaders later today outlining generally the business we would like to see done from the return after Easter until the end of June.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there has been a considerable amount of interest, as the Government House Leader will appreciate-and I raise this question again, having raised it last week-relating to the amendments to the Western Grain Stabilization Act. The Minister of Transport said today that Cabinet is close to concluding its deliberations with respect to this matter. Can the Government House Leader give us a
specific date by which it is anticipated such amendments will be tabled in the House so that we can give this most important item of legislation the appropriate consideration?


Yvon Pinard: This morning, Mr. Speaker, in discussion with most concerned Liberal Members on the subject, I was much encouraged to realize-and it was made clear from the answer given by the Minister of Transport-that progress is being made on this legislation. However, as House Leader I usually deal with Bills which are on the Order Paper. It is likely that the Bill will be placed on the Order Paper shortly after we come back. I hope that will be the case. When that is a reality, then I will be pleased to remind my hon. colleagues opposite that they are on the same wavelength as my colleagues on this side. We all want to see this legislation dealt with as a priority, just like the other Bills on the Order Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) served notice of a question of privilege. Does the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) have a point of order or a question of privilege? I will hear the Hon. Member for Saskatoon West and then the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland.


PRIVILEGE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a brief question of privilege relating to the use of parliamentary facilities and privileges for non-parliamentary purposes.
As you may recall, Mr. Speaker, in response to a question of privilege raised by the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) in February of 1978, Mr. Speaker Jerome outlined a set of general guidelines for a policy on the use of the Parliament Buildings. At that time, the Hon. Member voiced his concern about the fact that the Liberal Party was intending to make use of parliamentary facilities in conjunction with a Liberal Party convention which was being held in Ottawa.
Mr. Speaker Jerome observed:
Anything taking place in these buildings certainly ought to have a parliamentary connection and ought to be in keeping with a number of conditions that respect the dignity of the premises.
His full comments may be found in the Debates for February 14, 1978, at pages 2833 and 2834.
I happened to walk past the post office entrance to the Centre Block on my way into the building this morning. As you will know, Mr. Speaker, a variety of general information is left on tables and notice boards in and around the foyer at the post office entrance. This information usually relates to job vacancies and competitions, charitable appeals and other information of general interest to employees of the House of Commons or to Members' employees. You can no doubt imagine therefore, Mr. Speaker, how surprised I was to discov-
April 18, 1984

er that, along with all of the other notices and literature, were three cartons of pamphlets extolling the virtues of a certain John Turner and bearing the logo of the Liberal Party of Canada.
The pamphlets were issued in the name of an organization called "The Friends of John Turner" and take the form of an open letter "To Liberals in Canada" from the Hon. Member for Terrebonne (Mr. Comtois) and a Franqoise Gagnon. The letter solicits support for Mr. Turner and asks that the attached form be filled in and returned "quickly" by those who agree with "The Friends of John Turner". The form, in part, reads as follows:
I support wholeheartedly the movement to favour the election of JOHN TURNER as Leader of the Liberal Party of Canada and Prime Minister of Canada and I want to join his team.
Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that "The Friends of John Turner", the Hon. Member for Terrebonne included, have nothing but the highest of motives in mind in causing this pamphlet to be printed and distributed. I am certain that Mr. Turner, whoever he may be, needs all the friends he can get as "quickly" as possible. Nonetheless, I question whether leaving these pamphlets out for distribution in the post office entrance to the Centre Block is an activity which has a parliamentary connection or which respects the dignity of the premises as outlined by Mr. Speaker Jerome. I might add, Mr. Speaker, that when last I checked, the cartons and material in question had been removed, 1 understand by the Sergeant-at-Arms. However, Mr. Speaker, if such activities continue to occur I see nothing which would prevent the other leadership candidates from setting up tables in various places around the building to sell memberships in the Liberal Party or pass out buttons and balloons.
According to press reports, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Terrebonne left these pamphlets in the place that he did because certain translation errors had been made and because he wished to have the pamphlets destroyed. He is further reported to have said that new literature is being prepared and that he intends to distribute these pamphlets by making use of his franking privileges as a Member of Parliament.
1 find it odd that the Hon. Member would leave these pamphlets in a public place where pamphlets are often set out for general distribution if it was really his intention to have them destroyed. The Hon. Member admitted that it was his intention to use his free mailing privileges as a Member for Parliament for the purpose of distributing obviously partisan pamphlets in connection with the Liberal leadership contest now going on. I think this is contrary to the spirit and rules respecting the use of the mailing privileges accorded to Members of Parliament. If it is true that the Hon. Member is using his franking privileges in this way, then an abuse is taking place which requires the attention of and investigation by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
If you, Mr. Speaker, find that I have established a prima facie case of privilege, I would be prepared to move that the
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
matter of campaign activities in the Parliament Buildings and the use of parliamentary services and facilities be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. At the very least I hope that you might take this opportunity to outline guidelines on the use of these buildings and facilities.


Yvon Pinard: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, it might help us understand the Hon. Member's grievances and draw conclusions, if we could see the document he is referring to. I invite him to table that eloquent material here, so that we may decide if his complaint is warranted in the circumstances. Further, I think we should be well informed about previous leadership conventions, especially the last one, so that we may assess the facts, in a more objective and reliable context. I think the Hon. Member put forward his own version of the facts. He is referring to documents we have not seen. It is difficult for us to infer anything. It would certainly help Hon. Members and Canadians in general if the document to which he is referring was made available.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West seeks permission of the House to table the documents in question. Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Agreed. The Chair can only observe that it has also been the recipient of communications from various groups, including the Party of the Hon. Member who has just spoken, inviting me to contribute. I have had a number of such invitations recently. I would like to assure Hon. Members that the Chair treats all such communications with neutrality under all circumstances.
It is difficult to avoid the circulation of documents of this nature. However, if there is a violation of franking privileges, that is a serious matter and it will certainly be looked into. Any circumstances in which literature which might not be in the best of taste and which reflects on the dignity of the House will be brought to the attention of the Sergeant-at-Arms and promptly removed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Which has been done, Mr. Speaker. A bad case which has been taken care of.


Mr. Speaker:: In the circumstances, the Chair will examine the remarks of the Hon. Member and the documents which have been tabled. It will also look into whatever evidence the Hon. Member cares to offer concerning the use of the franking privilege.
The Hon. Member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) on the same point of order.


Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, in view of your undertaking to look into this, may I call to your attention the fact that about four years ago I

April 18, 1984
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
raised a similar question of privilege when the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), who was Leader of the Official Opposition, was sending out under his frank copies of a Tory Party newsletter.


Mr. Speaker:: It is very difficult for the Chair to take note of all the things which have happened in the past in this House. It will do its best to deal with matters currently taking place which are brought to the attention of the Chair.


MR. LAWRENCE-NOTICE OF QUESTION TO BE RAISED
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard during Question Period what I consider to be a rather uncalled for personal reference to me by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicating that I frequently promote fabrications in the House. I want to make sure of what was said and consult the rule book. May I just give you notice now that I reserve my right to raise this as a question of privilege at some later time?


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member follows the procedure of sending a written communication to the Chair, I can assure him that due and proper attention will be paid to all communications received.


MR. HNATYSHYN-USE OF PARLIAMENTARY FACILITIES FOR LIBERAL LEADERSHIP CAMPAIGN
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I believe I heard you say that you had received literature from other Parties, including the Progressive Conservative Party, asking for donations, etc. My point of order is basically that I trust, Sir, you have made equal contributions to each one of the Parties in order to maintain your total independence.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair considers itself to be equally flattered by the attention offered by Members on all sides, and wants to assure Hon. Members that they are all treated equally.


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (York-Scarborough):: Mr. Speaker, if I understood your response to the question of privilege, you said you would look at the issue of the franking privileges to ensure that they are properly observed. I would like to bring to the Speaker's attention-and although I do not have the material today, I could make it available-issues of householders, which are issued under the franking privilege, with pictures of congratulations to poll captains in previous elections and things of that nature. I have wondered about them.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services has taken note of these matters. The Chair has been guided by recommendations from that Committee, which represents Members from all political Parties in this House. The matter has been considered and if
the Hon. Member has a concern I suggest he take it before the Committee.


PETITION
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petition presented by the Hon. Member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley), by filing it with the Clerk of the House on Tuesday, April 17, 1984, meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the first report of the Standing Committee on Transport, to which, pursuant to Standing Order 69(13), the Committee requests a comprehensive response.


COLUMBIA RIVER TREATY
Mr. Leonard Hopkins (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 46(2), I wish to table two sets of documents today. First I would like to table in both official languages the annual report of the Columbia River Treaty Permanent Engineering Board to the Governments of the United States and Canada for the period from October 1, 1982, to September 30, 1983.


PETROLEUM COMPENSATION CHARGE
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Secondly, Mr. Speaker, I would like to table in both official languages the revised petroleum compensation report on revenues and expenditures for the fiscal year ended March 31, 1983. This report will undoubtedly be referred to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works.
April 18, 1984


PETITION
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from 1200 residents of the Laurier constituency and the Montreal area.
They humbly state that they are concerned by the continuous escalation in the armaments race and the breakdown of negotiations aimed at limiting and reducing nuclear arsenals. They are encouraged by the efforts of the Right Honourable the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to promote a dialogue between the superpowers, and humbly pray and call upon Parliament to support the Prime Minister in his efforts.
Most of these petitions were signed after the Prime Minister's resignation. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, they can be interpreted as expressing the hope that this initiative will be pursued by the Canadian Government and become part of this country's external policy.


MOTION RESPECTING MONDAY, MAY 14 SITTING
Mr. John Evans (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, consultations have been had on this subject. I think you will find there is unanimous consent for the following motion:
That when the House adjourns on Friday, May 11, 1984, it shall stand adjourned until 2 p.m. on Monday, May 14, 1984.
The reason, Mr. Speaker, is that the new Governor General will be sworn in in the morning of May 14. The House will not sit in the morning but will sit at two o'clock in the afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council have unanimous consent to move his motion?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate on behalf of our Party that for the purpose of accommodating the Government with its arrangements for the swearing in ceremony of the Hon. Jeanne Sauve as Canada's Governor General, we not only consent to the presentation of this motion, but will agree to the contents of the motion.


Mr. Speaker:: Hon. Members have heard the terms of the motion. Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Order Paper Questions

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 195 and 677.
[ Text]


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Public Works):: I am
informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:
1. a)	Yes (i) 29
(ii) $597,540 in Canadian funds $ 69,867 in U.S. funds
b) Yes	(i) 28
(ii) $736,020 in Canadian funds $445,000 in U.S. funds
2.	Yes in 1981-82, seven consultants were paid more than $20,000 and in 1982-83, five were paid more than $20,000.
a) to c), see attached Schedule A
Name, Amount and Services provided by Consultants paid more than $20,000
	1981-1982	
Name	Amount	Services ProvidedC.T.R. Consulting Inc., Montreal	$ 63,170	TranslationSpica Translations, Ottawa	166,669	TranslationLes Traductions Tessier, SCC, Ottawa	142,939	TranslationSpectrum International, Los Angeles, CA.	48,045 US	System Development Methodology Instruction BookTM Douglas Enterprises, Inc., Sault Ste-Marie	29,500	Coordinate Minister Speeches, Press relations, etc.Scanada Consultants Ltd., Ottawa	35,150	Urea Formaldehyde Foam Insulation TrainingEkos Research Associates Ltd., Ottawa	71,510	Technical Services Reporting System1982-1983	Scanada Consultants Ltd., Ottawa	$412,284*	UFFI Remedial Advisory Assistance Service and Special MeasuresBooz Allen and Hamilton, Chicago	445.000 US	Diagnostic Review and Blueprint of Management Information SystemPeat Marwick, Ottawa	109,253	Federal/Provincial Relations; Rural and Native Housing Program; Mortgage Insurance Fund; Cash Management Study; Budgetary Module Study; Performance Standards; Asset Evaluation; Mortgage Portfolio Management System Study; Regent Court Regeneration
April 18, 1984
Order Paper Questions
Robert Sprague Consulting Ser-	26,800	Internal Manual Instructions
vices Ltd., Ottawa
Ekos Research Associates Ltd.,	79.450	UFFI Reporting Systems
Ottawa
* Of that total $396,490 was recovered by the Department of Corporate and Consumer Affairs.


Mr. Hawkes: 1.	Did the Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) offer to take athletes who did not meet the Olympic selection criteria to the 1984 Olympic Games as guests of the Government and, if so, was he aware that (a) sports governing bodies had set the criteria for Olympic selection two years prior to the Games (b) the selection criteria for the Games were accepted by all sports governing bodies except that of track and field (c) all Canadian sports governing bodies, plans and budgets for the Games were established prior to the Games based on meeting the criteria for selection to the Games?
2.	In future, will the Government (a) intervene in the administration of national sports governing bodies (b) create a new set of selection criteria not based entirely on athletic skill for the choice of Canadian representatives in international athletic contests?


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1. The Minister of State (Fitness and Amateur Sport) did not offer to take athletes who did not meet the Olympic selection criteria to the 1984 Olympics as guests of the Government.
The Minister did extend an invitation to athletes in the sports of Nordic Combined and Biathlon to observe the Games (as guests of the federal Government), after the Canadian Olympic Association declined to select any athletes to represent Canada in these sports at the Sarajevo Olympics.
There are no minimum criteria for selection for the Olympics in these two sports laid down by either the International Olympic Committee or the International Federations which control the two sports.
With respect to criteria for the Olympics being set two years prior to the Games, the criteria referred to are, presumably, the general selection principles set out by the Canadian Olympic Association-not by the Canadian sport governing bodies responsible for these two sports in Canada.
Further, while the general selection principles were set out by the Canadian Olympic Association in mid-1982 subsequent discussions between the COA and officials of Sport Canada led to an agreement to select athletes who were 1988 potential athletes provided that the federal Government paid for these athletes, and provided that these athletes were clearly participants in long-range training programs aimed at 1988. In the final analysis, when the actual selections were announced in January 1984, these athletes who will likely represent Canada in Calgary in 1988 were denied the Olympic experience in 1984, and so the Minister offered to send them to Sarajevo as observers.
With respect to the process of setting criteria, since Canada became the host nation for 1988 only in mid-1982 and made a major financial commitment to preparing athletes for 1988 in early 1983 (including a doubling of resources to $50 million
for the period from 1983-88), it appears reasonable that the approach of Canada's host nation status and major financial commitments to success in 1988. This answers the question of whether sport organizations' budgets were set based on meeting criteria for selection to the Games. Clearly other factors intervened after the initial criteria had been set-but in any event, budgetary factors were not an issue.
2. No, the Government will not generally intervene in the administration of national sport governing bodies. But, yes, the Government will attempt to prevail on the judgment of organizations such as the Canadian Olympic Association to establish selection standards which will assist in the fulfillment of a public interest in Canada's eventual success in international sport as evidenced by an annual federal Government expenditure on sport of nearly $50 million.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, if questions Nos. 176, 188 and 295 could be made orders for returns, these returns would be tabled immediately.
[ Text]


Mr. Mazankowski: 1.	Is there a National Advisory Council on Aging and, if so, what (a) are its terms of reference (b) is the (i) name (ii) background or expertise (iii) term of appointment of each member (c) remuneration, such as salary or travel expenses (i) do the members receive (ii) did the members receive to date (d) other funding, if any, is provided by the Government?
2.	During the fiscal year 1982-83, did the Council meet and, if so (a) how often (b) how often is it required to meet (c) what matters did it consider (d) what reports and/or recommendations were published?
Return tabled.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In the fiscal year (a) 1981-82 (b) 1982-83 were outside consultants employed by the Department of Agriculture and, if so (i) how many (ii) what was the total amount paid?
2.	Were any consultants paid more than $20,000 and, if so, in each case what (a) was his/her name (b) was the amount (c) services were provided?
Return tabled.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	Are there any subsidiary companies of the Canadian National Railway System and, if so (a) how many (b) what is a list of their names and, in each case (i) on what date (ii) under what authority (iii) in what circumstances was it incorporated and what are its terms of reference?
2.	For each of the subsidiaries mentioned in Part 1 (a) how is it financed (b) what is it capitalization (c) what is its current budget (d) by (i) whom (ii) what process is it budget approved (e) what is its borrowing (i) authority (ii) limit (0 what is a list of the names of its Directors (g) on what date did its Board of


April 18, 1984

Directors last meet (h) does it report to Parliament or the Canadian National Railway System?
Return tabled.


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


Mr. Manly:: Mr. Speaker, could the Parliamentary Secretary give special attention to producing an early answer to question No. 742 relating to the Cowichan estuary and any studies that were done regarding the no net loss policy?


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that questions Nos. 176, 188 and 295 be deemed to have been made orders for return?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration from April 17, 1984 of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence.
Mr. Speaker:: The last speaker was the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro). There are five minutes remaining in the questions and answer period. Is the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) rising to put a question? The Hon. Member for Edmonton East on debate.
International Peace and Security


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, as the culmination of the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) peace initiative we have before us Bill C-32, an Act to establish the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. The principles involved in this legislation are sound. Let us cease this ongoing nitpicking and send this legislation to committee where we can adjust the language and change "shalls" to "mays" if advisable. Let us get on with this legislation. With regard to the principles behind this legislation, we need only ask whether it is needed, what its dimensions are to be, and where the institute shall be located.
Let us first ask ourselves whether peace is possible in our world today or if it is a social illusion. When the differences in affluence and poverty are so great between world segments, and when ideologies are a major conflict as to the very purpose of life itself, can lasting peace be a reality? What universal intelligence or universal spirituality can decree that humanity is not bent on self-destruction? What are the characteristics of peace and how are they to be taught and promoted? Can we aim so high as to state that through trust we shall promote international brotherhood and goodwill and through understanding we shall be free from oppression of body and spirit and from uncertainty and fear? Can we state that to understand we must study and analyse and to trust we must discern and know?
We must establish the mechanism to analyse and to understand and then to know and to trust so that we might live without fear, apprehension and oppression. To know and to understand we need a centre of study and analysis and projection and dissemination of information on arms control and defence. Yes, Mr. Speaker, the need is there. The need for an institute for international peace and security is timely.
Where should this institute be located, Mr. Speaker? Let me again suggest that it should be located in Edmonton, halfway between Washington and Moscow, midway between our two mighty neighbours that are armed to the teeth with nuclear weapons.
When we officially open the institute let us invite the President of the United States and the Chairman and President of the U.S.S.R. to cut the ribbon and then to shake hands and have their summit meeting. Every second year these two giants of peace or war should be invited to revisit the institute in Edmonton. Let us bring together in this peace institute in Edmonton both American and Russian experts so that they might learn to communicate, because knowledge and communication should be the prime objectives of this institute.
When I spoke in the Throne Speech debate on January 24 this year, I said:
Some international superpower agreements on the military use of space must be realized in the next five years. Initially, the nuclear delivery mechanisms involved hours in their delivery time.. . This has now been reduced to minutes... and space deployment will reduce the time frame for delivery to seconds.
War by accident and massive escalation will then be beyond the control and reason of man and totally under the control of computers. To the modern mind,

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
technological development is the very essence of mankind. Without technological progress some people believe we die as a human race. The very pride of man decrees that space will be conquered and space systems both for military and peaceful use will be developed and deployed. That is the general view in America today.
I suspect it is the general view in Russia.
What we must find is the human will to rationalize and then regulate these systems for the continued constructive evolution of civilization itself. The converse is only darkness.
The institute must study all aspects of accidental initiation of nuclear war. It must develop systems to provide instant communications between the two superpowers to prevent and halt massive escalation.
Indeed, I have frequently envisaged a communications satellite positioned in a stationary orbit above the North Pole which would provide instant communications between the U.S.A. and Russian military commanders and heads of states in order to prevent accidental war and massive escalation.
Surely a Canadian institute for peace would at least perform such a function. Surely one of its first tasks would be to examine the possibilities and the probabilities of launching such a communication satellite. Indeed, the Canadian Government should undertake discussions immediately with both the United States and the Russian Governments to initiate such a satellite project.
Without much more fuss, let us pass this legislation on principle and send it to committee for some minor refinements. Let us give it third reading and get on with the establishment of the institute in Edmonton. Edmonton is the place. Let us get it away from Ottawa, the political centre of Canada, so that political interference in its functions can be minimal.
If we locate it in Edmonton, I feel quite certain that within a few years, or even a few months, it would be named the Pierre Trudeau Institute for International Peace and Security. It would be a fitting tribute to a Prime Minister who really tried to do his best for world peace and now rides into the sunset.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of National Defence: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to congratulate the previous speaker, the Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko), who pointed out that we should not wait too long before adopting this legislation, so that the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs can discuss any changes or amendments it may wish to suggest.

My colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen), described the proposals to establish a Canadian institute for international peace and security. He has explained the purpose of the proposed institute and why this Government considers its establishment and development to be a matter of some urgency.


Mr. Skelly:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am very reluctant to interrupt the Minister's speech, but I understood he had risen on a question. I wonder whether you had called for questions prior to the resumption of debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I must admit that I did not because I did not see anyone rising. I was aware that the next speaker was to be the Minister. Ordinarily, there would have been a ten-minute question period following the speech made by the Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the customary procedure is to call for questions. I think that Members of the House, on questions being called, tend to rise in anticipation of that. The introduction in the Minister's presentation led me to believe that this is what he was doing. I had waited for your call to rise on those questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member's point is well taken. Perhaps I could ask for the Minister's indulgence in order to call for any questions that might be posed to the Hon. Member for Edmonton East. He would then be able to continue his speech.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I am in your hands.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: In that case, there will be a maximum ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Raymond John Skelly: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I took particular notice of two important issues which the previous speaker raised in his presentation. One was the use of weapons in space. One issue that has arisen and has concerned many Canadians is that of the defence production agreements in which Canada is involved and the construction of components for nuclear weapons delivery systems. Would the Hon. Member comment on his support or opposition to Canada's constructing components for nuclear weapons delivery systems and on the involvement in the aerospace programs that might lead Canada to assist in providing components for such technology in space?
Second, the Hon. Member mentioned accidental nuclear strikes. What is the Hon. Member's opinion of a first strike situation? What is his position on the Cruise missile, which does not only concern an accidental strike as it has been the subject of first strike possibility because it is unverifiable and undetectable?
For the record, would the Hon. Member give us his position on the testing of the Cruise missile in Canada and the further development of this very dangerous weapon capable of being used not only for accidental strike but for first strike?


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the use of weapons in space, let me say first that I am of the opinion that technological progress in regard to the use of space both for military and peaceful purposes cannot be stopped. It will go ahead irrespective of what is said in this Parliament or in almost any congress or parliament. I have tended to touch on that matter in several speeches I have made in the House. The question in my mind is the deployment of the deadly device
April 18, 1984

itself, the nuclear weapon. There are now 50,000 in the world. We have to return to the question of reducing the number.
The danger is not with the development of technology because all technology that is developed, whether it is the jeep or the initial airplane, can be used for destruction or construction. Indeed, we have gone through several systems in which the initial development was for military purposes but then they have been used massively for commercial or peaceful purposes.
I cannot think of any single development in technology that has not gone through this variation from possible military use to usefulness in society. I suggest that we must deal with reducing the number of nuclear bombs themselves.
One of the most interesting aspects, of course, is Canada's position in regard to the CANDU nuclear reactor. Canada is trying to market nuclear reactors all over the world in a very significant fashion. I know quite a bit about CANDU reactors because I have worked on the design of some. Yet this is a reactor that we sell which makes it possible to build a nuclear bomb without too much difficulty. We must examine closely our position in regard to the development of technology. I am not suggesting that we should not sell CANDU reactors. That is my answer to the first question.
With respect to the second question regarding the testing of nuclear Cruise missiles, I have stated my position in the House very emphatically. I think I was the first person in the House to take a position in respect of testing the Cruise missile. It was that we should go ahead. To support that view, I return to the process of verifiability and the timeframe for delivery systems. The Cruise missile is a slow delivery system. I feel rather safe with the Cruise missile, as I feel with an airplane, because I believe that nuclear war can start by design, which is first strike capability, if you wish; by escalation as a result of initiation by a small country, such as one in the Middle East; or by accident. I do not fear the first alternative at all. I know of no nation that will start a nuclear war knowing that it will accelerate very rapidly and will not stop until the world is destroyed.
I fear the second instance, of a bomb dropped in Israel, the Middle East, or somewhere else, which act of aggression would then escalate. But I mostly fear the third alternative. I am a technologist. I have worked on nuclear reactors and I know how accidents can happen. My fear is that the Cruise missile has a slow delivery. We have time to react. It is verifiable-not the Cruise missile itself but the bomb itself when it is stationed at some particular point. The bomb is verifiable. A nuclear bomb when it is stationed somewhere brings around it a massive system of protection against somebody stealing it. There is no harm in stealing a Cruise missile. The harm is in stealing the bomb. It is the bomb that will provide the verifiability with respect to the protection systems around it. With respect to the Cruise missile, it is slow. It will give us time to react and stop any escalation process. Second, the nuclear bomb itself and its location is a verifiable process.
International Peace and Security


Mr. McRae:: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Hon. Member for his support of the Bill. I agree with him entirely that we should move it along, get it into committee, have a good look at it in committee and make the changes necessary. But let us get this thing going. However, I tend to agree to some extent with his answer to the last question.
When he is talking about the Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) peace efforts, has he examined very closely the ten points which I think are tremendously important which really represent a distillation of what the Prime Minister found out when he talked to dozens and dozens of world leaders? Has he examined whether or not these ten points do not offer a much better approach to solving the world's problems than the arms control approach, which is the one we have been using?
Let me give you a quick example, Mr. Speaker. Imagine two people standing in a tank of gasoline; one has ten matches and the other has seven. One says, "You have more matches than I do". Maybe the answer should be that we should try to drain the gasoline away. Perhaps that is the real answer since we are not very successful at the other one; the weapons might disappear at some particular point if we do this other thing. But included in those other points, one of which is destabilizing weapons, which the Hon. Member has mentioned, is the Pershing II.


William J. Yurko: Mr. Speaker, I am not going to take a long time to answer this question. I believe the discussion in this House has basically given the answers to the question which the Hon. Member has asked with respect to the ten points put forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). There is no doubt that the ten points are significant and indeed distil the very essence in this matter. My difficulty is that there are fantastic dynamics to the whole question. It is not a stationary one. The dynamics of the question change almost daily, certainly monthly and yearly. The reason they change is that there is a vast potential for technological development in the world today, particularly in certain nations. Where you think there is stability under one particular system, a new development or technology suddenly creates instability. Therefore, the need for constant, dialogue, discussion, co-operation and, if you wish, analysis, particularly between the two superpowers, is absolutely vital. That is what I see and hope is the purpose of this type of institute, an institute which must bring-as I have constantly indicated-the two superpowers together in a summit and put together the mechanism for constant dialogue. I know a summit meeting between the five nations is a second step, not the first step. The first step is dialogue, if you wish, at a summit and an agreement for co-operation between the two superpowers. They are our neighbours. We are in between the two superpowers. I believe we have a role to play, which is very significant in this world, in bringing our two neighbours together at every possibility for dialogue, for co-operation through sports, for co-operation through tourism or through trade. We must get these two nations to get to know each other so that at least they can talk. Then we can move toward the process of establishing some permanent type of peaceful struc-

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
ture for the future. I want to say that at this time I am not very optimistic.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The period for questions and comments has expired. Before I recognize the Hon. Minister for National Defence (Mr. Blais) I should say that, because I interrupted his speech, he will be accorded the full twenty minutes, if he so desires. The Minister of National Defence.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, I subscribe fully to the sentiments of the Secretary of State for External Affairs in the expressions that he made and to the Government's commitment to search for world peace and security. Today's strategic environment is characterized, as you well know, Mr. Speaker, by uncertainty and by change. It is essential, therefore, that we all understand the nature of the world in which we live so that we might effectively provide for our security and that of all peoples.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) embarked on his initiative with the intention of defusing some of the worrying aspects of the East-West relations and seeking a way out of the current preoccupation with military strength. He strove to give new political impetus to the search for accommodation. The institute is being proposed in this spirit.
As Minister of National Defence, I support every effort to strengthen peace. My Department and myself are devoting time and effort to work with other Departments, especially the Department of External Affairs, in looking for ways to achieve arms control and disarmament. I am pleased to say that all these initiatives, the latest of which is the proposed Canadian Institute of International Peace and Security, will complement the work of my Department, of which I have the honour to be Minister.
Our defence policies have long been aimed at preserving peace and security and need no elaboration here. One only has to look at the experience of Canada in peace-keeping operations. We have used our military forces, not to make war but to secure peace. We have been the greatest contributor to the United Nations peace-keeping operations, having participated in each one of the peace-keeping operations mounted by that international institute.
As the Secretary of State for External Affairs has said, Canada's investment in defensive collective security agreements has been consistent since the Second World War and has paid the dividend of peace for more than a generation of Canadians. Again, as Minister of National Defence, I support whole-heartedly the act to establish the Canadian institute. The institute, by adding to our store of public knowledge and understanding of the issues has a real contribution to make to the preservation of peace and security. The Department of National Defence will demonstrate its commitment by financing 50 per cent of the institute's budget in partnership with the Department of External Affairs.
Although some of those who are newly aware of the question of peace and security and strategic studies may tend to feel that there is an instant solution somewhere if only goodwill
could be found, we recognize that the issue is an eminently complex one and needs to have a great deal of attention and concentration given to it if we are to make any progress.
The Members of this House are aware of the activities of the Department of National Defence and know that for many years, the Department has played a continuing and active role in the field of research on peace and security. A large part of these activities are carried out by the Operational Research and Analysis Establishment, which works together with the policy planning staff of the Department of National Defence.
The subject is a very important one, Mr. Speaker, and the group in question carries out studies that are to be used in formulating departmental policy, more particularly in the field of East-West relations. In many cases, it has also provided assistance to the Department of External Affairs, when so requested, in the field of analysis. Projects were either short or long-term, and some might be classified while others would be for public release. Often, outside help has been obtained, and research projects on a variety of subjects connected with Canada's defence have been entrusted to eminent academics. In recent years, research on, and analysis of, problems relating to arms control and disarmament has been stressed, with special emphasis on areas where Canada plays an active role, such as reduction in conventional forces and the development of confidence and security in Europe.
In addition, the Operational Research and Analysis Establishment has concentrated on the repercussions that a balance of nuclear power and increasing use of space for military purposes might have for Canada.
Since the foregoing has been the subject of various studies within my Department, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was able to call on the Department's expertise to help establish strategy for his peace initiative. Similarly, my Department has extended its activities beyond its own confines by encouraging and supporting civilian universities as part of the Military and Strategic Studies Program. Started in 1967, the program's major objective has been to encourage the training of Canadian experts on military and strategic issues, in order to respond to present and future security requirements and arouse a nationwide interest in these issues.
Mr. Speaker, it is common knowledge that the program had humble beginnings. In fact, at the outset, interest in the program was not universal. However, it now helps support five research centres located at the University of British Columbia, the University of Calgary, Queen's University, Laval University and Dalhousie University, and also three teaching centres which are located at York University, the University of New Brunswick and Acadia University. The program also provides a number of bursaries for Canadian university students desiring to pursue a course of study in areas related to national
April 18, 1984

security. The administration of the program is strictly neutral, and the Department does not try to influence the universities. The Military and Strategic Studies Program has been remarkably successful, considering its relatively low budget. I may add that this week, representatives of participating universities, with senior officials responsible for the program, will be meeting in Ottawa at their annual convention.

I have described briefly to the House how the Department uses and promotes the research function associated with national security both within and outside the Department. These DND programs are tailored to the broad needs of national security and will continue to do so. At the same time we must recognize recent developments which led the Government to consider the formation of the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security as necessary, desirable and complementary to the work of others in the field of military and strategic studies.
The first of these developments is the explosion of information in the field of military and strategic studies. The Speech from the Throne referred to the need for a publicly-funded centre to gather, collate and digest the enormous volume of information now available on defence and arms control issues. As Minister I can attest to the volume and I can see how difficult it is even for trained personnel to understand and assimilate the flow of information. I tend to be on a large number of mailing lists these days. I tend to receive a large volume of documents from a large number of sources. I am not belittling the information which is being provided nor the opinions which are being advanced, because more thought is being given to the particular issue of peace and security than to any other issue facing public administrators and individuals concerned with the public interest.
There is a clear need to collate, collect and digest information and a responsibility to communicate. We as Members of Parliament, men in public life, recognize the need for communications. We recognize how difficult communications are, especially when the issues are so complex and imbued with emotionalism.
The second development is the increase in public interest in matters of peace and security. I can vouch for the fact that since I assumed this particular responsibility public interest in the issue is much greater. I can well understand why. One has only to look at the developments and the difficulties in 1983. Of course, 1983 was the period when the western alliance had to implement its two-track policy with the beginning of the deployment of modernized delivery systems in western Europe. It was the time of the Korean airlines flight No. 007 being shot down and of an increase in tension. Indeed there was and is an ongoing concern. Historically Canadians have tended to be relatively disinterested in peacetime-and I stress in peacetime-in matters of peace and security because Canada has had the major advantage of having seas which isolate it from major threats. Also, we have a very friendly neighbour-and we are very lucky in that respect-on our southern border. Relatively speaking, Canadians have felt very secure. Indeed,
International Peace and Security there was a period of time when the interest relating to these issues was not that great. However, now there are clear signs that the public is no longer content to leave these issues only to professionals and even to politicians. There is a genuine desire to learn more about the complex issues of peace and security.
Ten years ago it was difficult to attract students to military and strategic studies programs. Today there are 598 undergraduates taking military and strategic studies at three teaching centres, and many more than could be accepted within the limits of the current graduate program. At the graduate level, four times as many students applied for scholarships than could be accepted within the funds available. The establishment of the proposed institute will greatly facilitate response to this increased public interest.
One of the characteristics of both the increased public awareness and the explosion of information is the wide variety of opinions expressed. No single Department of government could hope to encompass this spectrum of concerned public opinion, least of all the Department of National Defence because its attention, of necessity, must focus upon giving effect to the Government's security and defence policies. It is the Canadian democratic tradition to seek consensus and reconciliation, not to polarize the discussion of peace and security into what the Secretary of State for External Affairs has called a dialogue of the deaf.
We reaffirm our determination to maintain a strong defence in co-operation with our democratic allies. At the same time we must recognize the overriding imperative to explore new ideas which will go beyond the historic and traditional concepts of national and international security.
There is going to be, of course, a by-product. As the institute gets involved in areas of public concern and in communicating views relating to various solutions and the various positions being proposed, that will make Canadians more conscious of the fact that they belong to a global community. In the past, we have tended to be rather insular. During Question Period very seldom are questions asked relating to international concerns and to peace and security issues. It is to be hoped that with this institute, the internationalization of our interest will be secured and Canadians will become more and more aware of the great world out there and the fact that decisions made outside of Ottawa and the provincial capitals have an impact on their day to day lives.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister indicated that he wholeheartedly supports the Bill, which must mean that he read it fully and understands how this institution will operate. Will he indicate what access the institute will have to classified information within his Department? I refer specifically to the data that is exchanged virtually daily among NATO members which in some cases is highly classified. Will the institute have access to that information?
3194

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to advise the Hon. Member that we will consider each application for information on its merits. As the Hon. Member knows, we are very sensitive to the security that we obtain. He is very much aware of the source of much of the information which is essential for the Canadian Government to deal with matters of public policy. We will make every effort to ensure at all times that the needs of the institute are met, mindful, of course, of the necessity to ensure that each bit of information received is preserved within its classified status.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, the Minister must be more forthcoming to the House. It is fine to say you will deal with each matter as it arises. Would he indicate two things to the House? First, would he be more or less inclined to share classified information with an institute that has foreign members on its board? Second, would he consult with our allies before such information in any event is shared with the institute?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, allies are allies. The source of information would have to be fully informed of any exchanges that there may be regarding any classified information. That is the course that has always been followed. As the hon. gentleman knows, there are various classes of information and various standards of confidentiality and secrecy. I cannot give the Hon. Member a complete reply relating to what attitude would be taken by our allies regarding each classification.
The Hon. Member also asked whether there would be a greater tendency to make available information if the boards of directors were from countries other than Canada. The Hon. Member will have to wait to see who the non-Canadian members may be, who will be appointed. The pertinence of Canada to an alliance is very much in our mind in terms of identifying the personnel who will be appointed as directors. I might indicate to the Hon. Member as well that I will be fully consulted, as he may have noted, on the appointment of these directors. That will be a consideration that I will keep in mind.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Minister touched on a very important subject. That is the involvement of tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands, of Canadians in this issue over expressed concern for demonstrations. I would like to correct him. In this House, on dozens and dozens of occasions our Party has raised and stressed the concerns being raised by those people. Just a couple of quick points to refresh his memory: Abandonment of the testing of the Cruise missile; abandonment of construction of components for a nuclear weapon system in Canada; a declaration of a nuclear free zone in this country; support of Canada for a referendum on nuclear disarmament; and some active, specific involvement in the Central America issue that would see Canada joining with other peaceful nations to stop the war there, bring about a peaceful settlement to the problem and attempt to ensure and guarantee the protection of Nicaragua. These problems have been raised dozens of times.
With the issue before us today-with the tour of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and this peace institute-is that
Canada is giving the appearance of doing something. This Government-even the Conservative Party-is trying to get on a bandwagon within the country, rather than doing something specific as a Government that would reduce tension and bring about security through active disarmament. Will the Minister comment on the perception that this Government is not really taking action but trying to create the appearance of action for political purposes?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member indicates from his question that he still does not understand that the decision taken by Canada relating to the Cruise missile issue was one that was justified as a result of our belonging to a multilateral security arrangement. The hon. gentleman is exactly proving the point that I was making, that the NDP, relating to its attitude on the Cruise, was very internally focused. NDP members were saying: "We do not want to be part of an international association or alliance that has the principles of collective security that NATO has and we do not support the Government in its effort to meet its commitments within that association". The only area they have addressed that has international implications is the question of Canadian involvement within Latin America. That question has been dealt with fully by the Secretary of State for External Affairs.


Mr. Kristiansen:: Mr. Speaker, in commenting and asking a brief question of the Minister on Bill C-32 and his comments thereon. I draw to his attention a submission made by my colleague from Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) yesterday under Standing Order 21. I will quote briefly from it as it may be relevant. It will allow the Government and this Parliament to do something that many Canadians have been asking for. I quote:
I call upon the Government to establish a peace tax fund which could be used for such items as peace research and promoting international understanding. People who contributed would receive a 100 per cent income tax credit up to the percentage of their tax normally allocated to defence spending.
My colleague at that time made reference to the tradition in Canada of accepting that conscientious objectors, who are so for religious or other serious personal reasons, may be excluded from military service. This institute is to be an agency somewhat independent of government. Would the Minister or his colleagues consider amendments or suggestions that would make contributions to this institute, contributions either directly related to the suggestion of my colleague yesterday or with a slight variant, to allow contributions to be treated as tax credits? This would allow conscientious objectors to feel that they were acting lawfully as regards the payment of their taxes while acting in line with their consciences. Further, this would not set a precedent that might create difficulties in other areas of revenue collection and expenditure.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate to the hon. gentleman that as the Bill is presently formulated, the funding will come totally from government general revenue. In effect, that is the intention of the Government. However, perhaps the hon. gentleman feels that he wishes to encourage groups to
April 18, 1984

make donations in the cause of peace. When I was the Receiver General, I received bequests similar to that or transmission of funds to the Receiver General for government purposes. If any group would wish to make those kinds of grants to the Receiver General and indicate that they are to be expended for certain purposes, they are welcome to do so.


Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Mr. Speaker, I realize that the time allowed for questions following the speech of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) is over. However, I would like to mention that I found something puzzling when I read over the comments made in the House by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) yesterday when introducing the Bill. I compared those comments to Clause 5(g) of the Bill which indicates that the institute may acquire any property, money or securities by gifts, bequest or otherwise. I found that to be contradictory, and at some point I would like to have that point clarified for my benefit and for the benefit of other Members of the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: What is wrong with that?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: It is simply a little bit confusing. The Minister said that the Government would not seek funds from non-governmental sources, but at the same time the Bill indicates that the institute may accept or acquire money from other sources. I believe that to be a little contradictory. I am not being critical. I am simply saying that it is contradictory.
Being afforded the opportunity to speak on the second day of the debate on a piece of legislation gives one a certain advantage. One has the opportunity to read carefully speeches and comments made by other Members on the previous day of debate. I did that this morning as I was unable to be in the House yesterday morning because of other commitments. As well, it gives one the opportunity to read the editorial comments that have been made on the day's debate.
After reading yesterday's debate, I must admit that I was struck by some of the similarities in the speeches of Members from all Parties. I myself would have felt quite comfortable making some of the comments which were made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs, and I can say the same for some of the comments made by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). Yesterday afternoon when I was present in the House, I listened to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon) and the Hon. Member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley) and agreed completely with much of what they had to say.
I think it is clear that for the most part, all Members of the House of Commons are in support of the general intention of this Bill. However, I believe that there is no doubt that all Members and particularly those of us on this side of the House, have some problems with some of the proposals contained in the Bill.
Last December, we heard a Throne Speech that was rather bland and without much promise but that contained a couple of paragraphs which gave us some hope. I will quote the
International Peace and Security following portion of the Throne Speech as reported on page 2 of Hansard for December 7, 1983:
-the Government will create a publicly funded centre to gather, collate and digest the enormous volume of information now available on defence and arms control issues. Fresh ideas and new proposals, regardless of source, will be studied and promoted.
At the time, Mr. Speaker, many of us in the House considered that portion of the Throne Speech as being a victory of sorts. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westmin-ster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), said yesterday, we in this Party have always been in favour, remain in favour and will continue to be in favour, of the establishment of some sort of Canadian peace research institute.
It was another sort of victory for me because two years ago this month, I was a member of a group of parliamentarians which included Members from all three Parties, which put out what was known at that time as "Security and Disarmament: A Minority Report." At that time, we called upon the Canadian Government to accept the proposal made by former Secretary General of the United Nations Waldheim that governments contribute one-tenth of 1 per cent of their defence budgets toward disarmament and peace efforts. We specifically recommended that Canada use such money to strengthen disarmament education, information and research activities. We recommended particularly that the Department of External Affairs establish chairs on disarmament or peace research studies at Canadian universities in an attempt to counterbalance the chairs on strategic studies which are funded by the Department of National Defence.
While the efforts the Government is making at the present time as indicated by this Bill do not yet approach an expenditure of one-tenth of 1 per cent of the defence budget, we welcome these efforts as being a positive step toward achieving the Waldheim formula When the Government tabled this Bill the other day, I was pleased to learn that the Government would actually live up to one of the promises made in the Throne Speech.
That does not always happen. I do not think any of us in the House will deny the fact that over the last few years, there has been a dramatic growth of concern among Canadians about the possibilities of a nuclear war. There have been fears expressed about the too rapidly escalating arms race. At the same time as the concerns of Canadians have grown, many Canadians have questioned whether or not the Canadian Government is doing all that is possible and all that is within its powers to alleviate international tensions and to turn around the arms race.
While we welcomed to a certain degree the initiatives taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) last fall, we were as well critical of some of the contradictions in those initiatives. We questioned whether or not the Government has done as much as it could. This afternoon, I do not want to concentrate on the specifics of the concerns of Canadians about a possible nuclear war. I do not want to talk of my fears or of the fears of Canadians in that regard. I do not want to talk about the horrors of a nuclear war, nor do I want to talk about issues in

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
Central America, the Cruise missile or Canada's involvement in the development and construction of nuclear weapon components. 1 think I have spoken often enough both in and out of the House about those issues. As well, that is really not the point we are debating here today.
When I learned of the introduction of this Bill, I had two hopes for what would be contained in the Bill. I would have thought that what I had hoped for is rather obvious. First, I hoped that the mandate of the institute would be to concentrate on the studies of issues of peace and disarmament. Second, I hoped that the institute would enjoy enough independence from government to gain universal credibility and to be able to criticize existing government policy if it sought to do so.
It has been said in debate during the last day and a half that for too long we as Canadians have had to rely on offshore information and analyses. Canadians who are interested in the subject have not had available to them a large amount of information and analyses that deal with the issues from a strictly Canadian perspective. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam, said yesterday, we have in a sense lost some of our independence because we have not had access to information within Canada.
Many Canadians and Members of the House feel that the Canadian institute on peace research studies should follow the example of SIPRI, the Stockholm International Peace Research Institute. As has been pointed out by Members on all sides of the House, SIPRI has gained a high degree of credibility, stature and respect throught the world community. It is the Institute which many of us think the Canadian Government should use as an example when setting up the Canadian institute.
One of the things that is most striking about the Stockholm Institute is that it is completely independent of Government. It is funded by the Swedish Parliament, but the Government keeps its hand off the Institute. The Government does not get involved with the Institute by indicating which studies it wants the Institute to undertake. I would say, Mr. Speaker, that if the Canadian Government intends to keep some kind of a hands-on control of the Canadian institute, and if it is not prepared to allow it complete independence from Parliament, from Cabinet, and from possible political interference, then I would say that the Government is simply wasting both public money and the time of this House in setting it up. I would think that under those kinds of circumstances it will not enjoy the credibility it requires to make a meaningful contribution to Canada's public search for peace and disarmament.
There are probably three areas which I have been able to find in this Bill which make me suspect that it is not going to be as independent as we would like to see it. First of all, despite the assertion that the institute will not be an agency of the Crown, Cabinet will still have the power to order the board of directors to repeal, amend or make whatever new by-laws the Government requires or desires. Second, the Government
will be able to influence what topics are examined by the institute. That is because one of the purposes of the institute is to foster, fund and conduct research of particular interest to the Government of Canada. Third, the institute, under Clause 28-which was debated at great length yesterday in this House-shall be required to research for or provide advice on the peace and security issues with which the Minister wants to deal.
I am not quite sure why the Government wants to do this, Mr. Speaker. First of all, it is not lacking in other agencies which have the power and capability of researching issues of special interest to the Government. In the Department of External Affairs there is a committee of deputy ministers. There is also the arms control and disarmament division. In the Department of National Defence there is a director general of strategic policy. There is an office of the director of nuclear arms control policy. The operational research establishment has its own director for strategic analysis. The defence research establishment conducts research into issues of nuclear, biological, chemical warfare, and so on. There are in place a number of government agencies which have the power to give the Government the capability to study issues of its own interest. Why does it want to tie the hands of this new institute we are setting up today?
I would agree with my friend, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), with respect to the issue of whether it should be "shall" or ''may" in Clause 28. I agree with her that it should be completely scrapped.
On another point, however, I have perhaps a slight disagreement with that Hon. Member, that is, on the appointment of directors to the board. I am not quite as trusting of the Government as she is. She gave the example that SIPRI, the Stockholm Institute, has its directors appointed by the Government. Obviously, however, the Swedish Governments over the last number of years have proven that they can be trusted a little more than has the Government of Canada. I would hate to think, for instance, Mr. Speaker, that someone like Jack Horner, an old Liberal-Tory hack, might be appointed to be chairman of the board of this peace research institute. I would like to see some kind of control on the appointment of directors.
A suggestion was made yesterday by a couple of Hon. Members of the Conservative Party that we might have the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence make these appointments. That is one suggestion I would certainly consider. Another suggestion one might consider is that the standing committee have the power to approve appointments which are initially made by the Governor in Council. We could also turn it around the other way and have the standing committee make one, two, three recommendations to the Governor in Council, who would then choose however many are needed out of those recommended persons. This would have the added benefit of strengthening committees, something which is desirable to most Hon. Members of this House.
April 18, 1984

Whatever route we choose, whether it be these suggestions or something completely different, I believe we have to change the way in which directors are appointed to the board of this organization. I will give credit-which is something I do not often do-to the Conservative Party. The Hon. Member for Don Vally West said yesterday in this House that this Party would not want this power were it to form the Government. I really hope that if it does form the Government some time in the near or distant future it will really live up to that assertion.
I would like to give an example, Mr. Speaker, of what I have discovered in the last few days as to how the Liberal Government of Canada has skewered this whole peace issue for its own political benefit, and it is something which makes me worry about what it has in mind for the new peace research institute. Just recently I learned about a "new kid on the block" peace group in this country. It is an organization known as INPAX. Very few people have heard of it until very recently. After quite a bit of research I discovered that it is being organized by some young students at the two main universities here in the City of Ottawa. Somehow or other they seem to have gained a lot of influence with Members on the government benches. This is a brand new group. Its main raison d'etre, or current purpose, is to set up a jamboree here in Ottawa at the beginning of September, bringing some 600 students together from various parts of the world to talk about issues of peace. That is a very admirable initiative.
However, my concern is that this group somehow or other has managed to convince the Government-I will say that the final decision has not been made yet but it looks as if it may well be-to give this group $600,000 toward this jamboree which is coming up. I said that this is an admirable initiative. However, given the fact that very little money is available from the Government of Canada to fund national broad based peace groups, why does the Government give something to a brand new group which is centred solely in the City of Ottawa?
There are a lot of questions which have to be answered, Mr. Speaker. One question to which I would like an answer is, why did the federal Government pay for a reception which was held on the Hill here last week, on the invitation of people from this IN PAX group, organized by the office of the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Pepin), with free bar and hot food, which was billed to his office? Organizational details for this reception were handled by the office of the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae). I have a terrible suspicion, Mr. Speaker, that this INPAX group, with its admirable initiative, is really a Liberal front. Somehow the Liberals are trying to get on the peace bandwagon. I would say that if the Government were really interested in educating Canadians about issues of disarmament and peace, there are far better ways to spend $600,000 than on this particular effort.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I would like to caution Hon. Members of this House on both sides that this institute must not be politicized. I was a little disturbed to read first in the press and then in yesterday's Hansard that the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead has decreed or decided that this Bill is fatally
International Peace and Security flawed. Certainly it is flawed and a number of Opposition Members from both Parties have pointed out the flaws. However, "fatally" is such a final word. I would hate to think that those Hon. Members are going to kill it. Perhaps it is an indication that they do not want to let this legislation go through. On the other hand, I would caution the Government that it must not attempt a politicization of this institute, either. We read in today's press, the Ottawa Citizen, comments by Charles Lynch that there is a sneaking fear-perhaps it is part of the Parliament Hill paranoia which comes over all of us- that this institute is being set up in legislation which is rushed through the House of Commons so quickly so that the Prime Minister, when he retires in mid-June, can be given a job perhaps as the executive director or chairman of the board of this organization. I would hate to see this happen.
If the Government really believes in this institute, that it is a worth-while effort, when I call upon the Government to allow changes to be made in committee, at report stage or wherever, to ensure it is completely independent and can acquire and enjoy a lasting credibility on the world scene. Otherwise we are wasting our efforts. I say do not rush it, but on the other hand it should not be needlessly stalled. It is an important initiative but must be done properly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: There follows a ten-minute period for questions and comments.


Paul Edmund McRae: Mr. Speaker, this was not my question, but since the Hon. Member brought it up, I am a little disturbed about his concern over the peace group being sponsored by my office. I am glad to sponsor any legitimate peace group which wants to have a meeting on the Hill if a room is available. All Members have this privilege. It is my understanding this group talked to the other Parties, it was not a single Party operation. What they are trying to do is worthwhile. I am a little surprised that the Hon. Member would see this as a partisan effort because we have both worked together very hard on this thing.
I want to preface my question by saying that it is extremely important to us both that this be the most independent body we can possibly find. We know what it was like when we were sitting in committee and listening to one-sided information coming steadily at us. The Hon. Member would remove the word "shall", and we talked about replacing it with "may". I agree with that entirely but I suggest we should leave the clause in. I would like him to think about this and comment on it.
It seems to me that if the clause was left in, then there would be no question about whether the Government could make a private agreement with the institute, that it would do what it is asked to do. However, if the word "may" were left in, then the organization itself could say: "But it says "may"; that means we may not if we do not want to". I suggest that would be a much better idea in order to give it the kind of

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
independence we want it to have. I say this with the idea in mind that 1 want this thing to be completely independent.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, on the first point, I said I found it to be an admirable initiative. However, I have serious concerns about it. I do not think it is anywhere near the best way for the federal Government to spend $600,000. I have a cloying or nagging suspicion that this is a Liberal front. If that is the case, I definitely would be opposed to this initiative. If not, then I still have reservations about how best to spend $600,000.
Concerning Clause 28, I am willing to take the Hon. Member's advice and spend some time thinking about it. I am not so sure that I definitely agree that the word "shall" has to go. I am not so sure having the clause in or or out will make that much difference to the ultimate independence of the institute. However, I am prepared to give it some thought and I hope it will be debated at some length in committee.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member mentioned a number of important issues. He referred specifically to Central America. I would just like to remind him of a number of events I think this Government has remained silent on. The CIA has organized, funded and armed rebels who have killed
13,000	Nicaraguans to date. Canada was silent on that. The CIA has assisted in the mining of three major ports in Nicaragua to destroy the economy. Canada has been silent on that. The CIA has provided aircraft which have bombed refineries in Nicaragua. Canada is silent on that. Canada has not responded to calls from other nations to become actively involved in seeking peaceful solutions to the conflict in El Salvador. In essence, Canada has acquiesced to the United States. The Conservative Party has supported the U.S. role in that area.
Can the Hon. Member comment on an active role, in addition to the peace research funding, which Canada might take to ensure that people inside and outside this country know that Canada is totally committed to the cause of peace and disarmament?


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: I agree with all of the statements made by my colleague from Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly), Mr. Speaker. I and others in this corner of the House have often called upon the Government to take an active, even a leading role to try and bring some kind of peace to the tragic situation we see in Central America. I have openly and often spoken against the CIA funding of the contras in Nicaragua and the mining of Nicaraguan ports, et cetera. I agree with him that if the Government is going to be completely credible on this issue, if it is going to set up a peace institute, then it has to lead by example.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am extremely disappointed with the question of the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River and the comments of the previous speaker. They say they do not want this to be a partisan issue, but as I listened to their comments, they were extremely partisan and
extremely biased. In the question that was put to the Hon. Member-


Raymond John Skelly: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Chair has admonished me on many occasions to address my comments directly to the speech of an Hon. Member. I challenge the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) at any time on that Government's dismal role, but certainly it is not appropriate at this time for him to criticize my questions.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I do not consider that a point of order, I consider it a matter of debate.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is unfortunately a bit sensitive to the truth. I was in Nicaragua in December with a Member from his Party and when I was there the Canadian Government had been very critical of the funding of the contras by the CIA. The Canadian Government was very supportive of the Condadora proposal to solve the problems in Central America by peaceful means. I am a bit discouraged by members of that Party who say they want to approach the issue of peace and war in a non-partisan manner and who then spread around the kind of false information as they have just done in their remarks.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) and I, and indeed almost all of us in this House, say we support in principle the Bill before us. However, there has been no Government-sponsored debate on the subject of defence and foreign policy in the last four and a half years. Also, the Minister of Defence (Mr. Blais) himself said, just a few minutes ago, that there has been a tremendous amount of public interest and debate during that same period. Can the Hon. Member make the Government's claim jive in his own mind with the heckling in this House yesterday of the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Ms. Jewett) by the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence? He kept on interjecting along the lines: "we can only give you one month", and "five days a week for one month". He suggested it has to be out of committee in one month."
Considering the Government's undue haste in trying to have this thing wrapped up and passed in one month, as compared to the lethargy of that Government in this whole sphere for the last four and a half years, what does that lead the Member to believe is the motivation of the Government in introducing this Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: If the Hon. Member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant) is to reply, it shall have to be a very short response.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Mr. Speaker, I would hope that the Government's motivation in introducing this Bill is very well inten-tioned. I was not in the House yesterday when the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) was speaking.
April 18, 1984

With regard to the heckling attributed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, my only comment would be that I hope the Bill is not rushed through with undue haste. I also said that I do not think it should be needlessly stalled or blocked.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: That is the end of the ten-minute period for questions and comments. For continuing debate, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Blaker).


Mr. Blaker:: As the Parliamentary Secretary who has some responsibility for organization on the Government side with respect to this Bill, yesterday 1 was agreeable to two Members of the Official Opposition speaking-if I may use the expression-back to back. I see that the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), who is the foreign affairs critic for the Conservative Party, also rises to be recognized. I wonder whether, with the good grace of the House, we might agree on this. I think it would be important to hear him. I would like to have the opportunity to respond to his comments because I would be interested to hear what he will have to say following the remarks of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark). However, I would ask that if he and I were to be permitted by the kindness of the House to exchange places, then the Hon. Member for York-Peel would be now recognized. Following him I would respond, and following myself another Hon. Member I should think the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) would have the next opportunity to reply so that we would hear two members of the Government Party in a row for the purpose of debate. I do not know if that is agreeable to the Hon. Member for York-Peel.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I suggest the Parliamentary Secretary has put the Chair in a rather awkward position. The Parliamentary Secretary was recognized for debate. He did not suggest initially that he was rising on a point of order. Obviously, having recognized him for debate, I could not recognize him a second time on this same subject. However, if the House was to give unanimous consent, I could accept that his intervention was in effect a point of order and not debate. However, I would need the unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East on a point of order.


William Warren Allmand: Mr. Speaker, I am quite willing to agree to the proposal made by the Hon. Parliamentery Secretary that if it is agreed that we now move to an Hon. Member for the Official Opposition, that when we come back to the Parliamentary Secretary I can keep my place in the proper order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: I should indicate that the Chair is not in a position to indicate that there is any order
International Peace and Security
of speakers. The Chair reserves to itself the right to recognize speakers. I would indicate that it is my intention, if no one else rises, to recognize the Hon. Member for York-Peel for debate.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member for Saskatoon West on a point of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to forestall the serious participation of Members on this important debate. However, I do not quite understand what is going on here this afternoon. You have been excellent in terms of dispensing equity. I do not know if having two or three Members on the Government side speaking in a row is what I would call exact equity. I would have thought that the normal tradition of allowing us to alternate and have Members from the Official Opposition participate at this point in time on a regular basis on this important debate would be foremost in your mind. I simply draw to your attention the fact that I do not understand what they are asking for on the Government side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Herbert):: The Hon. Member's point is well taken. I suggest we will resolve this matter by saying that it is the intention of the Speaker to recognize for debate the Hon. Member for York-Peel, and that by unanimous consent it has been agreed that the intervention of the Parliamentary Secretary was a point of order and that he was not recognized for debate, thus allowing him, if he so wishes, to rise and possibly be recognized by the Chair in due course.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in joining in this debate on Bill C-32, which I feel is perhaps one of the most important debates that will come before this session of Parliament, I thought it might be fitting if I first quoted from a person who has had much to do with the nuclear threat which we now live with. I refer, of course, to Albert Einstein who said: "Peace cannot be kept by force. It can only be achieved by understanding."
I think that is a very relevant quote when we are considering something such as is contemplated by Bill C-32, the establishment of what is often referred to as a peace institute. I say that because on the issue of peace I suggest there has never been any dispute over the need for a bipartisan foreign policy or position. In fact, it was the Leader of my Party, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), the Hon. Member for Central Nova, who called for the matters now being generally discussed by us today to be brought before the House for unanimous resolution. I suggest that resolutions agreed to in the House by all Parties of the House have much more moral force than a resolution decided upon by only one man. We in the Official Opposition believe fervently in the need to search constantly for any means to make our country more secure and the world more peaceful.
I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that in this nuclear age peace is indeed a moral imperative. Yet there is a new dilemma. While the goal of peace is a mark of civilization, we find the democracies which desire peace also live with the fact that if

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
they divorce their desire for peace from a commitment to defend freedom, they could easily turn the question of peace into a weapon of blackmail in the hands of the most ruthless. If, in our anxiety to avoid nuclear war, we become consumed with hysteria, nuclear blackmail may well be encouraged. This balancing of power with peace will be the genius of this age. That is our great challenge. Our objective must be to preserve our freedom, our way of life, our civilization and peace. To develop a strategy that relates the end to the means, to build military forces that avoid the choice between an Armageddon and surrender, is a pre-eminent moral, as well as political, problem for our period.
The principle of trying to be better informed by having basic research done with Canadian persons on matters of peace, disarmament and security should be unquestioned, and I dare to say is unquestioned by every Member of this House. It is especially in this context that I feel that the Throne Speech put it quite correctly when it stated that the Government hopes to improve "the climate among nations" and in improving that climate it hopes to acquire knowledge, creativity and a determination to find solutions.
The Throne Speech reflected on Canada's concern about current international tensions. It said that the Government will "create a publicly funded centre to gather, collate and digest the enormous volume of information now available on defence and arms control issues". "Fresh ideas and new proposals, regardless of source, will be studied and promoted", the Throne Speech said. No one has objections to this. However, the draft Bill, Bill C-32, that we are being asked to accept quickly I suggest is little more than a first draft and certainly not even a good first draft of those high hopes that were set out in the Throne Speech at the beginning of this session.
I say that because I think we must not lose sight of the fact that there are two distinct roles that an institute, such as the one whose creation we are debating today, could fill. First, it could be an inward-looking kind of institute, perhaps along the lines of the American National Security Council, funded by the U.S. Government, as we know, which in turn is responsive to government and essentially deals only with the federal Government. Such an inward type of group would fill the role of essentially pooling brain power within the country in this field in order to give the federal Government a very serious input on the matters of the day and as a possible counterbalance to what government may be told by the military, for instance.
The idea is to give government insight and advice in an inhouse advisory group. Such an institute would be useful for a government not only in policy deliberations but also for choosing what arguments could be advanced during negotiations at arms reduction talks. In short, this would be a pooling of brain power and knowledge for the advice of the government of the day, to make it better able to deal with these broad questions of how to secure peace on the one hand while maintaining
proper security. There would be a minimum public exposure with respect to that type of activity.
However, there is an alternative type of activity that an institute could serve. I would suggest, though, that it is an activity in which it must be an entirely independent body in order to perform effectively. It would be an outward-going type of institute that would do original research and would assemble and distribute information. It would possibly advise the government but in no way would be looked upon as speaking for the government. It could advise various groups in society. In short, it would be the type of group that was recently set up in Canada, the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament. That is an outward-looking type of group, which I will come back to in a moment.
This is where the Government's dilemma apparently First began. Given what it said in the Throne Speech, we understand that it was unaware that a group had, at that time, been formed in Ottawa. It was called the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament. When the Throne Speech referred to a centre, this meant that the word "centre" could not be used in the Bill now before us. That is why we have the word "institute". Again, the Government changed its wording from the Throne Speech to what we have now, a Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
I say this because I and I believe most Members in the House were quite startled yesterday to see how prickly the Government, particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), seemed to react with respect to any debate about Bill C-32. You will recall that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) commenced his remarks yesterday at 11.17 a.m. and stated, as reported at page 3118 of Hansard:
In a spirit of consensus and co-operation among all Parties, we remain open to suggestions for further changes to the Bill.
He mentioned that it was, in truth, an independent institute. Yet what did we find within 30 minutes, at 11.42 a.m. yesterday morning, when my colleague, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) stated at page 3121 of Hansard:
This institute has to be done right the first time.
It triggered the Prime Minister to heckle and intervene through a considerable part of my colleague's speech. The Prime Minister ended up by stating at page 3122:
Don't tell us about the ladies in Halifax.
And:
They do not want you to talk out the institute, which is what you are trying to do.
Within the first 25 minutes of comment on this Bill by the Official Opposition, after having taken the Secretary of State for External Affairs seriously, our first speaker, who in this case was a former Prime Minister, was told by the Prime Minister that he was trying to talk out the Bill.
In debating the Bill before us, we must remember that that type of confrontation did not have to occur. There is no need for it. I can only ask, is that really the tone of a peacemaker? Bear in mind that what we are discussing and what we have
April 18, 1984

heard from the speeches today is general agreement with the principle. All parties have indicated that the idea is worth considering.
We must also accept that this is not a new or unique thought. I read recently that in 1793 the Americans were actively debating what we are debating today. They wanted to set up a peace academy The argument was that if they were to have a department of war, should they not have a department of peace? Oddly enough, that debate with respect to the establishment of a peace academy is now before the Congress of the United States.
The arguments that are being raised there are not dissimilar to the arguments that we have already heard with respect to the Prime Minister's Bill that is now before us. I am saying that I hope all Members in this debate will perhaps accept that it is not the principle that is being debated; it is simply the question of whether the Bill reflects an institution that in truth would serve our goal in a meaningful way.
I have indicated that there are two types of institutions. There is an inward-looking institution that would solely advise the Government, or a more publicly oriented one that would in no way be dependent on the Government. Unfortunately, what we have before us is a hybrid. It is a cross.
I think the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Blais) demonstrated the dilemma that the Government is already living with in his response to an earlier question that I put to him. When I asked him what access the new institute will have to classified information, he said that, of course, he would have to look at each case. When I asked him if he will consult with his allies, bearing in mind that there may be foreign directors on the board of this institute, he said that he would, of course, have to take it up with his NATO allies.
If this institute was solely confined to advising government, that would not be necessary. It would be a think-tank solely to advise the Government. However, because of the public aspect and that it is a hybrid, it will do one of two things. It will either make classified information available and possibly run the risk of having leaks, or it will withhold all information. If it withholds all information, the institute will not be able to function fully. Much of the information which it should have at its disposal will be denied, for the simple reason that those who are furnishing the information will say: "We are uneasy about into whose hands the information will ultimately fall". That is the dilemma in which this early draft of a Bill has left us. It is why during my remarks this afternoon I want to point out the tragedy of the ongoing dialogue that was taking place between all three Parties, the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and the Leader of the Socialist Party (Mr. Broadbent) being broken off. Why? Why on the twelfth of this month was the ongoing discussion as to how to make this institution truly independent, how to ensure it will not needlessly affect and impact on the 26-odd organizations that are already in this field in Canada broken off? Why were those discussions terminated? Why was the Official Opposition and presumably the Socialist Party told: "In any event we are introducing the Bill, and we can discuss it later"?
International Peace and Security
You know that the type of thing that was being raised at that time, Mr. Speaker, was the question, for example, of the appointment of the board of directors for this institute. It was suggested that before any board is settled there should be a consensus of this Parliament. The chairman, the executive director, and the 15 other directors could be suggested name-wise by the various parties. We should arrive at a consensus. But what we heard in reply was "That is our business". There is to this date no indication who the chairman might be, who the executive director might be, or indeed who any of the directors might be. All that we were assured of is that we would be given the right to nominate but without even a suggestion that a nominee would be appointed.
I believe if you read Clause 3 of the Bill you will see the importance to which I am referring, Mr. Speaker. What we are establishing in this Bill is this, and I quote directly:
3. A corporation is hereby established to be called the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security consisting of a Board of Directors that is composed of a Chairman, an Executive Director and not more than 15 other directors to be appointed as provided in sections 6 to 8.
The latter in effect says "to be appointed by the Government".
What we are creating here is essentially an institution that has to be constituted by a board of directors. They will speak for this institute. I suggest it is absolutely irresponsible on an issue such as peace and security for us in Parliament to pass a Bill like this in its present form and leave up to the government of the day the right to say who in fact will comprise the institute.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me touch, if I may, on the other important questions. For example, we have already touched on-certainly my colleague the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) has-the right of government to require the institute to come up with certain studies. I think there is general agreement that the word "shall" must get watered down to something more like "may". But again there is the question of the reporting by this institute. There is no guarantee in the present Bill that the reports of the institute will go uncensored, or that the institute will be free to publish as it sees fit with or without qualification.
For example, the Canadian Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament has just brought out its first edition of the Arms Control Chronicle. I recommend that all Members read it. It consists of 14 pages. It is a very interesting overview of the past month in this field. I would hate on the one hand to have any suggestion that this entity be killed off by this new institute we are now discussing. Second, I would hope the freedom this centre has to publish what is in its chronicle this month would be the type of freedom without government interference that the new institute contemplated in Bill C-32 would have if it is formed.
In conclusion-

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but I must inform him that his allotted time has expired. The House will now proceed to questions.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, could you ask whether there is unanimous consent for the Hon. Member to continue?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is normally for the speaker to request. The Chair cannot put it to the House unless the Hon. Member himself seeks that extension of time. That is the rule. In any case, I will hear the Hon. Member on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my conclusion would not be more than a minute. Would it be possible to have that extension of time?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Does the House agree to extend time to the Hon. Member for York-Peel so that he may complete his remarks?


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I extended considerable courtesy to Hon. Members opposite when I invited the Hon. Member for York-Peel to speak before me. I did not get the courtesy and co-operation of the Hon. House Leader for the Conservative Party, so unanimous consent to continue is refused.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).


Mr. Nowlan:: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member. I would like to ask the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) what he would have said if he had had extended time.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my final point is this. When we are considering such an important question as peace and security, I think one of the basic things for us to do is to say, "How do we get a better understanding with respect to the two superpowers involved in this nuclear escalation?" I think most of us feel that we have a good understanding with respect to the United States of America and I would urge Hon. Members in considering the need for an understanding with respect to the U.S.S.R. to remember the words of Andrei Sakharov, who stated:
The opportunity to criticize the policy of one's national leaders in matters of war and peace, as you do freely, is entirely absent in our country. Not only critical statements but also those merely factual in nature, made on even much less important questions, often entail arrest and a long sentence of confinement or psychiatric prison.
Mr. Sakharov, of course, was referring to the present state of conditions in the U.S.S.R. We must not forget that we indeed do live in two worlds.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Blaker).


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). The Hon. Member seemed a little sensitive at one point during his remarks to the effect that yesterday the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) made some comments from his seat while the former Prime Minister and Leader of the Conservative Party, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), was speaking. The Hon. Member for York-Peel was annoyed that there was an accusation of talking out the Bill. He referred to that in his comments. He went on to say that, as far as he was concerned, the principle of this Bill is not really in debate.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a simple question. The purpose of second reading is to determine where the Parties stand on the principle of the Bill before the House. The Hon. Member has indicated that in his view, and I gather he speaks on behalf of his Party since he is the foreign affairs critic, the principle of the Bill is clear-


Mr. Nielsen:: The principle of the Bill is all its provisions.


Roderick Blaker: -that he accepts that it is not in debate, and that we ought to have a peace and security institute. My question to him is simple. Is he prepared on behalf of his Party to see this Bill go to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence tonight?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, when I indicated that there was no disagreement with respect to the principle, what I was saying was that there was no disagreement with respect to the objective or goal. However, what we have before us is an attempt to reach that goal which we say on its face is inadequate. The Bill does not guarantee the independence which this institute must have. It has funding implications which may well jeopardize the ongoing activities of existing institutions in the country which are doing a very credible job. It has implications which may impact upon the recruiting of personnel by existing institutions. In short, I say that the Bill is imperfect on its face and that at second reading is the appropriate time to debate those imperfections, not railroad us into committee and let the Government use its brutal majority, which it always likes to use in committee, to frustrate the wishes of the Canadian people.


Roderick Blaker: What an argument!


Mr. Taylor:: A sensible argument.


Roderick Blaker: The External Affairs Committee has less of a majority membership, as the Hon. Member who is a member of that Committee ought to know, than prevails in the House of Commons.
May I ask him something else. He seems dissatisfied with the notion that it ought to be a Cabinet responsibility to recommend or appoint who shall be the directors, the chairman and the executive director. In his dissatisfaction he has



April 18, 1984

recommended an alternative. He says that it ought to be based on a consensus of Parliament. Is the Hon. Member serious? Is he suggesting that we should have in the House of Commons, with 282 Members present, a vote on each and every one of the possible recommendations as to who shall be a chairman or director of this institution? I cannot believe that he is serious. Is that what he is proposing, that Parliament will vote on every recommendation and on the chairman and the executive director of this institution?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I could reply to that, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member who is supporting the Prime Minister so loyally has seen correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition. If he has, he will know that the suggestion from our side was that the consensus could be arrived at in the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence on behalf of this Parliament and that it would not be necessary to go to the 282 Members.
I suggest that if the Hon. Member does not like that solution, we have the Library precedent in which the Library is responded to through the Speakers of each House on the advice of all Parties in each House. If we accept the consensus as the proper approach, the mechanics can be worked out, I can assure him.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I would just like to say that I regretted that the first person you recognized following the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) was the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) because I thought the courtesy should have been extended to the Member for York-Peel by a Member of another Party. I would have wanted to do that.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are a great Canadian.


Mr. Siddon:: You are hard to see down there.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The Chair has full discretion and it is usually guided by seeing the first Member who rises. I thought that I did that. If I missed somebody else who rose first, I am sorry, I apologize.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, there is no need to apologize. I was not in any way attempting to criticize you. I was just expressing a regret that I should have liked, on behalf of my colleagues, to have made that offer and extended that courtesy because it certainly was deserved.
I have two brief questions. I gathered very much from the tone of the Hon. Member for York-Peel, who is the external affairs critic for his party, that he supports the principle of the legislation before us. However, I also got the distinct impression that the Conservatives were opposing second reading. Is it their intention to oppose second reading of the Bill, approval in principle, or to vote against it? I got that impression from something he said, although his comments seemed to be somewhat contradictory.
My final question will be a very brief one. Last April 10 in the House of Commons, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-
International Peace and Security Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie), who had just been promoted to the PC shadow cabinet by the Leader of the Conservative Party (Mr. Mulroney), in a statement pursuant to Standing Order 21 in the House of Commons, ended his remarks by saying:
For these reasons, we will never be able to disarm unilaterally-
I think many of us could agree with that, but he continued:
-nor can we ever trust the murdering Communists in disarmament, or even disarmament negotiations.
Does the Hon. Member concur with that statement of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, who is a member of the shadow cabinet of the Conservative Party, along with himself?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could first reply to the Hon. Member's last reference to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie). If he takes exception to the statement of the Hon. Member, perhaps that is something he could ask the new institute to look into. However, as far as the other point is concerned, I was the first speaker from our side this afternoon and I could only assume, knowing the interest which exists in this Bill, that likely there would not be second reading before we recess for Easter. I would hope that the Prime Minister would reconsider his position and would reopen discussions, certainly with my Leader, to see if some of the earnest changes for which we have been asking can be made and we can all agree as a House that this is a desirable institute which will serve a worthy cause.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I thank the Hon. Member on the Opposition benches for his applause as well. I had invited the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), who is the foreign affairs critic for the Conservative Party, to take my place in debate and to precede me so that I might have an opportunity to hear not only the remarks of the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the former Prime Minister of Canada, but also his remarks. I admit to a certain frustration, although before I begin my remarks I might say there are indications that there is a considerable number of Members who may wish to contribute to this debate. It is my intention, therefore, to be brief and to take less than the time accorded to me under the Standing Orders.
However, in listening to the Hon. Member for York-Peel, I found that the essence of his speech seemed to be that in the first instance it was vital, essential and seminal that this Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security be independent. When I looked for the methodology which he might be seeking or promoting as to how to make it that much more or completely independent, the only proposal I heard was that the appointment of the chairman, the board of directors and the executive director ought not to be made by Cabinet.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Do you want to give me more time?

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security


Roderick Blaker: I think the Hon. Member has had more than enough time to make a point which I thought could have been made in about two minutes flat.
I did not hear from the Hon. Member similar comments as I heard from the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead about accountability and the problem with respect to existing alternate institutions or centres for studies along these lines.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I agree with it all.


Roderick Blaker: If the Hon. Member for York-Peel says that he agrees with the remarks made by his former Leader, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, 1 think what I would like to do is address myself to the remarks of the Right Hon. Member.
First I want to indicate that the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead said publicly, as we all know, that he had been mandated by the Official Opposition to go up and down the country and criss-cross the country seeking the opinion of Canadians on the subject of peace and international security. He made three points as to what the public seems to want. His first point was a criticism of the Government of Canada. He said that government interest in the subject of peace and security is sporadic and inconsistent.
I put to members of the Opposition that we have before the House a Bill which evidences a consistent interest and makes the subject an ongoing, publicly-funded research project. The criticism of the Government interest being sporadic is contradicted by the evidence that we have a Bill before us which apparently members of the Opposition are not going to allow to go to committee. The sporadic interest in the subject seems to be on the part of the Opposition, not the Government.
The second comment by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead was that there was a problem, and that is that internal Public Service expertise is distributed throughout the Government and is not brought together in a way that can be most useful. One wonders whether to laugh or cry. The purpose of the Bill is to bring the expertise together, not only from Government representation in the Public Service, but from the private sector as well.
Again, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead calls for a condensation of intellectual power. The Government proposes to do precisely that. The Official Opposition now intends to delay putting the Bill in front of a committee. There is no consistency.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are the one who is filibustering.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, if the House Leader for the Official Opposition will give me the assurance that if I sit down, the question can be put on division or on the nod to go to committee, I assure him that I will sit down in two seconds flat. I understand that the House Leader for the Official Opposition cannot make a commitment, a difficulty we see with that Party at all times. I would be in my seat if the Hon.
Member would make an agreement to which he can have his Party agree.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You have people on your side who want to talk. They will not allow us to say our piece, and you know it.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Opposition House Leader wants me to respond.
The third part of the public tour and access to views of Canadian citizens raised by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead was that there is an imbalance between defence studies as opposed to studies about peace. Once again, we put in front of the House of Commons a Bill which would provide for an institute for the study and research of matters related to peace and security. We have the Official Opposition, and I might add for the drama of it, on Easter weekend refusing to allow this Bill to go through on principle.
I can assure members of the Opposition that we are not clear as to the precise objections. I want to assure the Hon. Member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) that, as far as I am concerned, we are all interested in the same thing. We would like to see the institute put in place. Details are normally handled in committee, not on the floor of the House of Commons. What on earth is the practical point of delaying movement of this Bill to a committee?


Mr. Lambert:: You are talking in principle.


Roderick Blaker: Precisely, and the spokesman for foreign affairs for the Conservative Party said in principle there is no debate on the value of this Bill and its purpose.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would suggest that the Parliamentary Secretary not mislead the House, albeit unconsciously, in insisting that the present reading, called second reading and reference to committee, if he will read his Order Paper, is an acceptance in principle of this Bill. He has enough experience in the Chair to know that that is utter tripe. In committee the Bill is considered clause by clause. Amendments may be brought forward by both the Opposition and the Government and disposed of or accepted by the committee. Then there is a report stage at which Members or the Government may put down amendments.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. I am listening to the Hon. Member.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I am on a point of order. Through you, Mr. Speaker, you will find-I know what I am after.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I also know the rules, and the rules say that when the Speaker is on his feet the Member should resume his seat.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Yes, but there should not be unnecessary interruptions.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. In my opinion the Hon. Member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) is interrupting the speech being made by the Parliamentary Secretary. A
April 18, 1984

point of order has to do with process. The Hon. Member is arguing about the remarks made by the Parliamentary Secretary. He is not questioning a matter of process and, therefore, is out of order.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, this House will easily understand the difficulty of a Member of Parliament who served in the Chair being brought to order by an Hon. Member who was the Speaker of the House. In courtesy to the Hon. Member for Edmonton West, a former Speaker of the House, I would not want to argue his point of order.
1 might now go to a couple of details referred to by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead, the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) and, I might say, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), the New Democratic Party's spokesperson on this issue. This is referred to in the House, in terms of this debate, as the "Section 28 problem". The problem is that the Bill before the House suggests that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) ought to have intellectual access to the work done, the research done and the views of a Canadian peace and security institute. Not only do I not find that offensive, but it seems that those who argue against that point are really arguing that the External Affairs Minister ought not to have access to very valuable information.
For those who want to make that point, I bring to their memory and recollection that yesterday, in what I would call partly speech and partly chit-chat between the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and it is on the record, the Prime Minister indicated that if that is all that is wanted, if that is the only problem, we agree. It is obvious the House has not yet come to an agreement. If we remove the possibility of access of the External Affairs Minister and either remove the entire clause as the NDP spokesperson suggested or change "the Minister shall have access" to "the Minister may have access", that ought to satisfy that point.


Donald W. Munro: What about the by-laws?


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich has been here for some considerable time. Every time we set up a Crown corporation, that clause is in it. That is called Cabinet responsibility. It is known as responsible government. It is the British parliamentary system of government. Of course, the Cabinet has the capacity, right and responsibility to examine and accept or not accept the by-laws of a Crown corporation.


Donald W. Munro: It is not arm's length.


Roderick Blaker: If the Hon. Member for Esquimalt-Saanich seriously proposes that the Government ought to fund the Crown corporation, but ought not to bear the public taxpayers' responsibility to examine the by-laws and to repeal, amend, change or alter, I suggest that he first put that to his own Party, and certainly put it to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. It is not a proposition
International Peace and Security that I have heard before. It is a standard clause in the existence and creation of every Crown corporation.
We on this side of the House do not hear from the Opposition specific suggestions, which in due course can become amendments before the committee, as to what the members of the Opposition Party agree on.
1 have a sense that I understand the views of the New Democratic Party. I do not particularly like some of those views, but I at least understand that there is a consistent approach as a Party. What I cannot find out is what the Official Opposition of this country wants in terms of a peace institute. We go on and on listening to the word "independence". Then we go on listening to the word "accountability".


Mr. King:: Now you got it.


Roderick Blaker: This is the most remarkable suggestion I have ever heard from any parliamentary system anywhere in the world. It is remarkable to suggest that this peace institute would not be accountable to the government of the day but would be accountable instead either to Parliament or to a committee of Parliament. That is what the Hon. Member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) has suggested.


Mr. Bosley:: What is wrong with that?


Frank Oberle: That is parliamentary democracy; you got it.


Roderick Blaker: I do not know if the Hon. Member is serious. That is the most unusual way to operate a parliamentary democracy any political scientist has ever heard of.


Frank Oberle: If Parliament does not have any jurisdiction, why do you need it?


Roderick Blaker: Why do you think we have majority and minority governments?


Frank Oberle: You know your Cabinet is not running the Government, your bureaucrats are.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Could the House please proceed to orderly debate?


Roderick Blaker: My apologies, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps I was getting out of hand.
I would like to make one final point. I did say that I did not wish to take up my entire time with one point and I am a bit concerned that I may have done that.


Frank Oberle: We are too.


Roderick Blaker: This point arises from the two concerns about public funding raised by the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. If my recollection is correct, it is he who asked why we would limit funding to one year. The Government has stated that funding is currently $1.5 million for this fiscal year and will grow to $5 million in fiscal year 1988-89. If Hon. Members of the Opposition would like to move an amendment to

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
suggest that funding ought to be guaranteed for a five-year period, 1 would be willing to bet my shoes that the Government side of the House would have no difficulty in that regard. Therefore, why do we not simply dispose of that argument?
Let us turn to the question of whether or not government funding of this public institute means that private institutes will suffer in some way.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Are you familiar with the correspondence between the Leaders?


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member for York-Peel has asked me whether or not I am familiar with the correspondence between the Leaders of the Parties. I am familiar with that correspondence and I am aware that that problem was raised. The Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead said that if we create a premier institute for peace and security, it may reduce the amount of private donations made to private institutes across the country. The Hon. Member for York-Peel must first recognize that the Government has already increased its funding to two of the private institutes in the country. Second, the most obvious thing to be said is that such a premier institute is mandated by the Bill to be able to contract with such private institutions so that the private institutions as well will receive additional funds for the purpose of bringing in the best possible expertise and research.
1 do wish to sit down so I should say something to conclude my remarks. I suppose that my conclusion is simple. 1 think it is regrettable that members of the Official Opposition have been unable to come up with a simple and clear statement telling us why they will not let this Bill go to committee. Hon. Members have said that they are in favour of the principle of the Bill. Why do they not act in accordance with that principle?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Questions or comments? Debate. The Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. Kilgour:: Mr. Speaker-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thought that you would entertain a question directed to the Hon. Member who just spoke. I was hoping to put such a question myself.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair asked if Hon. Members were disposed to put a question to the Hon. Member or to make comments. No one rose at that particular point. The Chair then proceeded to call for debate and two Hon. Members rose. However, the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) did not begin to speak.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I will defer to the Hon. Member.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: He will defer to the Hon. Member so we will proceed with questions and comments.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I thank Hon. Members for their courtesy. The Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) said that he had had an opportunity to review the correspondence between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Mulroney) and presumably the Leader of the NDP. Has he, during those ongoing discussions, been informed as to whom the Government has in mind for the Chairman of the new institute? Can he give us an indication of who the directors might be?


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, the answer to both questions is no. If I may, I should add to the knowledge of the Hon. Member for York-Peel and the knowledge of all Members of the House that it is very clear in the correspondence that the Prime Minister and the Government of Canada have offered to both opposition Parties that there be consultations on such a selection.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a brief comment and then ask the Hon. Member one or two questions. The Hon. Member seemed to have some considerable difficulty understanding what I thought was a clear and unequivocal position set forth by the spokespersons on behalf of our Party, including my colleague, the Hon. Member for York-Peel, and my colleague, the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead. The Hon. Member had difficulty understanding those comments as they related to some of the serious concerns that we have with respect to the independence and accountability of this institute.
In the course of his remarks, the Hon. Member somehow suggested that I made a commitment on behalf of our Party that if we would let this matter go to committee, he would be prepared to sit down, and I appreciated that offer. I thought it was very reasonable for him to make that offer.
The Hon. Member will know that there has been extensive correspondence between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Official Opposition with respect not only to this Bill but also to the content of a peace initiative resolution to be considered by the House. If these negotiations regarding the resolution itself were to be successful, we would be able to come to an accord on that basis. However, in terms of the peace institute, when the Leader of the Opposition put forward specific proposals and tried to obtain the commitment on the part of the Prime Minister to agree to those specific amendments to the Bill, that agreement was not forthcoming.
Is the Parliamentary Secretary in a position to agree to the amendments which were proposed in the correspondence and indeed in debate on the floor of the House, or does he still suggest that the matter should go to committee and be dealt with there without any commitment being made by the Government?


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, so that the record of the House is clear, the Hon. House Leader of the Conservative Party is asking that I, by reviewing the entire correspondence between
April 18, 1984

the Leaders of the three Parties of the House, would agree without limitation that all comments, suggestions or concepts raised by the Hon. Leader of the Official Opposition would be automatically accepted as amendments in committee. Is that the question the Hon. Member has put to me?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The specific proposals put. Is that agreeable to the Government?


Roderick Blaker: That is really a remarkable question. In the normal course of evens, one does not ask for commitment based upon correspondence that is not entirely private at this point. No, no one could make such an undertaking. It is foolish. Send the Bill to committee and let people get to work on it. Do not delay the Bill. That is the answer.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to put to the Hon. Member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker) who is also the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of International Trade. I have been very interested in the attitude of the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. He wishes to push this matter through the House with some dispatch. I and my colleagues can agree with that aim in spite of our reservations and the questions that we have put during consideration of this Bill so far. However, because he is a member of the Government and a Parliamentary Secretary to a Minister with international responsibilities, I would like to ask him how he squares his wish to have the Bill go speedily to committee so all of these things can be adequately considered with the comments made by the Chairman of the External Affairs Committee yesterday.
In his comments yesterday during the speech of my colleague, the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam i (Ms. Jewett), he made it very obvious that once the Bill got to committee it was his intention to give us one month. He said: "We give you one month". Later on he said: "Five days a week for one month if you want", suggesting that there was some hurry-that this had to be crammed through committee once we finished dealing with it in the House.
I am sure the Hon. Member is sincere in wanting to give this Bill appropriate and proper consideration in order to ensure the institute's independence, proper funding and all of the other concerns raised by all Hon. Members. Is he now taking issue with the suggestion made by the chairman of that committee, who is a Liberal member as well, who suggested that it is going to be rammed and crammed through that committee once it gets in there?


Roderick Blaker: The Hon. Member knows as well as I do the procedures of the House and of committees. I do not know whether he is speaking for the record with an intent to confuse or what. I was present in the House yesterday when the Chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence made those remarks sotto voce, not while he was on his feet. The intention was perfectly clear. He was offering unlimited availability of meetings of the External
International Peace and Security
Affairs Committee five days a week for at least a month, and as much more as was necessary.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: He said: "We give you one month".


Roderick Blaker: That is the spirit in which it was offered. Obviously I cannot interpret another Hon. Member's comments, but it is clear that in the House of Commons when any chairman suggests not less than five days a week of meetings, he is suggesting the greatest possible time be spent and the greatest possible co-operation. I encourage the Hon. Member to turn to his right and see whether or not he can get the Official Opposition to agree to put the Bill in committee and then watch. I am sure he will be satisfied with the time given to the Bill.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I have two questions. One is very short. Surely, Mr. Speaker, does not the Hon. Member and the Parliamentary Secretary, in trying to expedite this matter, realize that this is the second day of debate? We have had five Opposition members, four Government Members, two New Democratic Party members and one independent member, for a total of 12 Hon. Members, speaking on a Bill which is pretty fundamental to peace, security and disarmament. Whether it is going to produce all the things we want, at least the objectives are pretty fundamental. Does the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary believe it is really dragging the heels of the House when there have been 12 Hon. Members speaking on a Bill which has such fundamental importance in terms of, certainly, objectives? That is my first question.
Because this is sort of a peculiar Bill which deserves and warrants bipartisan support, as stipulated initially in correspondence evidently between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Mulroney), does the Parliamentary Secretary not really believe that there should be some difference in the appointment of directors? Under the present Clause 8, directors are appointed the same as they are for the CNR, Air Canada and any other government board. Quite frankly, we know they are not quite as independent even though they may be honourable people. Certainly an institute on peace should warrant some other extraordinary procedure for such an extraordinary objective.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might take the two questions in reverse order. I appreciate the question of the Hon. Member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). With respect to his question about the appointment of the chairman, board of directors and executive director, I believe that is a matter which Hon. Members in their commitment to this concept can and should examine. I believe I have answered that question.
With respect to the Hon. Member's previous question, ought there not to be more time for debate, my problem is that there is an opportunity to move quickly on a very significant matter. The same points about independence and accountability have been raised again and again. I gave what I believe was a good faith answer to the Hon. Member. I put in turn a good faith question to the Official Opposition. I asked: "Do you want to

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
see the Bill go to committee where we can work out those differences, or do you want to talk out the Bill here tonight?" For God's sake, if that is what you want to do, would you mind telling the country why you want to talk it out?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Remarks should be addressed to the Chair.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Parliamentary Secretary relative to precisely what he has said now, and also his acceptance of the motion he told us earlier was in principle. He has sat in the Chair and knows that if the House pronounces itself on principle, there is absolutely no possibility of making any major amendments. We have had speaker after speaker, time and time again, inform the House of this matter. Therefore, a chairman of committee who must act as Mr. Speaker does in his role vis-a-vis the committee could not accept those amendments.
Second, what does the Parliamentary Secretary deem to be the report stage following the bringing in of the committee report? What does he understand is meant by the last question asked by the Speaker after receipt of the report, on completion of the report stage: "Shall the Bill be read a third time?" When is it an acceptance in principle, according to the Parliamentary Secretary?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. By consent, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary could be allowed to reply because the time for questions and comments has expired. Agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I am going to be very brief. I would prefer that we not look to the procedural argument raised by the Hon. Member but to the substantive argument. The substance of the matter is that we are faced with an important Bill. The Prime Minister has given written assurances-in particular, assurances to the Leader of the Opposition-that suggested amendments of the Opposition would be very well received and very well considered.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Order.


Roderick Blaker: It may be that the hon. gentleman opposite cannot accept the Prime Minister's word. I do.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The House will now proceed to debate. The Chair had earlier recognized the Hon. Member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, now they are all going to leave! The basic thrust of my speech can be stated very directly. The nuclear threat, East-West relations, international peace and security, defence, arms control and disarmament are so important to all of our constituents, including my three young children, that the institute proposed in Bill C-32 must not be tainted from birth as a partisan, dependent body.
The burden of my argument here is that, as currently drafted, the Bill is a prescription for an institute very susceptible to following the wishes of any government in office. Why do I say that? First, the language of the Bill establishes the institute as neither independent from government nor part of government. We on this side would prefer language which clearly protects the institute from interference by a government, and, conversely, if you like, an elected government from the institute. What we have here is neither fish nor fowl, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps it is some form of a stew.
Second, the funding issue is crucial to the independence question. The present position of the Government is, I gather, that the Department of National Defence and the Department of External Affairs will contribute jointly to the institute on an annual basis by government appropriations. However, this model, Sir, keeps the institute on a very short leash. Would its independence not be likely to suffer accordingly? The Damocles sword would be that if the institute displeased a government in year one, its funding would be cut, or substantially altered, in year two.
I remind Hon. Members that only yesterday in British Columbia, the Government of Premier Bennett cut funding to a women's group action committee, and I fear the same thing might happen to this very important institute. Surely, Mr. Speaker, a more responsible approach from the standpoint of independence and non-partisanship would be the endowment route. We should establish an endowment fund and allow the institute to operate from endowment resources.

Third, the proposed formula for setting up the Institute raises the serious question of the Institute's total independence vis-a-vis the Government. The Chairman shall be appointed by the Governor in Council for a term not exceeding three years. The Executive Director shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office for a term not exceeding five years. Fifteen directors shall be appointed by the Governor in Council to hold office for respective mandates not exceeding three years.
Who will they be? I maintain that, considering our experience with many federal agencies, the Canadian directors will be defeated Liberal candidates, presidents of Liberal riding associations and other individuals known for their partisan activities.
Why not a more imaginative appointment structure to ensure more independent-minded and competent people on the board, Sir? For example, a phrase in Clauses 6, 7 or 8 indicating that any person appointed might have before appointment "eminence in peace, security or disarmament matters"? Or a phrase such as "appointed after a consensus" by all members of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence? Why not a phrase indicating that nominees must have the approval of the Opposition Leaders?
April 18, 1984

It is hardly reassuring to hear the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacEachen) say here yesterday that the Government will seek nominations from opposition Parties before making appointments. From too much past experience we know this Government will wait only long enough to hear our proposals and then go ahead and appoint its own choices. The Minister said yesterday that he wants the institute to be "apolitical and non-partisan". We agree. Why not then build in an appointment mechanism which guarantees these qualities for our institute? Why not some phrase indicating that the chairman should be appointed by the Governor in Council "upon recommendation by the board of directors"? Similarly, why not have the executive director appointed by Governor in Council "upon the recommendation of the board of directors"? All of these suggestions would enhance the independence and credibility of the institute.
If we want truly independent-minded directors of the institute, it would also seem to me that Clause 21 should make it clear that members of the Public Service of Canada are not eligible to become directors. Can a public servant, albeit competent and respected, be truly independent? The current wording appears to make them eligible. On the other hand, why not allow the institute to second public servants for "a period of up to three years" as staff members? Clause 12 should be changed to reflect this.

In the course of this debate, there has been considerable emphasis on the implications of Clause 28 which provides that, at the request of the Minister, the Institute "shall provide" in relation to any issue involving "international peace and security" ... In fact, this clause might allow the Minister to set the order of priority of the Institute's activities. By substituting "may provide" for "shall provide", and "Government" or "Parliament" for "Minister", we might be able to reduce the risk of having such situations occur.

Another error in principle lies in Clause 5(c), which appears to authorize the institute to publish studies and reports in the name of the institute. Basic intellectual integrity requires that institutional research be published on an attributable basis. That clause should be changed to include the phrase "on an attribution basis".
Let us look for a moment at three other similar federal agencies in this regard. First, the Science Council of Canada, which provides independent policy advice to the Government, works only with publicly available information, makes no grants and has no research capability. In my judgment the credibility of the Science Council suffered when those opposite filled the chairmanship with a retiring Liberal politician in the Province of Ontario. Stuart Smith is to be sure an intelligent individual, but in my judgment the Government tainted the work of the Science Council with his appointment because it indicated to one and all that it preferred an active Liberal to some eminent, non-partisan scientist as chairman. How do we
International Peace and Security know it will not do the same with this institute unless we build in legislative guarantees for its integrity from the start?
Second, Mr. Speaker, the International Development Research Centre, and I will refer to it as IDRC, shares similarities in its organizational structure with the institute, including the provision for foreign directors. In passing, I wonder why we need foreign directors. Do we not have enough qualified men and women across this talented country with sufficient eminence in the field to fill all the directorships in this institution with distinction? I think so. However, let us look at only some of the Canadian directors of the IDRC as an indication of whether the present Government really intends to make non-partisan and apolitical appointments when given the chance.
The first name on my list is Donald S. Macdonald, chairman of the board of the IDRC. He is a former Liberal MP now earning $800 per day as a Royal Commissioner who produced an interim report two days ago which won something less than wide critical acclaim. Second is Maurice LaClair, CN President and a former medical doctor who did a stint in the Prime Minister's Office. Third is Ivan Head, president and chief executive officer, and formerly an adviser to the Prime Minister. I ask you, Mr. Speaker, will Tom Axworthy, Frank Fowler and other members of the Prime Minister's Office be the most likely candidates for early nomination since all of them will, I assume, be technically out of work as of June 16? Fourth, Mr. Speaker, we have John Stewart, formerly a Liberal MP and recently appointed a Liberal senator.
I do not know enough about the other Canadian directors to be certain, but from past experience I doubt if many of them are politically neutral. However, my point is that unless we build in non-partisanship in this Bill, the strong probability is that a dying Government will see that the institute is politically tainted from the start. In the case of the IDRC, there is at least some attempt in Section 10 to assure excellence in governors by specifying that "at least 11 of the governors must have experience in the field of international development". Unfortunately, this good intention is largely vitiated by the rest of the section which says "or experience or training in the natural or social sciences or technology". That is a pretty big basket and it includes an awful lot of people.
The third body is the Law Reform Commission of Canada which, since its founding in 1971, to my knowledge has never actively criticized the Government of Canada or its policy. I am told that nothing in the legislation founding the Commission deals with this question, so again we must look to the partisanship or non-partisanship of members of that Commission. Let us start with the first chairman, Mr. Justice Patrick Hartt. I have no knowledge of his political affiliation and I say nothing further on that. However, the second chairman was Mr. Justice Antonio Lamer, past president of the Young Liberals of Quebec, I am informed. The Third chairman was Mr. Justice Frank Muldoon, who as you probably know, Mr. Speaker, is a past Liberal candidate provincially in Manitoba. The present chairman is Mr. Justice Allan Linden. In fairness,

April 18, 1984
International Peace and Security
he was never a Liberal candidate, but he has long been known as a defender of Liberal causes in the city of Toronto.
Am I running out of time? May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Before making a final statement, the Chair would like to take this opportunity to wish all Hon. Members a happy Easter holiday.

I wish all Members a very happy Easter.
It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 3, this House stands adjourned until Monday, April 30 at eleven o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 6 p.m., the House adjourned without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, April 30, 1984