1985-09-11

Hon. Douglas C. Frith (Sudbury):: Mr. Speaker, when will the Conservative Government realize that measures which it has taken to reduce the unemployment insurance deficit are discriminatory and unfair? Specifically, I am speaking of the regulatory changes announced by the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) last December regarding the treatment of severance payments and pension income for the purposes of unemployment insurance entitlement.
When will the Government realize that surpluses in pension assets belong to the workers, not to the companies, and that companies should not be allowed to use pension plan assets to reduce their corporate debts?
When will the Government realize the fact that the nature of the workforce is changing and many older workers would choose early retirement to make room for younger workers if conditions were favourable?
Up to 1,000 Inco workers in Sudbury will be faced with this dilemma in the very near future. Sudbury has been hit hard in the past with massive lay-offs, and this is a new blow to my community. All of those involved are attempting to find the best possible solution, yet the measures taken by the Conservative Government severely curtail the options available.
Unemployment insurance has a role to play in these situations. UIC can be used as a bridging mechanism between the older and younger generations of Canadian workers. I urge the Minister of Employment and Immigration to reconsider the changes which she announced last December and to allow older employees who choose early retirement to live in dignity and security and, at the same time, save jobs for our younger workers.


HISTORIC EVENTS
Mr. Jack Scowen (Mackenzie):: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that many Hon. Members are sporting "I love Saskatchewan" buttons. On September 1, 1905, 80 years ago, an Act creating the Province of Saskatchewan came into force. Today the very mention of the word "Saskatchewan" brings to mind the vision of waving wheat and endless skies which characterize the province known as Canada's bread-basket.
Back in 1911 there were 492,000 souls in the province. In 1984, with the large influx of immigrants who came out on the new railroad and highways, we had a healthy 1,010,900 citizens enjoying our clean air, water, and lowest rate of unemployment.
The vastness of our land, 252,000 square miles, is enriched by an astonishing diversity of languages and cultures, including native people, English, Ukrainian, Chinese, Polish, German, and French, who settled in Saskatchewan in our early years. Our main industries are agriculture, fishing, mining and forestry. It may come as a surprise to many people that two-thirds of Saskatchewan are covered with forests and it has more lakes than any other western province. Agriculture is the mainstay of our economy and we are a supplier of wheat for the world.
Saskatchewan has grown from buffalo trails and wilderness to a modern society, thanks to our pioneers. However, we in Saskatchewan are not without our troubles in agriculture. We rely on our federal Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and other Ministers to assist us in our time of distress-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


OPPOSITION TO CONTINENTAL ENERGY POLICY
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Mr. Speaker, today the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Miss Carney) is meeting with her United States counterpart, the U.S. Energy Secretary, to discuss energy relations between the United States and Canada. I should like to take this opportunity to warn the Minister to stay away from any discussions with the U.S. Energy Secretary on a so-called continental energy policy.
Recently in a meeting of the Canada-U.S. Interparliamentary Group, held last May, the U.S. delegation proposed what

September 11, 1985
would be known as a North American, or continental, energy policy. One Senator said that its objectives would be to permit continental planning, to reduce transmission costs, and to rationalize supplies. On the surface that sounds good, but it really represents another attempt by the United States to obtain unlimited access to Canada's natural resources and to further its unspoken policy of treating Canada as a resource colony, or a milk cow, for the United States.
It may seem attractive to Canadian energy producers who are anxious to increase their sales and are hungry for new markets, but in the long run any merging of the Canadian and U.S. energy markets would only result in the United States swallowing our precious non-renewable resources such as natural gas which is now at bargain basement prices, while leaving Canada high and dry to pay higher prices in the future.
The Government of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has already taken Canada down the road to losing our independence. We must not do it in an energy policy. Energy is a key area, and we should not have a continental energy policy.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, this morning, 32 Conservative Members from Quebec were able to meet with the Executive of the Federation des producteurs de lait du Quebec.
The federation submitted its views to us in a very comprehensive brief on the long-term dairy policy. Personally, I can assure producers that the brief will not be set aside and forgotten, since it contains a number of constructive recommendations. In our election platform, we in the Progressive Conservative Party promised to put in place, with the co-operation of the sector concerned, a long-term dairy policy that would consider the needs of our Quebec producers.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has set up a committee that will be reporting soon, and I may add that there is constant consultation going on between the Department, the organizations concerned and Quebec Conservative Members with respect to the needs of our farmers. Dairy producers and all farm producers in Quebec can rest assured that the Member for Beauce (Mr. Bernier) and his Quebec colleagues promise to listen to what they have to say and to support them at all times. We are visible, we are available and we are accessible. We consult a great before making decisions. Quebec farmers may be sure that we will support their cause, provided their demands are fair, equitable and above all reasonable.


HARBOURS AND PORTS
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, small craft harbours all across the country are in a sad state of disrepair, and fishermen know that things are going to get a lot worse under this Government. This year's budget forecast is $60 million, or less than a third of what it was last year and what it should be. The Government is allotting a paltry sum to Canadian fishermen. My hon. colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), knows that the money in the small craft harbours budget is totally insufficient to honour the Department's mandate to maintain and upgrade small craft harbours.
When I toured fishing ports in my riding of Egmont this summer, I saw holes in the docks, holes big enough for a grown man to fall through. Those wharves are dangerous places to work. In my riding alone $3 million is needed to fix the wharves to make them safe. That is not an exaggerated figure; it is the Department's own estimate. The breakwaters need work, the docks need repair, and the harbours need dredging. The list goes on and on.
Everyone in the industry knows that the major problem with small craft harbours is underfunding. The budget should be tripled. It should be at least $160 million per year if the Government intends to honour its promise to maintain those harbours. It is time for the Minister to fight with his Treasury Board colleagues for more money for small craft harbours before fishermen lose their lives because of unsafe working conditions.


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
[Stage Direction]
CONSTRUCTION OF ICE-BREAKER-ASPIRATIONS OF LfeVIS CITIZENS
Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs announced yesterday in the House a Government strategy concerning Canada's sovereignty in Arctic waters. Canada has for many years considered the continent and the Arctic archipelago as an integral part of its territory.
Mr. Speaker, as the Member for Levis, I am the proudest citizen in my riding and in Canada, because yesterday's statement by the Secretary of State has demonstrated the continuing significance of the official act of possession of Arctic lands and waters by Captain Joseph Elzear Bernier, a citizen of Levis. Captain Bernier took possession of this territory on behalf of the Government of Canada on July 1, 1909.
In so doing, Captain Joseph Elzear Bernier added 500,000 square miles to Canada's territory. In 1909, Captain Bernier's ship had left Levis to conquer the vast territories of the Arctic.
September 11, 1985

Since the Secretary of State mentioned the Government's decision to build a Polar Class 8 icebreaker to affirm our sovereignty, I hope that this ship too will be built by Versatile Davie of Levis, in Lauzon, in my riding, since the icebreaker's task will be to continue the work started by Joseph Elzear Bernier.
In expressing this hope, I am also reflecting the hopes of the authorities of Versatile Davie, and of Mr. Robert Monette, President of the Employees' Union, Mr. Louis Lariviere, President of the South Shore Chamber of Commerce, and Mr. Marcel Gosselin, President of the Levis-Lauzon Economic Council.
I thank you, Mr. Speaker, and I hope Levis will have its ship.

[DOT] (MIO)


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, last March the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) promised that Indians would receive funding for all the people who were recognized as band members, whether or not they met the federal Government's criteria for Indian status. As I said at the time, without that guarantee the right of Indian bands to determine their own membership would be meaningless. Now, however, the Government is singing a different song.
On August 12 the Director General of Operations for Medical Services in Health and Welfare issued a directive specifically repudiating the Minister's promise. The directive reads:
Eligibility for payment of non-insured services is dependent upon being registered as a Status Indian.
This means that the Government plans to perpetuate a two-tier system of health care in Indian communities. The directive calls into question the credibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs. In the interests of Indian health and his own credibility with Indian people, the Minister of Indian Affairs should talk with his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), and urge him to provide full health services for all Indian people.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Fernand Jourdenais (La Prairie):: Last month, Mr. Speaker, the Toyota Company announced its intention to build an assembly plant in Canada. The moment 1 heard the news I immediately invited the company to build its plant in Quebec, more specifically at Brossard in my constituency of La Prairie.
The City of Brossard can offer a parcel of land of over five million square feet and all services required for the construction of such facilities, including railroads, a seaway, a highway just a few minutes from the American border and the airport, and all this for a very good price.
Later on other announcements were made by other companies. I must say that they are welcome as well.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I might point out to the House that Quebec did not get preferential treatment from the previous Government when it comes to the auto industry. I therefore express the wish that our Government will steer those companies towards regions that offer them what they need, and that it will bear in mind the economic situation and the unemployment rate in the Montreal region where it is still very high.


FISHERIES
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, a critical situation exists in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland and Labrador. Because of the failure of the inshore fishery close to 50 per cent of fishermen and plant workers in the province will not be able to draw unemployment insurance benefits this winter. That means that thousands of workers will be without income during the winter months. In the long term, this is a situation that must be dealt with through discussions dealing with the unemployment insurance review and the Macdonald Royal Commission. However, Newfoundlanders and Labradorians need help right now.
I call on the Government to allocate sufficient funds to provide work projects for fishermen and plant workers so that they can qualify for unemployment insurance and at the same time improve their working facilities.
Second, I call on the Government to supply offshore fish at inshore plants so as to ensure continued employment for plant workers. This is an urgent matter with which the Government must deal right now.
Oral Questions HOUSE OF COMMONS

September 11, 1985


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF UNITED STATES ENERGY SECRETARY AND NEW UNITED STATES AMBASSADOR
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of Hon. Members the presence in our gallery today of the Honourable John Herrington, U.S. Energy Secretary, accompanied by the new United States Ambassador, Thomas Niles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Government's handling of the Canadian Commercial Bank situation has been a national disgrace. The way that the Minister and his colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, have attempted to cover up the matter is even more serious and almost amounts, I believe, to a scandal. Canadian pension funds have lost millions of dollars and individual Canadians have been totally wiped out all because of the incompetence of two Cabinet Ministers. Will the Minister of Finance tell us with whom, other than his colleagues, the Prime Minister, and the Officials of his own Department, he had conversations with relating to the bank during the months of July and August?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to comment on the preamble to the question put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition since I think certain matters have to be set straight.
The failure of this bank did not start on March 27, nor did it start on September 2. It started many years back. There are two factors which led to this. First, there were the decisions which have been made by the management of the bank that led to a deterioration in the loan portfolio of the bank and which resulted in a great many bad loans. That is what led to the insolvency of the bank. That is what led to the decision by the Inspector General to give his advice to the Minister of State and myself. One of the causes for that, as the hon. gentleman full knows, since he has spoken to this matter many times, is that the National Energy Program itself was at the heart of many of the bad loans that the bank wrote during that period of time.
I would also like to make it clear that there has been no attempt at cover up at all with respect to this matter. What we have offered to the opposition Parties is a full committee
hearing in order that all the specific questions can be put, and in order that answers can be found.
In answer to the Hon. Member's specific question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In answer to the specific question-


Mr. Speaker:: Very short, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, when the Leader of the Opposition throws a great deal of innuendo out there-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


VIABILITY OF BANK
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance made that same argument at the time of the original bail-out, news of which he brought before this House in March and April. When he brought that measure before the House, why did he and his colleague mislead the House with respect to the viability of that bank as a result of the bail-out?
Can the Minister assure us that no member of his staff, no senior official of the Department, or the Minister himself, had conversations with leading officers of the chief financial institutions of the country, or any customer of the bank, giving them the feeling or understanding that the Government was thinking about pulling the plug on this bank?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Leader of the Opposition would expect that either the Minister of State for Finance or myself would go to a few of the top bankers-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -in order to see whether or not there was an interest on the part of those banks to participate in some means of saving this bank. We did that in the latter part of August and we make no apologies for it. That is something which we felt was our responsibility to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


TELEPHONE CALLS AND TRAVEL PLANS-REQUEST FOR DETAILS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, in light of the Minister's answer, the Canadian people have a right to know just who destroyed this bank, who pulled the plug and who was an accessory to the pulling of that plug. I want the Minister of Finance to table in the House at an early opportunity a list of his phone calls and the phone calls of his senior staff and senior officials.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 11, 1985


John Napier Turner: I want a list of the travel plans of the Minister and his senior officials covering the relevant periods in July and August so that we can have, with precision, the names of the people with whom they spoke, in order to compare that list to fit the list of deposit records of the Canadian Commercial Bank.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was casting a lot of innuendo outside the House of Commons yesterday about alleged phone calls which I had made.


Mr. Lapierre:: You made some.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: And alleged phone calls which were giving inside information to the banks. I challenge him to step outside and give the names of those people to whom he says I have given inside information. And if he cannot prove that, resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Out, out!


An Hon. Member:: Take a walk, John.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


INSPECTOR GENERAL OF BANKS-ADVICE GIVEN TO CHARTERED BANKS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. The Inspector General of Banks has stated that during the summer as he became increasingly concerned about the situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank, he advised the chief executive officers of the banks which contributed to the CCB bail-out. Will the Minister confirm that these calls were made under his authorization?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, those calls were made by the Inspector General of Banks. The Minister of State for Finance is the person to whom the Inspector General reports directly.


Jean-C. Lapierre: It's your responsibility. Come on.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I cannot comment on the nature of the communication between the Inspector General and the Minister of State for Finance at that time.


Mr. Chretien:: You are the Minister of Finance.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: But I would encourage the Hon. Member to raise that point in the committee hearings-


Mr. Gauthier:: Do it here . . . now.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -that we have offered to the opposition Parties and to the people of Canada, so we can
Oral Questions
deal with what are very, very complex issues in a more appropriate way.


REQUEST FOR INFORMATION ABOUT DEPOSITORS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, some of the information which has been requested in committee has been denied us. Therefore I would now ask the Minister again if he will provide to the House full details of the names and addresses of all depositors over $100,000 in March, in June, and at the date of closing, September 2, so we can see what movement there has been. And can we also have full details of who bought the banks' loans at bargain basement prices?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the Hon. Member is very well aware of the section in the Bank Act which prohibits the Government from releasing information which is of a confidential nature. We might like to do that. We are bound by law not to do that. That is the reason we cannot respond to those specific questions.


Some Hon. Members:: Give us the names.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, that great lawyer from Bay Street, says for me to break the law. Would he give me the legal advice as to how he would like me to break the law?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, it is always a pleasure to hear two boys from Bay Street fighting about the banks.
My question is directed to the Prime Minister and arises from an answer given yesterday by the Minister of State for Finance. The Prime Minister knows that in March the Government of Canada, along with the chartered banks, participated in a multimillion dollar bail-out of the Canadian Commercial Bank. Then the Government, as well as the chartered banks, assured credit unions, municipalities and others, that the Canadian Commercial Bank would be a profitable entity.
We now know that the same chartered banks which participated in the bail-out began to scuttle the viability of the Commercial Bank by making withdrawals. The Minister said yesterday it was her view that such withdrawals were perfectly normal commercial practice. Does the Prime Minister agree with that opinion?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: First of all, Mr. Speaker, is my hon. friend certain that is what the Minister said?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.

September 11, 1985
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: You are certain that is a direct quote from the Minister? Because I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that is at variance with what I recollect the Minister saying.
Perhaps I could tell my hon. friends this. If a support package were put together in the neighbourhood of hundreds of millions of dollars with a view to saving a financial institution in western Canada, when the Minister spoke to that issue it would have been contradictory in the extreme, having put together a support package to save an institution in western Canada, to then say: "I don't think it's going to work".


John Edward Broadbent: That is not the question.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Obviously the Government believed, the banks believed, and the Opposition believed, that the package put forward was designed to be of assistance to that institution, its depositors, and western Canada.
In regard to the question my hon. friend specifically raises, and we have to go very carefully to the premise, which is the alleged statement of the Minister, I will answer as follows. We asked and invited Members of Parliament to bring this matter to committee as quickly as possible, because if anyone, a chartered bank or anyone else, acted incorrectly, then let the public know, and if they acted illegally then immediate prosecution will be initiated against them.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WITHDRAWALS MADE BY CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, given the proceedings going on both inside and outside this House, there may at some point be criminal charges. One hopes that is not necessary or the case, but it may happen. However, my question to the Prime Minister has nothing to do with that. It has everything to do with the fact that Ministers of the Crown have responsibility for millions of dollars of taxpayers' money and when they enter into an agreement with the banks they should make sure the banks do not scuttle the project. That is what the question is all about.
I ask the Prime Minister to answer the question this time. If he checks the record he will find the Minister of State for Finance in this House yesterday accepted as normal business practice the right of the banks to withdraw their deposits from the Canadian Commercial Bank even if it led to a scuttling of the project.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Read the record.


Mr. Deans:: I have read it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Read Hansard. Tell the truth.


Ian Deans: I have read it.


John Edward Broadbent: Since we know the banks made a deal with the Government of Canada, and since we know that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could the Hon. Member come right to a question?


John Edward Broadbent: We know they withdrew their funds, which helped scuttle the project. Does the Prime Minister agree that they ought to have made that kind of withdrawal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what I know is that the chartered banks contributed something in the neighbourhood of $60 million as part of a support package to save that institution in western Canada. It would be preposterous in the extreme, having contributed the $60 million on a Wednesday, for them to withdraw it on a Thursday. It may be that that is the evidence to be adduced before a parliamentary committee. That is why we want this matter to go to a parliamentary committee so that value judgments can be made.
My hon. friend says the banks scuttled the project. He does not know that at all. Not at all. If that is the case, we will deal with the banks of Canada with the utmost severity, but we will not hang anyone until the proof is in. You want to hang people before the proof is in; that is what is wrong.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Prime Minister that he ought to know now whether the banks made those withdrawals soon thereafter. He should not have to wait for an inquiry; he should know now.


CABINET RESPONSIBILITY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has responsibility for his Minister of Finance and his Minister of State for Finance. Was the Cabinet not kept informed of the withdrawals that were being made? Was there not a continual monitoring of the process by the Cabinet in exercising its responsibility to the taxpayers? Or were Ministers prepared to sacrifice not only the Canadian Commerical Bank but the credit unions and municipalities, and then come back to all the rest of the taxpayers of Canada to ask for another $1 billion to pay out? I ask the Prime Minister is that responsible leadership?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat mystified by the line of questioning of my hon. friend. I know the Liberals would be. They are criticizing us for helping a fledgling institution. They didn't say a word when they pumped a couple of billion dollars into Canadair in Montreal and refused to allow an accounting here in the House of Commons. That is what happened. We want this to go before a committee.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can remember asking a previous Prime Minister for a committee of the House so that we could examine and try to save that institution in Montreal, and the answer was no.
September 11, 1985


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 am telling my hon. friend that the matter arose and, in combination with all of the institutions, we tried to put together a support package to save this institution in western Canada. The Government believed, acting on advice, that it would work. I am sure that everyone in the House hoped that it would work because it would be in the interest of Canada and all of our national institutions. Obviously it did not, and there are consequences of that. The only way that we can objectively examine the responsibility for this is before a parliamentary committee and by having the matter adjudicated in a proper forum and according to the proper rules. I will not accept the notion that you hang them now and try them later. That is the NDP way.


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WITHDRAWAL OF FUNDS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, it seems to be clear that the contacts were made by members of the Minister's official in financial circles. So would the Minister not agree that people thus contacted this way felt that it was in their own interest to withdraw their money from the bank at the earliest opportunity?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, let me ask the Hon. Member-


Jean-C. Lapierre: No, he is asking the question.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -if he has specific information on which he is basing that allegation. If so, let me have it and I will respond to it. I am not aware of any contact that has been made, apart from what I mentioned in my response to the Leader of the Opposition. If he or his Leader has any other information, let me see it.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister saying that if it is established that such contracts were made by people in his office, then they contributed directly to the downfall of that bank and to the cost of $1 billion to Canadian taxpayers?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: What is the question?


Donald James Johnston: Would the Minister agree that if it is established that those contacts were made, that that would have contributed directly to the downfall of the bank and a cost of $1 billion to Canadian taxpayers?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: A hypothetical question.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Out of order.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the nature of the question. If he would like to repeat it more clearly-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Did you help the bank go down the drain?


Mr. Speaker:: There are some traditions about hypothetical questions. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


REASON FOR GOVERNMENT DELAY IN ESTABLISHING TRUE SITUATION OF CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and deals with the same issue.
I have just found out today that the chartered banks which took part in the rescue operation of the Canadian Commercial Bank decided right from the beginning to write off the $60 million they put up for this rescue operation treating the whole amount as a loss.
Was the Cabinet or the Government aware of the opinion of the chartered banks, namely that it was a loss from the word go, with perhaps the possibility of earning a small return? If not, why did the Government fail to act for nearly four months before even trying to assess the real situation of the Canadian Commercial Bank?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Apparently, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has information which is not available to the House. I mentioned that in the month of March the Official Opposition and the Government, the interested parties in this case, shared the common opinion-if I am not mistaken-that such action was likely to save this national institution located in Western Canada. That is why we acted as we did. Now if you tell me . . . Yes, but you were in agreement. It is because you believe-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: If you have new information ... All we knew at the time was that the bankers and the others believed that the operation was likely to save the institution in question. That is why we acted as we did.


CABINET'S KNOWLEDGE
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister. We are looking at the ability of the Government to manage the affairs of the country. It has now lost Canadian taxpayers $1 billion. The Prime Minister says that he is not aware of the

September 11, 1985
Oral Questions
fact that the chartered banks wrote off the $60 million that they put into the rescue effort which they made in March. If the Cabinet was not aware of that, what kind of management were we getting for the people of Canada, and isn't that why we lost $1 billion of taxpayers' money?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I said no such thing. The problem with the NDP is that they ask questions and will not even listen to the answer. That is what is wrong with the NDP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER STUDY MADE OF NORTHLAND BANK
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance.
It now seems obvious that we shall have to do without the Canadian Commercial Bank. Basic mistakes were made in this affair, but there is another bank which I believe might deserve to be saved, namely the Northland.
I would like to ask the Minister of Finance whether he or the Minister of State for Finance have reviewed the value of the assets of the Northland Bank to determine its viability.
We have learned that it took four months before a study was undertaken in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Can the Minister now tell us whether such a study has been made, and if so, whether this bank is viable?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is a former banker himself. He should know the answer to that question. There is only one basis on which I, as the Minister of Finance, can appoint curators for any bank. The only basis on which I can do that is on a report from the Inspector General of Banks. I have that report for both the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank and the decisions were based on those reports.


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF CERTAIN STUDY
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to come back to this question because it is of capital importance and I believe that this is why the whole bail-out operation failed in the case of the Canadian Commercial Bank.
Is the Minister of Finance now saying that he has in his possession a study similar to that prepared by Mr. Hichman which led to the closing down of the Canadian Commercial Bank? Is that what the Minister has just said?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, do you think that I would make this decision just by pulling the answer out of the air?


Raymond Garneau: That's what you did. That's what you did in March.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Member for Laval-des-Rapides does not know what he is talking about. He is a former banker himself and he should have read the Bank Act before he took on the responsibilities that he held as a president of a bank. I have to have a report for both of those banks before I can appoint a curator. Both of those banks collaborated with the Inspector General of Banks to produce and provide the information on which the decisions were made. There is a report for both the Northland Bank and the Canadian Commercial Bank, based on a considerable amount of work done by the Inspector General.


GOVERNMENT DECISION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He is well aware that the Canadian banking system is one of the most profitable banking systems in the world and that in the third quarter the Canadian banks indicated a profit increase of 27 per cent over last year's third quarter. The Minister will also realize that banking history has indicated that banks have always come to the rescue of their own during troubled times.
Why did the Government decide, in this instance, to break from that tradition and ask the taxpayers of Canada to cough up something in the neighbourhood of a thousand million dollars to bail out this particular bank, the CCB, as well as the Northland if necessary? Why did he break from that tradition?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, in March we entered into an agreement with the banks, the Canadian Deposit Insurance Corporation, the Province of Alberta and the Province of British Columbia to do exactly what the Hon. Member is suggesting we should have done on September 2. We talked to the heads of those banks. There are a couple of other banks that came to us and said that they might be interested in merging with these banks. They looked into the situation and decided that they could not do so.
On that basis we felt we had to move the way we did. These are very complex areas and very specific questions which he is putting, and the Hon. Member will get more complete and comprehensive answers by putting those questions at the committee hearings.


REQUEST FOR LIST OF PROTECTED DEPOSITORS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, does the Minister believe that he now has a right to ask the
September 11, 1985

taxpayers of Canada to come up with a billion dollars in bail-out money without providing a list of those people who will benefit from this bail-out? Whom is he trying to protect? Is this a cover-up? Are there firms that he does not want the people of Canada to know about in terms of this bail-out?


Charles Joseph Clark: Masters of innuendo.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Innuendo has been flying around this place, starting with the Leader of the Opposition and now the finance critic of the NDP. I encourage him to bring those questions to the committee.
Let me say one thing to him; you can't say that one can treat one depositor this way and another depositor that way. All depositors are equal.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Who are they?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I remind him, if he would listen-


John Edward Broadbent: Why do you have an in-house committee then?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: If his Leader would listen to the answer to the question, the depositors are a wide range of people, be they individual Canadians such as farmers, or small businessmen from a number of small communities in Canada. There are hospitals that are depositors. We have seen the City of Kanata as a depositor. There is a wide range of people as well as some of the major-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: They all have to be treated equally under the law.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Prime Minister told us that he had nothing to do with Sam Wakim or Sam Wakim's firm getting the legal work of the Export Development Corporation. Therefore, I want to ask the Minister of State for International Trade who recommended that firm to the Export Development Corporation, and whether he or any members of his staff discussed with Mr. Wakim the prospect of the legal work which was to be awarded.


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, upon assuming responsibility for the Export Development Corporation we reviewed many of its activities and noticed that outside legal work amounted to $1 million a year. We felt that other firms across Canada should have an opportunity to share in that work-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: We asked EDC to explore the possibility of retaining other legal firms. It said that it was prepared to do so if three criteria were met; expertise, an Ottawa office, and competitive rates. Weir and Foulds, a distinguished legal firm, met that criteria and were retained to do some of that work.
I would like to point out that EDC had been using that firm for legal work prior to the change in government.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


DISCUSSIONS INQUIRY
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, this is very interesting information. However, I want to repeat my original question to the Minister. Before the legal work was awarded to the firm that Mr. Wakim just joined, did the Minister or any of his staff discuss the prospect of that legal work going to the new firm?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to remember that the legal firm of Weir and Foulds was the one that was retained. Many lawyers, including Mr. Wakim-he was not the only one-discussed with me the possibility of doing legal work not only for EDC but other corporations that must report through me.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Inco Limited of Sudbury announced yesterday that it would have to reduce its work force by up to 1,000 employees, based on production. It is preferable to the community and the workers themselves that an early retirement program be offered to protect the jobs of the younger workers. One deterrent to that is the present change in the Unemployment Insurance Act regarding pension income. Is the Minister prepared to abandon, or at least postpone, that whole proposal for pension income being used in calculating unemployment insurance benefits?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I think we should be clear that the issue here is not unemployment insurance. The issue here is the behaviour of a company that has returned to a substantial profit margin-$33 million in the first half of this year- has done that on the backs of the employees, and is now threatening the employees, and indeed the community, with further lay-offs. By its own estimates the company has said that a substantial number of employees will accept early retirement knowing the UI provisions. I want to say to the Hon. Member that I find that kind of corporate behaviour irresponsible, and I hope he would as well.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

September 11, 1985
Oral Questions INCO EMPLOYMENT LEVELS


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. I wholeheartedly endorse what the Minister of Employment and Immigration said. In light of the correct analysis which the Minister has given, what steps will the Prime Minister take to ensure that the employment levels at Inco will be kept at the present level?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 1 could speak to the Leader of the Opposition who is a former director of Inco, I think.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, he wasn't.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I just wanted to find out if he was awake.
As the Minister of Employment has indicated, we will work carefully to make sure that corporations fulfil their social responsibility.


John R. Rodriguez: Like Iron Ore?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Pardon?


John R. Rodriguez: Like Iron Ore?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Like Iron Ore, precisely, which we may use as a model of a program where there was no provincial or federal legislation. I had the honour of introducing and passing the most generous package for retirement in the history of Canada. That is what we are going to do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear! More.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps we could stick to the answer.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And I then ran in the riding where Scheffer-ville is and I won every poll.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CUSTOMS AND EXCISE
Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. It is reported that the customs complement at the international crossing at the Blue Water bridge is faced with a further reduction in personnel. Can the Minister assure me that we will find a solution, first, to the existing problem at this customs entry point, which causes a backlog of vehicles and hour-long delays, prior to any further reduction in personnel considerations?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I can appreciate the concern of the Hon.
Member for Sarnia-Lambton with regard to the level of service and the problems that he has raised. I can tell him that I have already discussed the matter in a preliminary way with my officials. I will report back to him as soon as I have something of substance to tell him.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I hope her answer to this one is as good as her answer to the last question put to her. It also concerns a disastrous situation that affects workers. There is a complete failure in the inshore fishery in Newfoundland. The Minister knows that. She knows that 50 per cent of the plant workers and fishermen will not have enough to qualify for benefits this winter. What is she going to do? Is she prepared now to take measures that were taken before, and announce a special work program so that people will not have to be demeaned by welfare this winter?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I say to the Hon. Member that we are well aware of this situation. We have been following that matter very carefully. We know of the water temperatures and the failure in some parts of the fishing industry this summer. My colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, is monitoring the situation in an ongoing way. Let me say to the Hon. Member that it would be premature to announce action at this point before we have seen the results of the fall fishing season. That is why we are keeping a very close watch over the situation.


REQUEST FOR WINTER WORKS PROGRAM
Bill Rompkey: I would say to the Minister, Mr. Speaker, it is not the temperature of the water, it is the temperature of the fishermen I am concerned about. It is getting hotter. If we wait until the end of this season in November, it will be too late. We need money. We need it now. If the Minister waits, it will be too late. Will the Minister now announce a works program for this winter?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member knows that we took action this past spring in light of the ice conditions. We did that as we evaluated what was happening on an ongoing basis. We are doing exactly the same thing now. We will be in a position to see how the fall fishing season produces.
September 11, 1985


NATIONAL SOVEREIGNTY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs regarding Canada's new policies on Arctic sovereignty. The Minister yesterday laid claim directly through the Inuit to Arctic sovereignty since they have been there, to use the Minister's own words, since time immemorial on the lands and ice of the Arctic archipelago.
Since the Inuit and aboriginal presence is vital to Canadian sovereignty, is the Government now serious about settling matters of aboriginal title in non-treaty areas of Canada?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, if I may depart very briefly from normal parliamentary custom, I would simply like to express my appreciation of the spirit in which the Hon. Member responded yesterday to the statement.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The answer to the Hon. Member's question, as my colleague, the Minister of Indian and Northern Affairs will confirm, is, yes.


SUBMARINE RIGHTS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, let me pay tribute to the Minister also. I think some very important moves on behalf of our country were made by the Minister yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: I will not go any further, Mr. Speaker.
On the new policy of Arctic sovereignty, the Minister was silent on a number of other vital matters related to securing sovereign title firmly in international law. Is he now going to order through the Canada Oil and Gas and Lands Act claim to the geographical maximum to submarine rights to all Canada's maritime boundaries, including the 141st meridian between Yukon and Alaska?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what I am going to do, and the thought occurred to me yesterday, is add the Hon. Member for Skeena to the list of people whom I consult closely on this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PORNOGRAPHY
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. I applaud the Minister for having recently brought before this House progressive legislation to crack down on the problem of prostitution in our cities. In
Oral Questions
light of this initiative, can the Minister give us any indication of when he might, in an equally firm manner, bring forth measures that will strengthen our laws against pornography, especially that with violence and exploitive content?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to thank the Hon. Member for his thanking me.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: It is not too often one gets thanked in this Chamber, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: If the Pied Piper arrived on the scene in Ottawa, we would have no Opposition left.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An Hon. Member:: He has been waiting all summer for that one.


John Carnell Crosbie: These issues, as the Hon. Member knows, are very complicated. We are now discussing with the provinces and other very interested groups what our package should be. 1 hope we will have a package of legislation by Christmas, and if not, certainly shortly thereafter.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
In the Prime Minister's first Throne Speech on November 5 last year, it says under the heading Social Justice in the paragraph on families with children, and I quote:
My Government has as a high priority measures to support and strengthen the Canadian family-
Could the Prime Minister inform our 3.5 million families in Canada that the message was that there would be a 3 per cent cut in the indexation of family allowance, a 3 per cent cut in the child tax credit, a $55 million cut in the benefit program for these families?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member has recognized the importance that both the Government and Canadian society place on the family unit. I think many of us in this House and in society generally feel that that concept had to be strengthened, that there were certain trends in society that were possibly reducing the importance of the family. This
6498

September 11, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Turner (Vancouver Quadra)
Government wants to bring forward initiatives that will enhance both the Goverment's position relative to the family, but more important, show that the family is the cornerstone of society. I am glad the Hon. Member has recognized that.
Second, in terms of the family allowance proposal that the Member has put forward, I remind him that in 1976 when he was a member of the Government opposite, the Government froze indexing of family allowances.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, 1 am not surprised at the Prime Minister's decision to remain seated, because it is embarrassing when the Government cuts $55 million from its spending program for families but can find one billion ... I am not surprised he is embarrassed.
Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Minister of Social Injustice in Canada. Speaking of the Throne Speech, the Minister said that it was his task to initiate action to improve the quality of life of our families. I am asking a straightforward question, and I would like a straight answer: Was it the Minister's task to cut $55 million from family benefit programs? Was that his position?


Ms. Copps:: You guys think this is a real joke. Families don't.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, perhaps the Hon. Member should look at the proposal the Government is putting forward. Most social agencies said: "Increase the child tax credit". We have done that. If the Hon. Member takes a look at the proposal that was in the Budget itself, the reduction of the escalation is less than what the Liberals imposed in 1976.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, September 10, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
I have a ruling to render on a previous point of order.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) is rising on a point of order?


PRIVILEGE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The responses of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on a daily basis prompted me to rise to correct the facts. I know that he does not like facts
interfering with the scope of his argument, but I just want to say to the House that I am not, nor was ever, a director of Inco.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On Monday, September 9, 1985, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) raised a point of order as to the appropriateness and procedural acceptability of the tabling of a notice of a Ways and Means Motion by the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on a point of order and thereby interrupting another Hon. Member's speech.
The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier, in his submission yesterday morning, drew an analogy between the prohibition in our rules of moving motions to adjourn or of amendments on a point of order. He argued that the Hon. President of the Privy Council had acted contrary to our practices and precedents.
On that particular point, I would point out that motions to adjourn and amendments are subsidiary motions and consequently are related to and dependent upon a main motion before the House. That is why they must be moved within the confines of a particular debate and not in an incidental manner.
Standing Order 65 permits a Minister of the Crown to table Ways and Means motions at any time during a sitting regardless of the matter then before the House. However, the Chair has some difficulty in interpreting the words "at any time" in the absolute. For instance, it would not be proper to do so during Question Period. Our practice is certainly clear in that instance.
Having now had the opportunity to review previous cases, 1 can inform the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that the Minister has in fact not contravened our practices, nor set a precedent. I would refer him to the Debates of December 11, 1973, page 8639, where a similar motion was tabled by means of a point of order. While I must find, therefore, that the action of the Minister on Monday was in order, 1 hasten to add that I have some reservations about interrupting another Hon. Member in order to table such documents unless the adjournment hour is about to preclude such a tabling.
In the future, may I suggest, it would be preferable to table such notices of motions at the end of Government Orders and before Private Members' Business, or after a Member has resumed his or her seat and before another Member is recognized for debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that in your ruling you identified and described precisely what I did last Monday.
September 11, 1985



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting to the House a petition signed by 2,200 residents of the City of Hawkesbury and the Hawkesbury area, in which they express their grievances about pornography.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of British Columbia residents. They call upon Parliament to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without a deduction of pension income.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from a number of residents of Winnipeg. They call upon the Government to create a new youth employment program which will deal effectively with unemployment among all groups of young people, which will meet significant community needs and which will permit non-profit organizations as well as the private sector to benefit significantly.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to offer a petition on behalf of a number of residents of British Columbia. They point out that pension benefits are essential for the maintenance of family income and the compensation of workers for their lifelong contributions to society. They ask, therefore, that pension benefits not be deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition from residents of Halifax, Nova Scotia. They call upon the Government to withdraw the provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act which would see pension income being used as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 391 and 416.


Mr. Allmand: 1.	On Friday, May 3, 1985, did the Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau, on behalf of the Government, attend the opening of the Summer Student Employment Centres in Sudbury and Elliot Lake, Ontario and, if so (a) who invited him (b) what was his function at the openings (c) what was his mode of transport (d) what was his point of departure prior to his trip to (i) Sudbury (ii) Elliot Lake (e) how much did each trip cost (/) to which budget were these expenditures charged?
2.	Was the Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka, on behalf of the Government, invited to attend the opening of the Summer Student Employment Centre in Espanola, Ontario and, if so (a) who invited him (b) what exactly was his function at the opening?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: 1. Yes.
(a) The Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau was invited to attend the official opening of the Canada Employment Centre for Students in Sudbury and Elliot Lake at the request of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. (b) The Hon. Member for Timmins-Chapleau was representing the Minister of Employment and Immigration, (c) Automobile. (d) (i) From residence Iroquois Falls to Sudbury, (ii) From Sudbury to Elliot Lake, (e) (i) Trip to Sudbury-$265.87, (ii) Trip to Elliot Lake-$ 162.48. (/) The expenditures were charged to the Minister's office.
2. Yes. (a) The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was invited to attend the official opening of the Canada Employment Centre for Students in Espanola at the request of the Minister of Employment and Immigration. (b) The Hon. Member for Parry Sound-Muskoka was representing the Minister of Employment and Immigration.


Mr. Robichaud: 1.	In (a) 1984 (b) 1985, how many tourism-related jobs were created through the Summer Canada Program in (i) New Brunswick (ii) Canada?
2.	In 1985, how many tourism-related jobs will be created through the Challenge '85 program in (a) New Brunswick (6) the Maritimes (c) Canada?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: (a) In 1984, tourism-related jobs created through the Summer Canada program totalled 212 in New Brunswick and 4,809 in Canada. (b) Summer Canada did not operate in 1985.
2. Based on almost 100 per cent of contracts signed under Challenge '85, tourism-related jobs total: (a) 179 in New Brunswick; (h) 780 in the Maritimes, and (c) 7,073 in Canada.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

September 11, 1985


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I ask the Parliamentary Secretary to draw to the attention of whoever is responsible for answering questions that some rather important questions have been placed, especially on page 26 of the Monthly Supplement to the Order Paper, for example, Question No. 386 dealing with the Public Service pension. I think it is important that those questions be answered in the near future.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I will take the Hon. Member's inquiry under advisement.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 am in receipt of a notice of motion from the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) under Standing Order 31.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 31,1 ask leave to move that this House do now adjourn for the purpose of debating an extremely urgent and important matter, namely, the undermining of Canada's national interest by various Ministers offering assistance to Canadian companies that wish to take part in star wars research, when the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) clearly said on September 7 that participation would not be in Canada's interest.
If leave is granted, we in this Party will present the serious concerns of Canadians on this matter and will impress upon the Government the danger to Canada's national and international interests of any involvement in the Strategic Defence Initiative.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam has given the Chair the required notice of her intention to seek leave of the House to move a motion to adjourn.
While I appreciate that the matter she has raised is one in which she has a particular interest, as do many Hon. Members of the House, and is one of continuing interest to the House, I have been unable to find in her submission the elements of a genuine emergency. Consequently I cannot justify ruling in favour of an emergency debate.
Furthermore, to be consistent with the ruling that 1 gave earlier this week, I should remind the Hon. Member that the first report of the Special Joint Committee on International Relations is currently before the House and she may find
therein a method to have a debate on the matter at some early moment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Mr. Speaker, if you will call Motion No. 2 in my name, I will request that it be transferred for debate.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It cannot be done that way.


Mr. Speaker:: It is perfectly reasonable to transfer it for debate if it is called. I am being asked to call Motion No. 2.


[Stage Direction]
That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, telephone calls, studies and other communications during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 between (a) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or any of his officials and Mr. Noll Derriksan or Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises (6) Mr. Noll Derriksan Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited and the Indian Economic Development Fund (c) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or any of his officials and the Westbank Development Company or any official or employee of the Westbank Development Company (d) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or his officials and Mr. Ron Derriksan or the Westbank Indian Bank regarding Mr. Noll Derriksan, Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or the Mount Boucherie Trailer Park or any financial arrangements associated with the above (e) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Headquarters Economic Development Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding Mr. Noll Derriksan, Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussouwasket Enterprises Limited, the Mount Boucherie Trailer Park, Mr. Ron Derriksan, the Westbank Indian Band or the Westbank Development Company.
Mr. Speaker:: Shall it be transferred for debate?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 11, 1985



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, September 10, consideration of the motion of Mr. de Cotret, that Bill C-60, an Act to authorize procurement of the dissolution of certain Crown corporations and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to Committee of the Whole.
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying yesterday, the intent of Bill C-60 certainly does not match the intent of the Government in its statements concerning Crown corporations prior to getting elected. I want to conclude simply by saying that we have under discussion in the House today the principle of this Bill. Hopefully, this non-Bill will be dealt with in Committee of the Whole, at third reading stage and disposed of very quickly. I say that because the Hon. Member who introduced the Bill, to use his exact words, said that it was an effort "to rationalize ... Crown corporations". He also said that "we are going to dissolve at this time" these four Crown corporations. The fact of the matter is that these Crown corporations are not even in existence in reality.
The first Crown corporation with which we are dealing is Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Ltd. It has not been in operation for a couple of decades and was used as a shipping service to the West Indies. It was sold to Cuba.
The second Crown corporation of the four, St. Anthony Fisheries Limited, was formed only for a one-year period. Then it was taken over a couple of years ago by another Crown corporation supported by the present Government. It is a Crown corporation that has been spoken of in flowery language by the Progressive Conservative Premier of Newfoundland. As I said before, he said that it was the greatest thing to happen since confederation with Canada. The particular Crown corporation with which we are dealing in this Bill was dissolved. It was finished after a year.
The third Crown corporation with which we are dealing is a strange and important one. It is called the Societa a respon-sibilita Limitata Immobiliare San Sebastiano which, quite simply, was a Crown corporation formed to buy a residence for the Ambassador to the Vatican. Its one asset was transferred to the Government of Canada.
The fourth Crown corporation contained in this very important Bill before the House of Commons, a Bill enunciating government policy on Crown corporations, is the Crown corporation called Uranium Canada Limited. This corporation passed over all of its stockpile of uranium to Eldorado quite some time ago. It is really not operative.
Crown Corporations
We are debating the principle of this Bill. The principle of the Bill is really a big zero. The principle of the Bill is to dissolve things that are not even in existence.
I would ask Hon. Members to deal with this matter in a very fast manner and to ask the President of the Treasury Board, if he is going to say anything, to be very quick about it so that we can dispose of this Bill and get on to something of greater importance to the Canadian people.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's assistance in explaining just what these now insignificant Crown corporation are all about. However, he did not explain to me satisfactorily nor to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), why with an unemployment rate of 10.5 per cent with British Columbia, the Atlantic provinces and part of Quebec suffering not continuing recession but real 1930s-like depression, this would be seen to be a priority by the Government.
Since the Government chose to bring the Bill forward, I thought that I would make a few comments with respect to Crown corporations in general because I think it is a subject which is extremely important and one in which there is scope for action by Government. Unfortunately, 1 am not sure if we will see such action from this particular Government.
There are some 400 or perhaps more Crown corporations under the purview of the Government of Canada. I do not think anyone knows exactly how many exist. The four that are mentioned in this particular Bill are, as the Parliamentary Secretary has said, not particulary important. There are others, however, like Air Canada, VIA Rail and Petro-Canada which are important. The operations of the Government of Canada through such Crown corporations touch almost every aspect of the lives of Canadians.
Crown corporations have been established at various times because the Government of the day was convinced that there was a need for the public to be involved and that this was not an area in which the private sector alone could be counted upon to do those things that were necessary to be done in the public interest. That is something that my Party has always accepted. We think that there is a constructive and positive role for the public sector to play. The fact that there is a substantial public sector in this country is part of our political culture. It is something which we feel is in fact an essential part of Canada. We would not have a country if we did not have a tradition of public involvement. As you know, Mr. Speaker, in the past the people of Canada contributed to the railways, some of which now form part of CN and, since you want me to come to order, CN eventually had a subsidiary called Canadian National (West Indies).
The point I would like to make is that we in Parliament do not have a mechanism for the accountability of Crown corporations. If these four particular Crown corporations had fallen into desuetude as they did several years ago and if there had been a regular review and accountability to Parliament, this matter would have come to our attention, recommendations would have been made and we would have done the appropri-

September 11, 1985
Crown Corporations
ate thing. The new Government has found this loose end dangling and it is now dealing with it in what amounts to a few minutes of Parliament's time.
Over the last 10 years, Auditors General and the Lambert Commission Report have spoken to the failure of Government to hold Crown corporations accountable and particularly the failure of parliamentary accountability. Some steps have been taken with respect to Government accountability but the fact is that in the busy life of Cabinet Ministers and the Government in general, the original purposes get lost. Crown corporations drift along. Their management does not quite know what to do about them. As I stated when we were debating the Canada Development Corporation, the idea of the distinctive economic activities of Crown corporations has basically been lost as far as the Government of Canada is concerned. I would appeal to the Parliamentary Secretary and through him to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), a Minister who has a number of these Crown corporations under his wing, to look seriously at the fundamental question of establishing the mechanisms by which Parliament can in fact hold Crown corporations accountable.
I wrote at length about the Lambert Commission's recommendations in The Parliamentarian some two or three years ago. The Commission recommended that there should be the fullest possible disclosure of all relevant information to Parliament, that Crown corporations should adapt and share with Parliament a strategic plan including long, medium and short-range goals and that committees of the House of Commons should have the right to call the management of Crown corporations before them in order to get them to account directly for their stewardship of Crown corporations. As it exists now, when the Auditor General wants to find out about, for example, Petro-Canada, there is no power, either through the officer of Parliament or through the Public Accounts Committee, to get to the bottom of matters which are of grave concern and which may well have been extremely costly to the people of Canada.
There has been an agreement that this Bill go forward relatively promptly. You are encouraging me to continue, Mr. Speaker. However, I will not take up the invitation. 1 will simply say to members of the Government who are present and listening that this is a subject which was ignored by the previous Government. There are some models of this subject but not too many in the provinces. In the Province of Ontario, the legislature of which I was a Member previously, the Procedural Affairs Committee reviewed agencies, boards and commissions every summer. It looked rather lightly, I am afraid, at half a dozen of them. With the new committee procedure we have here whereby committees have the power to hire staff, there are the resources for committees of Parliament to spend time reviewing in much greater depth the operations of Crown corporations.
The President of the Treasury Board knows that he and his colleague, the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens), do not have a great deal of time to look at these things. It might be helpful if, from time to time, their efforts to
provide direction and a sense of purpose to Crown corporations were reinforced by Parliament. Since Parliament is the ultimate place where responsibility ought to lie, it seems to me that whether or not it would be useful to the Government, it would be appropriate if Crown corporations, which amount to tens of billions of dollars worth of assets and are an extremely important part of the economy, were not forever distanced from Parliament.
As the President of the Treasury Board will recall, when he was in opposition, there was a bail-out of Canadair and de Havilland. I am sure that he has asked himself, as I have asked myself, whether or not those companies would have got so far off the track if there had been some form of parliamentary accountability to find out what the devil they were doing and why they were taking on enterprises so far removed from their original intent.
The corporation to which we are now referring seem to have assets of $9 or a few hundred thousand dollars. They are trivial and will not be missed. However, I would urge the Government to look not just to a series of housekeeping Bills from time to time but, when they find curiosities, eccentricities or anachronisms in the area of Crown corporations, to look toward putting the management of Crown corporations and their accountability before Parliament on a much more substantial, positive and regularized basis.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair recognizes the Hon. Member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on debate.


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to remark briefly on the comments of the last Member who spoke who decried the position of the Government and the need for gaining control of Crown corporations.
I would like to remind the Hon. Member that gaining control of Crown corporations is done at the board of directors level. The way this is done at the board of directors level is to appoint a board of directors who will make themselves accountable to the executive of the Government. All of the appointments we have attempted to make to Crown corporations in this Government have been decried by the Hon. Member and the members of his Party. They have decried the fact that we appoint members to the boards of directors of these Crown corporations for the very control about which he speaks. 1 suggest that the Hon, Member is perhaps speaking from both sides of his mouth.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Mr. de Cotret, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-60, an Act to authorize procurement of the dissolution of certain Crown corporations and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and be referred to a Committee of the Whole. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 11, 1985


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Horner in the chair.
The Acting Chairman (Mr. Horner):: Order. House in Committee of the Whole on Bill C-60, an Act to authorize procurement of the dissolution of certain Crown corporations and to amend or repeal other Acts in consequence thereof.
On Clause 2-Procurement of Dissolution


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I have one short question on this clause. I am sure the Parliamentary Secretary, according to his remarks with respect to the Bill, can answer the question. What is the amount of money that is outstanding? I believe the Hon. Member said it was something in the order of $900,000. To what Department will that debt revert? Will it revert to the Department of Transport?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, it would be of assistance to me if the Hon. Member could tell me which Crown corporation he is referring to, since the Bill deals with more than one.


George Baker: Mr. Chairman, I presume that since we are on Clause 2, as the Parliamentary Secretary should realize, it deals with Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships, Ltd.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Chairman, as I have indicated to the House, the sum will go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund. I am not exactly sure whether or not it will be designated as funds of the Department of Transport. However, I think at this point it is a debt outstanding to the fund. It will not come into any particular ministry's funding.
Clause 2 agreed to.
Clauses 3 to 9 inclusive agreed to.
On Clause 10-Procurement of Dissolution


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Chairman, Clause 10 deals with a very serious matter. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary can tell us who receives the $9 in assets for Uranium Canada, Ltd. and how it was overlooked and left in the account.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: It is my understanding that the Consolidated Revenue Fund will also benefit to the tune of $9. That amount was probably left in the account so that the bank account could be left open in case of additional funds being received.
Clause 10 agreed to.
Clauses 11 to 17 inclusive agreed to.
Clause 1 agreed to.


[Stage Direction]
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By special order, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Robert de Cotret (President of the Treasury Board) moved: that Bill C-60, an Act to authorize procurement of the dissolution of certain Crown corporations and to amend or
Crown Corporations
repeal other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the third time and passed.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would like to raise an important matter relating to Bill C-60. It is for the consideration of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).
Mr. Speaker, it must be kept in mind that the President of the Treasury Board is really the man who keeps the Government going, supposedly on the right track. As he has stated many times, that track is to reduce the deficit but also to respond to special requests from Cabinet Ministers. With respect to Bill C-60, and in speaking about Canadian National and the dissolution of a Crown corporation, the November statement establishes a new Crown corporation to be created by CN Marine to manage its boats. Since Bill C-60 would get rid of a Crown corporation which used to manage CN's boats,
I would like the Minister to keep in mind that to cut $21.5 million from a new Crown corporation to be formed by the Government is an exercise which should be followed with great care. You cannot cut that amount of money from a service and not have this service downgraded and not have people laid off. By the same token, Mr. Speaker, the Crown corporation referred to in this Bill by the name of St. Anthony Fisheries Limited was replaced by another Crown corporation. The situation in Newfoundland today is one of complete disaster. That Crown corporation which replaced St. Anthony Fisheries Limited is in great financial need. I am not all that concerned about the new Crown corporation. I could not care less whether it existed or not. I could not care less whether it made money or not. But we are concerned about the workers and the fishermen who were saved by the Crown corporation which is now under the control of another Crown corporation at a moment in time when there is an absolute disaster in the fisheries.
So I say to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) that when the request comes from the Minister of Unemployment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) and the Minister of Fisheries (Mr. Fraser), as I am sure it will, for additional funding from the Treasury Board for a special program to assist fishermen in the Province of Newfoundland, he should approve that expenditure, keeping in mind that he has done such a great public service in doing away with this Crown corporation which did not really exist.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


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

September 11, 1985
Customs Act


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, did I understand you to declare the motion passed?


Mr. Speaker:: Yes. That is why we read it a third time.


CUSTOMS ACT
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that Bill C-59, an Act respecting customs, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, what we are seeing here today is an initiative which had previously been attempted. The Customs Act, which regulates the flow of goods into and out of Canada, is one of the oldest federal statutes on the books of this country. In fact, one of the earliest undertakings of Canada's first Parliament was to pass Customs and Tariff legislation to give effect to the Customs union among Canada's provinces.
It is a unique opportunity for me today to discuss in this House a Bill to provide the first complete revision of the Customs Act in more than 100 years. This piece of legislation was introduced in substantially the same form by the former Government. At that time it was recognized as a Bill which was long overdue. Of course, amendments to the present Customs Act has been made from time to time but none of these represented a major restructuring of the law. Many of the amendments adopted over the years have remained in force long after the need which had prompted their adoption had disappeared. For example, the current Act still retains a provision enacted during prohibition regarding vessels found "hovering in Canadian waters".
What we have now is a hodgepodge of an Act, essentially a nineteenth century document trying to cope with modern needs. I believe all Hon. Members will agree it is time for a full-scale review.
As my colleagues will know, the Customs Act provides the legislative authority and powers for Customs to administer the law governing the import and export of goods and to collect customs revenues. This is not a tax Bill like the Customs Tariff. The Customs Act is essentially an admnistrative statute and, with this Bill, we are seeking to provide a complete revision of the Act for the first time since its inception.
For Canadians generally, Customs law is not a particularly high profile concern. The only contact most of them have with Customs is occasional dealing with Customs officers at border points, although with border crossings totalling about 80 million annually, this in itself represents an important segment of the work of the Department.
Like the tip of an iceberg, border control represents only one of the major responsibilities of Customs in administering legislation regulating the import and export of commodities and in collecting of Customs and Excise revenue. Canada, as we know, is one of the great trading nations of the world and
Customs each year must oversee some 10 million commercial import and export transactions.
The need for an updated Customs Act which reflects the realities of the 1980s and beyond is very clear. The passage of this Act is especially timely, Sir, in view of Expo '86 which will be hosted by Canada next year. National Revenue, Customs and Excise, is responsible for collecting some SI8 billion in revenues annually, almost 25 per cent of total federal revenues. It is therefore a major source of our country's total tax revenue and as such it behooves us to make certain that our laws in this regard are up to date, logical, efficient and equitable.
We must be fair and even handed in our approach but Canadian citizens must also be confident that Customs revenue which should be collected is in fact being collected.
In preparing this new Act, we were guided by these four overriding objectives: First, the need to eliminate provisions of the Act which were obsolete or inconsistent. Examples of obsolescence in the present Act include the provision for restricting importation to daylight hours; restricting Customs brokers' licences to British subjects; and allowing the seizing officer to share in the proceeds of a seizure.
Second, the desire to restructure the Act in a logical sequence. The new Act follows the natural sequence of Customs' requirements from report through transportation and warehousing, release, accounting and payment, tariff classification and valuation, appeals and refunds to seizures and forfeitures and offences and penalties.
Third, the need to provide greater flexibility so as to be able to respond to developments in transportation, communications and business practices is imperative.
Fourth, the need to redesign and modernize the provisions for the collection of revenue and enforcement generally is very important. The new Act will accommodate all modes of transport-which I am sure my colleague, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), will be very pleased to see happen- for example, pipelines, containerization and so on.
Modern business practices such as computerization are taken into account.
The new Act will provide for accounting and payment of duties after release of goods on a periodic basis. It will no longer be a "cash on the barrelhead" approach. 1 believe that in this Bill now before the House we have met these objectives.
In addition to meeting these broad objectives, we have, in reviewing and amending early drafts of the Bill, kept very much in mind some of the general commitments made by this Government in respect of its dealings with Canadian taxpayers. Specifically, Mr. Speaker, I believe Hon. Members will find that this new Bill reflects our commitment to fairness and equity in dealing with Canadian citizens; to clarity and simplification to the degree possible in the application of the law; and to consultation in developing regulations and administering the law.
September 11, 1985

It is not my intention to go into lengthy detail on the many provisions of the Bill at this time. There will be ample opportunity to do this later.
Hon. Members have had copies of the Bill and related material made available to them and I am sure they will wish to give it individual study. As I mentioned earlier, many of the principles outlined have been considered previously.
I would like to comment briefly, however, on a few of the features of this Bill which demonstrate our particular emphasis on aspects of fairness, simplification and consultation. With respect to the question of fairness and equity, Mr. Speaker, I would draw Hon. Members' attention to Sections 59 to 72 of this Bill which deal with those individuals or companies who disagree with a departmental or tariff board decision and request a redetermination of the tariff classification or a reappraisal of the value for duty of the goods they have imported. In addition, where a departmental ruling is successfully challenged by a member of the public, he or she will be entitled to receive interest on the duties paid. Conversely, interest will be charged where the decision is in favour of the department.
Concerning the collection of taxes of duties owning, our Government has been clearly on record as opposed to the "presumption of guilt" approach in disputes between the Government and individuals. I am pleased to say that with the passage of the new Bill, individuals who disagree with a ruling will not be forced to pay the duty before the matter has been resolved. They will have the option of depositing security in lieu of payment or, if they wish, making payment with the guarantee that interest will be paid on any refunds to which they ultimately may become entitled. I think this is a fair solution to a problem which has been a bone of contention. I believe it is one which will be well received by importers.
Protection of civil rights is reflected in a number of the provisions of the Bill. For example, in proceedings under the new Act relating to the importation or exportation of goods, the burden of proof of such importation or exportation will now rest with the Government. Under current law, the burden rests with the importer or exporter, a condition which we consider unfair. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that these and other proposed changes to the Customs Act reflect the spirit of the Canadian Charier of Rights and Freedoms and human rights legislation. The new Bill also spells out clearly the procedures to be followed by Customs officers in inspecting mail items, as is required in the course of their duties. As you know, Customs officers must have authority to inspect items which they have reasonable grounds to believe may contain material subject to Customs regulation. Otherwise, they would not be able to enforce fully the provisions of the Customs Act or the many other federal statutes for which they have certain administrative responsibilities.
To protect the public, the Bill provides that mail items 30 grams or less may not be opened without the consent of the addressee or sender. To the public, a letter is correspondence
Customs Act
which can be mailed with a 34-cent stamp. Only mail items weighing 30 grams or less can be mailed for 34 cents-the average weight of such mail is around 20 grams.
In the course of their duties, Customs officers must administer and enforce parts of more than 60 federal statutes, many of which are designed to protect the social values of the nation or the health and well-being of individual Canadians. Customs officers have responsibilities ranging from checking certificates required by the Livestock Pedigree Act, to preliminary screening of travellers under the Immigration Act, through to stopping the importation of prohibited weapons under the Criminal Code. Laws such as the Food and Drugs Act, the Hazardous Products Act and the Cultural Property Export and Import Act and many others are administered in so far as they relate to the importation and exportation of goods by Canadians. This new Bill updates the provisions allowing Customs officials to search for, examine and seize goods, and thus confers on them the necessary authority to ensure compliance with these various important statutes. These officials are doing important work and they deserve to have a good framework in which to operate.
This new Bill has been radically simplified, Mr. Speaker, so that it may be more easily and clearly understood and acted upon by those who must comply with its provisions. The language used is simple and direct. The 290 sections of the current Act have been reduced substantially and the current 35 sections which deal with reporting requirements have been consolidated into just four sections. The current Customs Act contains numerous sections dealing with offences and penalties. In fact, only about half a dozen of these sections are actually being used now. The new Bill simplifies this area immensely and removes a number of sections which are covered by the Criminal Code.
I am confident that the business community which deals regularly with Customs matters will find this Bill clearer than its predecessor, more understandable and easier to comply with in all respects. Simplification paves the way for streamlining of operations. I believe the simplified approach embodied in this Bill is in line with this Government's commitment to the streamlining of government operations and to reducing, to the degree possible, the paperwork burden on those who must do business with the Government.
This Bill will provide the Department of National Revenue with the legislative flexibility to modify procedures to deal with changes in modern business, transportation and communications practices. In addition, Mr. Speaker, the new Bill makes specific provision that most regulations enacted pursuant to the Customs Act must be published a minimum of 60 days in advance of their coming into force. Exceptions will be regulations such as those dealing with the setting of fees, those which make no substantive change to an existing regulation. This will provide a final opportunity for those who may wish to comment on proposed regulations to do so. Further, Bill C-59 provides for ongoing parliamentary review of the operation of the Act and a comprehensive review of its operation within five years of its passage.

September 11, 1985
Customs Act
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, we have before us for consideration today a very important and long overdue piece of legislation. This new Customs Act will, I am certain, commend itself to the public at large and in particular to the thousands of Canadian businesses whose activities must comply with Customs law. The new Act will enable the Department of National Revenue to carry out its responsibilities more efficiently and effectively, and it will help ensure that all Customs revenues due to the Government and to the people of Canada are collected in a fair and equitable manner.
I feel that all Members of the House, and in particular the members of the committee which will study this Bill will want to give it careful scrutiny. I welcome this and will personally review any comments and recommendations that may emerge from their deliberations. I will be co-operative in an attempt to accomodate any good initiatives to improve the nature and scope of what we are trying to accomplish. Indeed, I look forward to working with the Hon. Member for Gander-Twil-lingate (Mr. Baker) and the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) in this regard. At the same time, I hope the House will see fit to expedite passage of this legislation as quickly as possible. It is a much needed statute and it will serve the interests of the country well if we enact it into law after proper deliberation at the earliest possible opportunity.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I think the Bill introduced by the Minister should have a fairly rapid passage through this Chamber. After all, most of the Bill was suggested by the previous Liberal Government and, as you know, anything suggested by the previous Liberal Government has to be good so far as regulations are concerned. There are some minor changes and I would like to speak briefly to those changes.
In introducing the Bill the Minister, certainly in his former capacity, had some input with regard to the changes made to the Bill proposed by the previous Government. Perhaps I could deal with a couple of those. As he stated, the Bill is certainly long overdue. The law relating to Customs in Canada was, I believe, made up of two main factors. Number one was the present legislation on the books which Customs officers had to follow. The other were the customs of Customs. Some of these customs of Customs dated prior to Confederation. So certainly we need a new Customs Act. As the Minister said, this Bill eliminates certain provisions of the existing law which are contrary to the Charter of Rights. Two clauses of the Bill eliminate the Writs of Assistance which were in effect continuous search warrants. In other words, the Customs officers were really under no obligation to go back to a judge for another search warrant, they could simply continue under these Writs of Assistance. Clauses 111 and 112 of this Bill will correct that fault in the existing legislation.
As the Minister stated as well, this Bill eliminates the necessity of paying immediately the import duties on any article imported into Canada. In other words, if someone were importing toothbrushes at the rate of 100 this week and 100
next week, he had to pay as the items crossed the border. This Bill will eliminate that and enable businessmen to make arrangements with Customs to pay weekly or monthly.
There is a new provision in this Bill which I would like to have come into effect in all government Departments. When the Government of Canada owes a Canadian citizen money, it does not pay interest, but if a citizen owes the Government money, he must pay interest. There is a clause in this Bill which eliminates that inequity.
The Minister referred to the parliamentary committee which will review and up-date this Bill every five years. That is good. The interpretation of the Acts under which customs was operative said that a Customs officer had the right to seize whatever was not declared. In other words, if you stretched it, as some interpretations by the courts did, if someone drove his car into the United States and then returned, the Customs officer could legally seize his car and even his underwear if he wanted to. Under the law he could seize anything the person had. That is eliminated in this Bill and it was included in the Bill introduced by the previous administration. It also clears up the Access to Information Act.
There is another clause in the Bill which warrants some discussion. Clause 99 of this Bill enables the Customs officer to open mail. I am sure that some groups will take objection to this clause. However, when the purpose of this clause is examined, I am not sure whether one could realistically take exception to it. When the Post Office Act came into existence in 1982 it defined a "letter". By government regulation in 1983 a letter was defined as anything under 500 grams, which is about a pound. Under the Customs Act which was in existence at that time, Customs officials were not allowed to seize or open any package under 500 grams, which was the definition of a letter.
This led to complications. One heard of cases of drugs and other illegal material being brought across the border into Canada. Before crossing the border people would mail the illegal material in packages of less than 500 grams which could not be seized or opened without their permission. They would then pick them up when they got into Canada. Upon examining the records of Canadian Customs one would find that that has been a prevalent concern of the Customs Department.
Clause 99(2) reads:
An officer may not open or cause to be opened any imported mail that weighs thirty grams or less unless the person to whom it is addressed consents or the person who sent it has completed and attached to the mail a label in accordance with article 116 of the Detailed Regulations of the Universal Postal Convention.
Clause 99(3) reads:
An officer may cause imported mail that weighs thirty grams or less to be opened in his presence by the person to whom it is addressed or a person authorized by that person.
I, quite frankly, do not like any intrusion into the privacy of the mail by the Customs Department. Prior to this Act being passed, a Customs officer could only seize and open packages weighing over 500 grams. With the passing of this Act he will be able to seize and open packages weighing over 30 grams. I
September 11, 1985

checked to find out what 30 grams is in relation to a letter. Thirty grams is an ordinary envelope and seven sheets of ordinary paper. If the Customs Department has reason to believe that a package weighing over 30 grams contains material which should not be entering the country, it has the power to open it.
Due to the movement of drugs and other material into the country, I believe that this particular clause is necessary. However, I would caution anyone who is writing a letter of over seven pages that perhaps they should break it into two letters so that the Customs officials would not be allowed to open it. I do not know what amount of drugs one could bring in in a letter of less than 30 grams. The terms "nickle", "dime", and "quarter", or something are used. That is supposed to be a gram or two grams. I do not know if they can flatten it out to make a gram, but they would certainly not make much money if they had to reduce the size of each package to less than 30 grams.
I hope the Minister will be prepared to provide us with any information that we require on Clause 99, which is the only questionable clause in the Bill. I believe that the Minister should be prepared to provide any information that anyone requires concerning this aspect. Again, this is essentially a Bill that was proposed by the previous Liberal administration and therefore I hope the House will give its speedy passage.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to Bill C-59, an Act respecting customs. I understand that the debate will be short. When one is the third speaker on a Bill such as this, which does not have much ideological input, one does not have much left to say after the Minister introduces the Bill and the spokesperson from the Official Opposition covers most of the points to be made. There is not much disagreement among the Parties concerning this Bill.
It closely resembles Bill C-6 that was tabled by the previous Liberal Government in January, 1984. On June 25, 1985, the former Minister of National Revenue tabled Bill C-59 for first reading. According to the Minister's press release, the purpose of the Bill is to overhaul completely Canada's 118-year-old Customs Act.
Today, we have a new Minister of National Revenue and I want to congratulate him on his new portfolio. I look forward to working with him. Unfortunately, in the past Revenue Canada has been a Department whose Ministers were either on the way up or on the way down. I believe that its importance has not been recognized and I hope the Government will not follow past practice. I hope the Minister, whom I know on a personal level to be of good judgment, will continue some of the reforms undertaken by the previous Minister in the Department of National Revenue. It is an important Department which the Government should not neglect. We have seen how it has become a graveyard for some Ministers under the previous Liberal administration.
Customs Act
Let me return to the Act. The usual practice has been to amend the Customs Act periodically in response to specific situations. Bill C-59 seeks to address and remove a number of archaic provisions and redundancies while introducing measures which will bring the administration of the Act into a more contemporary vogue. For example, Bill C-59 will codify procedures for the reporting of persons, goods and conveyances crossing Canada's borders to four sections as opposed to the present 30 sections. Provision has also been made, which is an improvement on the Liberal Bill, for the payment of any interest on duties paid and later refunded. Notwithstanding the need for improvements, some questions remain and hopefully will be raised in the legislative committee.
The impact that the Customs and Excise Branch of the Department of National Revenue has upon not only the movement of individuals and goods but also upon the federal Treasury is worth noting. Collections from these sections have been as follows: In 1982-83, $17.3 billion in total, of which $4.4 billion was collected from the importation of goods. In 1983-84, $16.6 billion in total was collected from Customs and Excise, of which $5.2 billion was collected from the importation of goods. In 1984-85, $18 billion in total was collected, of which $5 billion was collected from the importation of goods. The total revenue collected by the Customs and Excise Branch constitutes approximately 25 per cent of federal revenues.
The Customs Branch is concerned primarily with the processing of goods and individuals across Canada's international boundaries. The point at which Customs officers are present include 114 border crossing points along the Canada-U.S. border, 17 international airports, and 176 other airports and points of entry. Customs officers are responsible for the enforcement in whole or in part of some 60 different Acts which include everything from the Aeronautics Act to the Fertilizers Act to the Visiting Forces Act.
A briefing document itemized the objectives of the Customs Branch in their order of importance under three headings: First, to ensure the collection of duties; second, to control the movement of people and goods; and third, to protect Canadian industry from real or potential injury caused by actual or contemplated import of dumped or subsidized goods and other forms of unfair competition. Customs Branch has allocated some 7,201 person years. It is this section that is the most visible of the Customs Branch.
In November, 1983, an evaluation study was undertaken in the Department. Let me quote from that study:
A new breed of Inspector is being hired, who on average is better educated, better trained, has higher job expectations and different attitudes-The new recruit is believed to be more "enforcement oriented" and is having significant and unmeasured influence on the inspection role.
I put that on the record because despite all of the rules, regulations and safeguards that may exist, it comes down to the fact that the individual judgment of officers surely is most important. The study goes on to conclude that no matter how well intentioned entry laws may be, compliance with them is, in the final analysis, directly proportionate to the Depart-

September 11, 1985
Customs Act
ment's capacity to enforce them. In other words, we must not only be concerned with the ability of the individual Customs officer to enforce the rules and regulations, but with also his judgment and character because that will determine what experience the public will have with those officers.
For instance, we know that officers in the Taxation Branch of the Department of National Revenue had a variety of discretionary powers which they abused. This has also occurred in the Customs and Excise Branch. I had such a case this spring. A young American family was moving to Canada to establish a small business in Ontario. All of their immigration papers were in order and the husband had come to Canada to establish the business. The wife was driving from the United States with her child and their personal belongings. Upon entry to Canada, they were needlessly hassled by the Canadian Customs. The officer in charge decided to exercise all his powers-which he legally had-to the maximum and detained her at some length. She claimed that he was quite rude to her, inconvenienced her and caused the whole episode to be a bitter experience.
When we acted on her behalf after hearing he complaints eventually some money was refunded to her and the former Minister reluctantly admitted that the officier at that border crossing was somewhat over-zealous. However, he pointed out that the officer in charge did in fact have all those powers.
It is important that we not only concern ourselves with the rules and regulations governing the Department but with the training and type of individuals who are recruited.
I believe that Canadians expect their Customs officers to be civil and reasonable so that people will have a pleasant experience at the border. While I have had some unpleasant experiences going into the United States, I have never had an unpleasant experience at the Canadian border. I believe that 99 per cent of the people crossing into Canada do not have any ill intentions and therefore should have a pleasant experience at the border. That depends largely on the type of men and women who are our Customs officers.
It is important that the new recruits not be enforcement oriented per se but oriented more to serving the public. If they are enforcement oriented, this will result in many of the same unfortunate situations in which Revenue Canada officials found themselves a few short years ago. They became overzealous and started to view the general public in a paranoid manner and unpleasant experiences resulted.
The report also pointed out:
-the Department has yet to clearly articulate its policy on what "reasonable" means in terms of enforcement.
These observations are disturbing, given that the Customs Branch is part of the National Revenue Department which was plagued by the misguided leadership of senior management and by the complete inaction of the Minister at that time, resulting in enforcement practices by taxation officials which were nothing less than outright harassment.
What the 1983 report states quite clearly is that without a firm signal from those at the most senior levels of the Department beginning with the Minister, excesses would well occur. Unfortunately, the Conservative Government has seen fit to use the Department of National Revenue in much the same way the Liberals did, as a punishment for error-prone and incompetent Ministers. I do say that with some hesitation.
As I mentioned before, I know the Minister who is now in charge of the Department was Minister of Housing in the Clark administration when I was elected for the first time. I was the critic and I had a fairly good relationship with him. In fact, I found it unfortunate that the Clark Government was defeated because the Minister and I were working on a new idea which would have seen an imaginative approach to home insulation. We were talking about a joint project in Halifax and in Regina. Let me say to the former Prime Minister that 1 was not one of those who threw papers up in the air in jubilation when his Government went down to defeat.


Charles Joseph Clark: Neither was I.


Simon Leendert de Jong: I am sure the Right Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) remembered the evening very well. I do hope that the Conservative Government will not follow the previous practices of the Liberal Government of using the Revenue Department as a Department to appoint Ministers in on their way up or on their way down.
Another thing of concern to me is not addressed in this new Customs Act. It is a practice which continues to be applied on occasion, namely, the punitive manner by a Government in areas where firm policy positions have not been taken. For example, in May, 1982, the Customs Act and Customs officers were used in a campaign to harass and interfere with the importation of Japanese automobiles into Canada. At the time, the federal Government had not managed to negotiate an arrangement with the Japanese with respect to voluntary quotas. Thus Customs officers were sent aboard vessels on the West Coast to inspect all manners of licences to crews, et cetera, generally, to follow a policy of harassment. Automobiles were held for various reasons in the harbour areas for extended periods of time. For those individuals whose business it was to transport those automobiles, serious economic hardships were brought to bear because the federal Government was unable to act.
Unfortunately, there is nothing in this Bill that will prevent the present Government from behaving in the same manner as did the Liberal regime considering its notorious indecisiveness on important issues.
I hope the present Government will not use this Bill as an instrument to harass trade because of being unable to make the decision. I hope it will not use the Customs department to stall and play for time.
In the case of the Liberals and their harassment in 1982 on the importation of Japanese automobiles, the people who suffered were the small car dealers across the country.
September 11, 1985

We can look at some of the clauses. I am sure that in the legislative committee we will get into some of them in more detail and with most of them we will not have much problem. Again, one notes that a lot of power given to the individual customs officers are really arbitrary powers.
For example, Clause 98 provides officers with the authority to search individuals "on reasonable grounds" that a contravention of the Act has occurred, yet no real definition of reasonable grounds is given.
Clause 99, which the spokesperson for the Liberal Party pointed out, creates some concern for me as well.
Most private mail is more than 30 grams. A person living somewhere else in the world writing a long letter to a relative living in Canada might include in that letter a family snapshot, and pretty soon you find the letter weighs more than 30 grams. That this should be subject to inspection by a Customs officer is, to my mind, not a good practice. I understand that in the contemporary world of drug smuggling drugs can be smuggled through private mail. I am not certain whether 30 grams is a proper cut-off level or not. I am certain that you cannot ship too much heroin or cocaine when the restriction is a weight in grams. I understand 30 grams of heroin or cocaine still gets a good dollar on the street. Instead of selling one envelope containing 100 grams of an illicit substance, a drug smuggler could send three or four envelopes weighing less than 30 grams. What about our liberties, Mr. Speaker? I am sure private mail is one of the most important of our civil liberties. The price we are paying to forgo that civil liberty in the interests of dealing with a major problem-and drug smuggling is a major problem-is perhaps too high, and what we are buying is not that effective anyway. We might end up in a situation with fewer civil liberties and no effective measure in terms of controlling the flow of drugs.
Clause 110 could be used in an arbitrary manner. It provides the authority to officers to seize any goods, conveyances and to seize anything which the officer believes will afford evidence in respect of a contravention. Again the clause can be used in an arbitrary manner. As we have found with Revenue Canada, the important part is how the regulations get enforced. That depends upon the type of men and women one attracts. It depends upon the type of leadership which the Minister and the senior officials of the Department give to their employees.
Clause 113 is one that I do not quite understand, but I am sure we can get a further explanation. It is a limitation upon the period in which seizures can be made, which has now been extended from three to six years. We would like more of a detailed explanation concerning this clause in committee.
In summation, there are not many things with which we have difficulty in this clause. We congratulate the new Minister for shepherding in a piece of legislation which has not been updated for a hundred and some years. I think it is a good sign; he is off on a good mark, I would suggest, in modernizing this piece of legislation. It is as good a place as any to start
International Peace and Security with that Department. We wish him well in his new job, and 1 look forward to dealing in more detail with this Bill once it gets into committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. MacKay, seconded by Mr. de Cotret, moves that Bill C-59, an Act respecting Customs, be read the second time and be referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

Charles Joseph Clark: that Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Act and certain other Acts in relation thereto, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions among House Leaders, and this is a Bill on which there is an agreement that we will deal with it through all stages today so that it can go to the other place to provide it with some matters to consider next week when that august Chamber reconvenes. As a result of my consultations, 1 think there is a disposition to accept the following motion and pass it without debate:
That, notwihstanding any Standing Order or other Order of the House, when Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Act is called, the House shall consider the Bill at the second reading stage and not later than the end of the time provided for Government Orders this day, the Bill shall be referred to a Committee of the Whole, read a third time and passed.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have been asked to speak on behalf of our Party on this particular Bill. I did not know that there was an agreement to pass it through all stages immediately. However, after looking at it and seeing the very minor changes which are contemplated in it, I can understand there being such an agreement. I am sure we would all consent to its passage as quickly as possible so that we can get on to other things which are of concern to Canadians.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett) rising on a point of order?

September 11, 1985
International Peace and Security


Pauline Jewett: No, Mr. Speaker. I understood that we could each say a few words.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: There will be a debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House has heard the suggestion of the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Is there unanimous consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Charles Joseph Clark: As the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) just indicated, this Bill concerns some amendments which guarantee that the intent of Parliament is respected with regard to the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.
Just to remind the House very briefly, the creation of this institute was a stellar, and an outstanding example of co-operation among all the Parties of the House, respected and supported by public opinion in the country, to establish in Canada along the lines of institutes established and operating effectively elsewhere in the world a Canadian institute for international peace and security. There was particular attention paid during the debate a year ago in June to ensure that the institute would have independence from Government and indeed independence from Parliament. The amendments today are designed to ensure that the intention of Parliament is in fact respected, because at about the same time that Parliament adopted this Bill establishing this institute, there were some amendments to the Financial Administration Act which inadvertently could compromise the independence that all Parties wanted to see attached to the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. Certainly a compromise of that independence is not a desire of the Government and, I feel confident, it is not the desire of any Party in this House.
So that the House may know the details of what is involved, there are portions of the Financial Administration Act which in effect require Crown corporations or agencies of the Government, including inadvertently this institute, to be subject to certain directions of the Government in Council. Under Section 96(1) of the Financial Administration Act, seven Crown corporations have been excluded from those provisions. Those organizations are the Bank of Canada, Canada Council, Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, Canadian Film Development Corporation, Canadian Wheat Board, International Development Research Centre and the National Arts Centre Corporation. In effect, what is proposed in these amendments today is that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security be added to that list and be made the eighth Crown corporation exempt from that kind of control, which I think is desired by all Hon. Members of the House. I will be tabling in Parliament next week the First report of the institute. I do not want to anticipate its contents or take a great deal of time in the House now, but I think it is appropriate to take this occasion to make the point that it is never easy to build an institution which can earn the respect of a demanding community and, indeed, which can establish international
credentials and credibility. I think it is fair to say that the conduct of the board of the institute in its first year and the determination of all Members of the House to guarantee its independence mean that the institute is well along the road to achieving both the kind of influence and the kind of independence which all of us sought. Of course it is involved in the issuance of grants. So far, around $250,000 have been issued by the institute in grants for research or public education activity. It is working extensively with voluntary organizations interested in issues of peace and security in the country. I am advised that every three months some 50 or more applications are received by the institute for support. In October of this year it will be organizing a major conference on challenges to deterrents. In addition to those formal activities, it is gradually and effectively establishing its own standing as a respected institute operating internationally. It has been in consultation with the well-known Stockholm International Peace Institute about the possibility of some joint projects. There have been conversations with representatives of the Peace Institute recently established by the Congress of the United States and with representatives of various eastern European countries.
In addition to the changes guaranteeing the independence of the institute, there are also some minor changes. One has to do with the adequacy of the French in the title and in the description of the institute.
[ Translation]
This is a matter on which Alberta Francophones like me would rather not voice an immediate opinion. However, it seems that according to all the advice we had from experts in the field, it would be useful to change certain terms in the official title of the Institute.

In fact, the board has requested that the French title be changed to L'Institut canadien pour la paix et la securite internationales, which replaces the earlier phrasing L'lnsti-tut canadien pour la paix et la securite mondiales. There will be a consequent change to the Access to Information Act and to the Public Service Superannuation Act arising from the change of the name in French. There will also be, I should advise the House, a change in the arrangement regarding travel and living expenses for directors of the institute. Expenses need not be fixed by the Governor in Council but will instead be such reasonable travel and living expenses incurred by each director while absent from his or her ordinary place of residence in the performance of duties as fixed by the Board. Given the world-wide nature of an institute of this kind, that seems to me to be a sensible change which was requested by the Board and one with which the Government is in agreement.
Finally, I believe I am speaking on behalf of many and perhaps all Members of the House when I say that while we are determined that the institute itself be able to operate with absolute independence from the Government and indeed from Members of Parliament, it is dealing with issues which are at
September 11, 1985

the heart and focus of our own attention and indeed the most urgent and important issues that any of us in public life can address. The seeking of independence from Parliament for the institute is not an indication of a lack of interest on the part of Parliamentarians. Quite the contrary; it is a recognition that on issues of this kind, if we want in fact to rise above the kinds of partisan considerations that sometimes properly and naturally engulf this House, there must be the certainty that there is an agency in Canada able to look at these questions and offer advice and observations without the suspicion that it is the instrument of a Party, a faction or a particular perspective. That was the earnest desire of all Members of the House when the institute was established. That will be given final realization with the adoption of the amendments that are proposed today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order! In order to keep the proceedings in line with parliamentary procedure, I am just going to read the motion now before the House:
Mr. Clark (Yellowhead), seconded by Mr. Andre, moves that Bill C-69, an Act to amend the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security Act and certain other Acts in relation thereto, be now read the second time and, with unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, it is with great pleasure that I take this opportunity to say a few words about the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security. I agree with the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who has said that the amendments before us today are largely housekeeping amendments. Like him, my British Columbia French is not quite good enough to determine the total significance of changing the French word "mondiales" to "internationales" and indeed I really have been challenged on that matter. I think I have come to understand the reason for it and so I thank the drafters of it for giving me an opportunity to work out the subtle distinctions between the two words.
The second minor amendment to which the Minister has referred is perhaps not quite so minor. It gives the Board rather than the Governor in Council authority to determine matters like the amount of expense account money members of the Board receive when they travel.
The third matter is of course more significant. It was never the intention of anyone in the House when we drew up the appendix outlining the amounts of money that would go to the institute over the first five years that that would in any way be tampered with or changed. Indeed, in my experience in Parliament, it has been quite rare to have a five-year projection of the amount of money that a body would receive. As the Minister has pointed out and as we all felt very strongly a year ago June when this Bill was passed and the institute was being created, it is absolutely essential that the institute be independent of Government both in terms of the membership of the
International Peace and Security
institute board and its financial support. The final amendment which will relieve the institute from certain provisions of the Financial Administration Act was our intention all the time. To that extent, the amendment tidies up something that was always intended.
I believe all Parties in the House can take great pleasure in the fact that the way in which members of the board of the institute are appointed makes it extremely difficult to make appointments on narrow political or patronage grounds. Perhaps I will take advantage of this opportunity to say to the Minister that there are a few other institutes like the Ocean Institute to which he might give some thought in order to encourage this kind of a process for the appointment of members of the board. While the appointments may in fact be good appointments, there is not the same assurance that the Minister insisted most strongly on having for this particular institute.
In the case of the Ocean Institute and other research institutes, we are not provided quite the same assurance as we are for this one that there will not in fact be patronage appointments. Since this matter has been drawn to our attention again because this is the first time we have amended this Act and also because the first report of the institute will be tabled next week, perhaps this is a good time for the Minister to give some thought to extending this procedure for appointing board members to other institutes.
Earlier today the Minister suggested quite rightly that my colleague, the brilliant expert on matters of the North, might give him advice when looking at the question of northern sovereignty in committee. Perhaps he might now be good enough to suggest that I would be one of his advisers when revamping the way in which boards of comparable institutes are appointed.
We all look forward to seeing the first report of the institute. Most of us who were concerned with the creation of the institute have been following its activities and speaking to members of the board during the course of the past year. We have some idea of what the board has been doing. I am sure all of us thought at one time that there might be real problems for the board, not because of narrow political differences or matters of that kind but rather because of quite sharp ideological differences as the board was deliberately made fairly representative of the broad spectrum of opinion on international security and peace issues. Obviously the Members of the board have been engaged in very lively discussions among themselves, but everything that I have heard indicates that those differences, such as they are, have been muted because they have all had a very common interest in the development of a first-class research capacity within the Canadian public, the Canadian universities and the board itself to deal with many of the issues relating to international peace and security. They have also had a common concern about the public education side of the board's activities. Research and public education and the granting of research contracts have been things upon which there has been a very broad measure of agreement after very lively discussions among board members.

September 11, 1985
International Peace and Security
Unquestionably, the leadership of both the chairman of the board and the executive director have been important in that respect.
Another concern some of us had at the time the board was being set up was that it might render the activities of the Ottawa-based Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament unnecessary. It was felt at that time that the institute would somehow be getting into the area of activities already engaged in by the Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament. This has not taken place, nor do I see it likely to happen in the future. The centre has been doing a good job indeed on what one might call the day-to-day issues of peace and security, arms control and disarmament, and it has been issuing an excellent bulletin. As the Minister is aware, it has been giving excellent briefs with respect to the whole question of participation in SDI research as well. Through its bulletin, it has been keeping Canadians informed with respect to the debates taking place in the House of Commons and what transpired in the special joint committee this summer. The arms control centre has also been pretty active. However, as far as I can see, it has not been engaging in the type of broad-based research and public education activity that the institute we have been discussing today has been engaged in. That has been a plus as well. In a period of one year and a half, Canada has gone from almost zero in all fields relating to arms control and disarmament to having two very important and active, yet quite distinct, groups engaged in these matters. It seems to me there is no reason for concern with respect to the situation changing. The two bodies will continue to play an important role.
I am pleased to note that the conference which the Institute on International Peace and Security will be having in Ottawa will be with respect to the challenges to deterrents. With fairly substantial changes in American and possibly Soviet strategic doctrine, the whole question of the challenges to deterrents is of extremely grave importance right now. It is also significant at this time since the United Nations is about to embark upon a study of the doctrine of deterrents. It is a real first for Canada to have a Canadian institute playing a significant role in the examination and re-examination of the doctrine of deterrents and the challenges to that doctrine. It is very exciting indeed.
As I have said, a year and a half ago, apart from the work that was done in an isolated fashion in different universities, we had barely anything going on with respect to these matters. We now have a strong Institute on International Peace and Security researching in depth a number of important issues. We also have a companion Centre for Arms Control and Disarmament working more on the day-to-day issues.
It has been a pleasure to recall the discussions and sometimes arguments which we had when the institute was being created a year ago this June. It is also a pleasure to recall some of the differences which we reconciled and some of the amendments we put forward with respect to the proposed legislation at that time. With respect to those amendments, I might say
that the Liberal Government of the day wanted to see those amendments put in place. It is good to recollect that out of those debates and discussions in committee and in the House of Commons we saw emerge a strong, independent and independently financed Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I want to apologize to the House and to the Minister for my absence. I am sure it is not the Minister's fault, but no one had advised me that the Bill was going to be considered in the House. 1 was attending my party's committee meeting, discussing similar issues, when all of a sudden I saw the friendly face of the Secretary for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). So I said: What is going on? And here I am, with another opportunity to speak to the House. I do not have many comments to make on the Bill, since I think these are mainly technical amendments that are justified. We should not, at this stage, criticize the substance of the Bill. On the contrary, speedy passage of the Bill is to be recommended. However, Mr. Speaker, since we so seldom have an opportunity in the House to raise certain issues, I think that when we have a Bill like this one, we should take advantage of that opportunity.
In recent months I twice had a chance to travel across the country, first as chairman of my party's task force on the Government's participation or non-participation in the United States Strategic Defense Initiative research program. I was really impressed, over the past four months, by the keen interest shown by Canadians, and especially by groups that took the trouble to prepare briefs-mostly opposing the plan- on the subject. The quality of these briefs was excellent, and Saturday I was delighted to announce I was happy with the Government's decision not to take part in the program referred to as "Star Wars".
There are those who object to this description. However, I would like to take this opportunity, without malice, I may add, to make it clear to the Minister that I would not like to find out that I had been had and the public as well, because I hope the Government is not letting in the back door what it says it will not let in the front door. I know that is certainly not the intention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I believe that Canadians are opposed, and the matter is related to disarmament and peace. The basic reasons why groups came to talk to us to voice their opposition to Canada's participation in President Reagan's strategic defense initiative are all part of the debate for which the Institute was created, and it was created largely to make it possible for Canadians to be well informed about what is going on both on the international and national scene with respect to the contribution of the Canadian Government and the Canadian people to peace and especially to disarmament, one of the great concerns of youth at this time.
September 11, 1985

I would therefore invite the Minister to clarify, if he can, the Government's position on this issue because the answer I was given yesterday by my hon. friend, the Associate Minister for National Defence (Mr. Andre), who has just made an appearance in the House, because, as I was saying, his answer created a great deal of confusion among observers when he said that the Government intended to give grants to any person who was involved in the Star Wars program, on the same basis as they are given to entrepreneurs or universities or industries that are engaged in research or development of the usual U.S. programs under the defence production sharing agreement.
I would point out to the Government that the American administration has made a firm decision to create a special group within the Government to show clearly that the star wars program is a special program and that a specific directorate will award all related contracts. It will therefore be very easy for the Government to find out, should a Canadian university or a Canadian company be working on the star wars project, that it is not a program like the one that is covered under other previous agreements. It is a new program of the American Government. I am convinced that Canadians do not want the Government to give grants to companies doing research for the star wars program.
1 acted in very good faith on Saturday when I applauded the decision of the Government to not participate. I hope it is clear that we will not be using the granting functions of the different departments of the Government to help the people who participate in this program. I said that if someone wanted to do something in his basement there was not much policing I could do but because I thought of it in terms of the global strategy of peace in the world I felt that the "no" of the Government was a positive contribution. Now, only 72 hours after that decision, I begin to wonder what happened on Saturday. If it is a "yes" in the guise of a "no" I do not think that the Government will go through that very easily. We spent a lot of time in the spring and summer in committee gathering the views of Canadians. Of course, there were some surveys which said that perhaps the majority of Canadians were in favour, but it was always on one point. It was always on the point that if we were to be involved in SDI, it was in order to create thousands and thousands of jobs. I remember in front of the committee the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) asked that question of the witnesses many times very precisely, and I did the same thing as well. We asked how many jobs would be created and the only group which gave us the figures said it was something like 500 jobs.
Therefore, there was a qualification in the minds of the people because of the jobs. We took the view that jobs were irrelevant because there were matters in international policies which involve more than jobs. I remember when I was on the other side of the House the Leader of the Opposition at that time, the Minister of today, was always very quick on his feet
International Peace and Security
to ask us, "Are you respecting the non-proliferation treaties? This Government has not signed this treaty so you should not get involved in selling it a Candu reactor", for example. We agreed at that time with the Leader of the Opposition that it was not a matter of jobs because to sell a Candu reactor to India or Pakistan would have involved a lot of jobs. It was unanimous in this House that we should not do this because they did not sign the non-proliferation treaty. I think it was a valid and good consideration and Canadians never reproached the Government of the day for having principles in these matters and standing firm in refusing to sell Candu reactors to countries which did not want to sign this treaty. We lost jobs. We are still losing jobs. When we do not permit de Havilland to sell planes to countries like Libya, we could lose jobs, but there are some standards which must be met.
I just want to tell the Government, as friendly as I can, not to spoil a good announcement which was made on Saturday by trying to be sneaky. I do not think that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) will be the one who will do that. 1 urge him to make sure that the Canadian position in Canada and abroad will be very clear on that point, that we are not part of star wars or SDI development because it is a very important development. When this decision was made by President Reagan, and I want to use this forum today to talk about that, it was a unilateral decision. It was made with no consultation with the NATO countries. Every country was taken by surprise. When the problem came into the House, there was unanimity. The Secretary of State for External Affairs was the then Leader of the Opposition and he rose and spoke on behalf of his Party to say that we should not be part of SDL It was the same with the New Democratic Party. I know that the Right Hon. Minister does not like to change his mind.
He does not like to be forced to change his mind, so 1 appeal to him to remain consistent. He was right two years ago and I thought he was right on Saturday-I know he was right. I am afraid that some of his colleagues will try to do-now that the big political decision has been made officially-by the back door what the Minister said on Saturday was not to be done. This is one of the rare occasions when we have a Bill like this before us. I do not want to abuse the rules of the House of Commons-


Pauline Jewett: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Hon. Member is abusing the House. He does not know anything about the Bill obviously, so he is taking this occasion to talk about an extremely important matter on which 1 tried to get an emergency debate today. I was not successful but we will have a debate, I was assured by the Speaker, as a result of the first report of the joint committee. 1 really do think, therefore, that it is not the occasion-


Mr. Axworthy:: Oh?


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry, I really do think that the Canadian Institute for International Peace and Security, which is the subject of this debate today, deserves more respect than the

September 11, 1985
International Peace and Security
Hon. Member is giving to it by absolutely ignoring it. Therefore, he is totally out of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1 have finished, anyway, but I would like to
say-

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I want to say-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) on a point of order.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, I would make the same point of order as the one just raised by the Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett). I would remind Your Honour that on page 2 of the Bill one can read, under the heading "Role", namely the role to be played by the Institute, and I quote:
The role of the Institute is to increase the knowledge and understanding of questions related to international peace and security from a Canadian standpoint, particularly with respect to arms limitation, disarmament, defence and resolution of conflicts, and:
If that is not precisely what my colleague is doing-giving his viewpoint on disarmament issues to enlighten the public-I am wondering what it is!
1 would therefore ask Your Honour to put an end to those interruptions and let my colleague complete his remarks.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If Mr. Speaker does not intend to intervene, I will continue my remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien).


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: It is therefore my view that the point of order was not well taken, and I think I said at the outset, Mr. Speaker, and I repeat it, that I have no intention ... I believe this is a good piece of legislation. We established that institute, and when it was set up we tried to find a formula that would have its operations as far removed from partisanship as possible. There were amendments suggested from various quarters, and this is a completely non-partisan institute that is playing a positive role.
My party's task force on the problems I am discussing was given an opportunity to hear Mr. Pearson, the Executive Director of the institute, who submitted a very good brief. In my view, this is a very worthwhile institute.
However, I took the opportunity to caution the Minister, and I appreciated that opportunity. But now some doubts are arising, 72 hours later. I do not appreciate being tricked. There is an attempt at having Canadians believe we are not getting involved in the star wars, but then they are going to use taxpayers' money to finance programs that will do exactly what the Government said they would not do. We are fundamentally opposed to the star wars program. This is a unilateral program without consultation, a destabilizing program that
could result in a global catastrophe. I therefore felt, Mr. Speaker, that this was a good opportunity to warn the Minister, and I tell him that if they are trying to do through the back door what the Canadian people will not have them do through the front door, sparks are going to fly.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat unprepared also because I had no idea we were going to deal with this small Bill. But especially for the benefit of our new colleagues in the House, I think we should try to evoke the circumstances under which that Institute was set up in 1984.
You will recall . . . because, as 1 said, we have been caught unprepared, I am still looking for a quote by the Right Hon. Pierre Elliott Trudeau, the former Prime Minister of Canada, who dealt with this issue the day Parliament adjourned on June 29, 1984. I am glad changes have been made so that the English title is again consistent with the French title.
The Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence which I chaired had made a very long and exhaustive study of this issue which resulted in the creation of this very important Institute. We had decided at the time that its name would be as it is today. A number of things must have happened in the meantime, for Parliament adjourned, as you know, and the correction could not be made.
I am glad to report that witnesses from across Canada appeared before the Committee on which sat my honourable friend the NDP critic from British Columbia who was one of the most active women on the Committee.
I must add that it was also a painful experience which prompted our then Prime Minister, the Right Hon. Pierre Trudeau, to exclaim: "At long last, we have the Institute!". We have had to navigate a lot to obtain this Institute before the end of the session. In spite of that, I must say, and a number of my honourable friends will remember that we were pressed for time, because a few Members . . .1 like to recall these historical events. This way, at least, young Canadians who are coming of age will know about the workings of politics.
Although they were in favour of the Institute, a number of Members made every effort to delay its study, knowing that if the Institute was not set up by the end of June, it would never become reality. That is why I want the new chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence to know that these things can happen and that sometimes, although a bill introduced in the House may be quite good, there are people who will try indirectly ... 1 must say that those who tried to kill the Institute sat on the side of
September 11, 1985

the Opposition at the time and are now with the majority. The Institute was created nonetheless.
I want to take this opportunity to say that, when we were looking for someone to lead the Institute, the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party and myself suggested a few names. The name I had suggested from the beginning and which was rejected by everyone before being finally chosen was that of the son of the Right Hon. Prime Minister Lester B. Pearson, under whose leadership I was first elected. I am talking about Geoffrey Pearson, a great Canadian and former ambassador to the Soviet Union, who has now been chosen to head the Institute.
1 hope that the Institute, which will now be called in French Institut canadien pour la paix et la securite internationales, as it should have been from the start, will have no hesitation in using the independence which Parliament wished it to have. I know that, in this regard, I have the support of those who want the Institute to keep its independence and to carry out its research without regard to the political effects of its findings in Canada. That is the first aim of the Institute, and Parliament and all three political parties clearly wished that it would have the independence required when it was created. I know that there are difficult problems to be examined in various parts of the world. Since the creation of the Institute, we have had this issue of the SDI. I understand that there are negotiations going on to my left, but I do not want to lose the thread of my comments. Mr. Speaker, I would appreciate it if you would ask them to hold their conference outside. Mr. Minister, if you please-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: If I may call you back to order.. .


Marcel Prud'homme: Even if I was not advised of this debate, I have to follow some logical reasoning.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes ... the Hon. Member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) and the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault).


Marcel Prud'homme: As I was saying, first of all, we are glad that the Institute has now an appropriate name and we are going to support the proposal of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark). Second, we want to emphasize that this Institute was created as an autonomous body by Parliament and I hope that. Third, we wish Geoffrey Pearson, who will have to see to it that these studies are carried out properly, all the courage he will need to examine the real current issues. Among these, there is of course the issue of the so called Star Wars Project. I also hope that he will not hesitate to make the first step occasionally, as studies can be initiated either at the request of the Government or on the Institute's own initiative.
Well, I hope that the institute will enjoy that independence; I can never be too insistent that we should go forward even with respect to the most controversial issues, especially those
International Peace and Security
involving world peace or international peace with which Canada is not necessarily concerned as opposed to other parts of the world, whether in the Middle East, in Asia or in Latin America. We are looking forward to the results of some of the first studies. We will read them carefully and support them. I will support them because I know that if a group is given the necessary independence to carry on beyond political considerations, it can only publish excellent reports that will enlighten Canadians.
Mr. Speaker, I will not proceed any further but I would like to thank you for having recognized me even if I had just learned that we were going to consider the matter. Nevertheless, I was anxious to take part in this debate, because when I was chairman of the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence, and that was up to the very last day and practically the very last second of the previous Parliament, we had to struggle against what everyone thought were practically insurmountable odds.
I wish to thank the Members who were sitting on the committee at that time. I would like to mention the official critic for external affairs of the New Democratic Party (Ms. Jewett) who played her role as she always does. It was thanks to her co-operation and that of several Members of the new majority. I could refer to them specifically . .. On some future occasion I would like to elaborate on the work done by those Members who gave us their genuine support and who believed in what we wanted to do at the time. To be perfectly honest, no single party can take the credit and claim that it was thanks to the New Democrate or thanks to the Liberals that things got done.
There were Progressive Conservatives who had the wisdom and the intelligence to understand what this Institute would be able to do, and there were also those who were not very enthusiastic and who tried to delay consideration so the Institute would never become a reality.
That is what 1 wanted to say, first of all for the record, and second, when we have further occasions to consider international affairs, and I hope there will be many, I would like to have a chance to pay tribute to those Members of the new majority who were in the Opposition at the time and who also made an outstanding contribution to the creation of this Institute, which today has become a reality and will undertake studies, as I said earlier, on behalf of Canada, keep us better informed on major international problems and help us act responsibly when we are apprised of the conclusions of these studies. In any case, we will all act according to our own lights and act responsibly, even if the conclusions arrived at by some Members may be highly unpopular.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy).

September 1 1, 1985
International Peace and Security


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I too, would like to offer some comments on this very important institution we are debating this afternoon. 1 think there is a certain flow in the history of events of this country where certain institutions all of a sudden take on special meaning and significance for the Canadian public. I can recall that over a year and a half ago, when we were still in Government, we were discussing the kinds of initiatives which could be taken to give further force and direction to the issue of arms control. The necessity for the establishment of a centre which would co-ordinate a number of important research projects was considered to be of the highest priority. I think the wisdom of that step was demonstrated to me very actively during this past summer when I was part of the special joint House and Senate committee which was looking at the star wars issue. I had the experience of observing the concern, care and interest of a large representation of Canadians which was expressed before that committee. I saw the necessity to have an outlet in this country for those cares and concerns.
We do not talk about peace and arms control in this country in much detail. However, I am reminded of the testimony of representatives of a group called Educators for Social Responsibility which is basically a group of high school teachers from across Canada who are interested in the issues of arms control and disarmament. We asked them where and how young people in high schools could discuss the vital issue of peace and they said that that did not take place in the schools because most teachers are afraid to bring forward such controversial topics as arms control in the classroom.
To my mind, Mr. Speaker, it is shocking that in the schools of this country it is difficult for teachers who are interested and involved to provide the forum in which young people can discuss an issue so vital to themselves and their futures. When we probed a little deeper we found that that intimidation was by school boards, administration, parents, and the community. It is considered to be a topic which is too sensitive to handle. It is considered to be a political topic and, of course, we neutralize our schools and do not want them to talk about politics. However, there are too many strong feelings on both sides. One teacher who was part of the delegation said that if he spoke in his classroom about the issues of peace and arms control, people would say he say a "pinko" and not a good hardliner like he is supposed to be. That is a more respectable position to take. The testimony of the educators was that on issues which are essential to survival and to the future there is a paucity of information, a lack of opportunity for discussion, and a lack of opportunity for people going through our school system to become aware and informed about them through good material and programs.
My caucus colleague from Saint-Denis said he hopes there will be lots of studies. We do need studies. There are many experts in the country and studies will certainly help Parliamentarians, bureaucrats, strategists, and the Armed Forces.
God knows we can all use some help in coming to grips with these issues. I think this House has paid too little attention to them. I hope that the institute will not just do studies for the Ottawa crowd and expert analyses for the policy makers. 1 hope that the institute will undertake a more populist approach and use the resources which are given to it to disseminate information across the country into the schools, community clubs, and churches, and make it respectable to talk about peace in this country on a learned, informed basis. With that kind of underlying foundation of well-developed opinion and judgment we may ultimately get better foreign policies and results. I think it is essential that Parliamentarians have the opportunity to put forward what we think the agenda of the institute should be. Parliamentarians should learn from our experiences.


Pauline Jewett: They will do their own agenda.


Lloyd Axworthy: I find that a highly elitist point of view, which is perhaps typical of the NDP-


Pauline Jewett: I want them to be independent.


Lloyd Axworthy: -that they will set their own agenda and that Members of Parliament are forbidden to offer opinions and to express their heartfelt hopes and aspirations for this institute. After all, it was Parliament that established it. The previous Government put it in place and Members of Parliament voted for it, but now it is being taken over by the in-house crowd so that they can all get together. That is not what should take place. I think it would be a serious mistake if the Peace Institute became a little green house factory-


Pauline Jewett: You don't know anything about it.


Lloyd Axworthy: -for people to do their own inside studies. Mr. Speaker, I want to say to the Member that I know an awful lot more about it than she does because I was in the Cabinet that put this into place and decided, so don't tell me that I don't know anything about it.


Pauline Jewett: You didn't even know about cruise missile testing when you were in the Cabinet. You didn't know anything when you were in the Cabinet.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


Mr. Beatty:: Mr. Speaker, this is very unseemly.


Lloyd Axworthy: It is very unseemly, but it is also very important. I know the Conservative Members are not particularly interested in this Bill because it is not of their own creation and they are houseworking on something that is very important, but let us talk about what we are saying is an important priority. I know the Member for New Westminster (Ms. Jewett) is not interested in a populist approach to these issues. That is too bad because her and her cosy club of friends would not want to share with the public at large. I think that that kind of elitism has been part of the problem with the making of foreign policy in this country. Part of the difficulty
September 11, 1985

has been that it has been an insiders' club. It has been too much contained within the boundaries of this city and is considered to be an exclusive preserve of those who have acquired the aura and majesty of being "foreign policy experts" like the Member for New Westminster pretends to be.
At this point in time this institute can do something much more dramatic and profound for Canadians. There are thousands of Canadians who want the information. I recall when the Educators for Special Responsibility brought a small document they had prepared before task force committee hearings. It was a very simple document which made a comparison between the various arms levels of the Soviet Union and the NATO alliance. It compared the number of ships, missiles, submarines, guns, and tanks. One of the important things about it is that it obviously disputed the kind of phobia which is too common and current in this country among people who say that there is some kind of a red menace hiding out there and that there is a great missile, tank, or airplane gap. The paper provided basic information to show where there is parity and equilibrium in the arms area. It also pointed out the potential for use.
When Members of Parliament go to high schools in their ridings and talk to students they will find that that is the kind of information they would like to have. If that information were shared with students we would be able to develop a public outlook which would give foreign policy the momentum which it desperately needs.
In the statement by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on star wars on Saturday he missed the whole point. He said he is not going to get into the program but he did not understand why Canadians were opposed to it. They are opposed to it because they want this country to become a major peace seeker. They want this country to say a definitive no to star wars and to undertake other initiatives in the arms control area. They want to stop the new generation of arms development which star wars represents, a switch from a deterrent philosophy to a defence philosophy, which will bring the militarization of North America into place. They understand that. The Peace Institute now has the opportunity to provide the glaring light of good information and judgment that can be widely shared by all Canadians. That is why I feel it is important that we try to provide that kind of suggestion in this Parliament. I hope the Peace Institute or someone out there might be listening.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
RCMP Act


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and, by unanimous consent, the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Charest in the chair.
Clauses 1 to 10 inclusive agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported, read the third time and passed.

Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to a legislative commitee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to open the debate on second reading of Bill C-65, the Bill to amend the RCMP Act. The Bill is the result of a long review within the RCMP and among other Government Departments in which procedures for handling public complaints, internal discipline and grievance procedures within the RCMP were thoroughly examined. My friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), was commenting to me before we began discussion of this Bill that this is the seventh effort that has been made for a Bill similar to this to be introduced in the House of Commons in the hope of getting it passed. I can certainly indicate that the process of review and study which has taken place over the years has been extensive and exhaustive.
Among other things, the proposed legislation will firmly entrench the rights of members of the Force with respect to matters like internal discipline and grievances, including the right to be represented by counsel at internal hearings within the Force. As important as this is, the Bill also ensures an equitable and independent process for dealing with complaints made by the public against members of the Force.

Mr. Speaker, many of the proposals contained in this Bill are based on the recommendations made by the Commission of Inquiry on public complaints, internal discipline and grievance procedures within the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Commission was chaired by Judge Rene Marin of the Ontario County and District Courts.

I had the pleasure in my previous incarnation as the Minister responsible for Canada Post Corporation of working with Judge Marin who is currently Chairman of Canada Post Corporation, and in that capacity developed a very deep regard for his ability and his dedication to public service. It is perhaps ironic that the first Bill I would bring forward in my new capacity would be a Bill which had its root in the Marin Commission which produced its report on January 16, 1976. The report's recommendations are characterized by a remedial approach which seeks to ensure that the rights of citizens and members of the Force are clearly respected. Its findings and

September 11, 1985
RCMP Act
recommendations included measures relating to public complaints, internal discipline and grievance procedures.
When the Government received the Marin Report, it set up an interdepartmental committee of officials to co-ordinate and review implementation of recommendations. The interdepartmental committee concluded that a modernization of the RCMP Act and regulations was needed to reflect current times and changes in the Force's management. A significant concern of the committee was to maintain a balance between the needs and interests of the public and members of the RCMP, and the responsibilities of those charged with the management and continued effectiveness of the Force. Of the 135 total recommendations, 122 were accepted in whole or in part. Bill C-65 is the product of this process of fundamental reappraisal. The Bill addresses the essential themes of the Marin Commission in a number of innovative and effective ways.
The proposed RCMP Act set out in Bill C-65 is in eight parts. Let me briefly provide the House with an overview of the essential elements of each of these with the hope that the clearer understanding of these proposals can be achieved.
One of the most important proposed amendments to the RCMP Act is the manner in which it provides for the handling of public complaints against RCMP members. Bill C-65 proposes the creation of a Public Complaints Commission, an independent and impartial authority, which would be outside the structure of the RCMP. The major proponent for the establishment of such a body, I am pleased to say, has been Force management itself. The provinces also view public complaints as an extremely important issue. This is especially true for the eight provinces and two territories that contract for the use of the Force to provide policing services. As judicial decisions have ruled that the provinces cannot conduct investigations into the administration and management of the Force for constitutional reasons, the Public Complaints Commission becomes an avenue for ensuring that complaints are adequately investigated, that members of the Force whose behaviour has been found unacceptable are disciplined.
The Public Complaints Commission would consist of a chairman, a vice-chairman, a member for each contracting province and not more than three other members, all to be appointed by the Governor in Council. The fact of provincial representation means that the commission will be a truly national body. Members of the commission for contract provinces and territories will be empanelled to review complaints against the conduct of members of the RCMP providing provincial or municipal policing services under contract.
Let me digress briefly to say that in earlier versions of the Bill, concerns were expressed by the contracting provinces, suggesting that they should have the authority through provincial police commissions to locally investigate complaints addressed by residents of that province against members of the RCMP acting in their capacity as a contracting Force. Obviously, the Government recognizes the need to ensure that there is indeed provincial input where there are complaints relating to the Force's provincial activity. At the same time, the Force
is a national Force. It is important for us to ensure that national standards are followed and that a member of the Force who is operating in British Columbia is treated in the same way as a member of the Force would be if he were operating in Saskatchewan or New Brunswick.
What the Government hopes to do with this provision is to ensure that we integrate the concerns of the provinces, that the provinces have a right to be heard when complaints are raised but also that national standards are met as well. What this provision will ensure is where a complaint is raised, the nominee of the provincial Government will be able to be present. He may well be the only member of the complaints commission who sits at the hearing. I think this is a measure that will help to reconcile the various concerns that we find arising in our federal system.

In addition, the Bill describes the procedure to be followed with respect to public complaints. Any citizen, whether or not he is involved under what constitutes the complaint, will be able to file a complaint directly with the board, a member of the RCMP or the provincial authority concerned. Normally, complaints will lead to an investigation by the RCMP. However, if in the opinion of its chairman a public hearing is in the public interest, the Commission may hold a public hearing to inquire into the complaint whether or not the RCMP has investigated it. The mandate of the Commission is to make recommendations to the Solicitor General and to the Commissioner.

I see the establishment of the public complaints commission an an amendment of paramount importance. It is a contemporary response to a need for objective, open and fair handling of complaints against RCMP members in a manner which will command public confidence.
What I view as the other most significant amendment is the creation of an external review committee. It will be made up of five members appointed by the Governor in Council. This committee, in an unprecedented way, will guarantee the rights of RCMP members themselves and will ensure to Parliament and to Canadians at large that individual members of the Force are dealt with fairly. This review authority will be external to the RCMP, independent of it, and will be able to look into certain grievance decisions, formal disciplinary sanctions and discharge or demotions.

After a review of the file, with a hearing if necessary, the Commission will submit its recommendations to the RCMP Commissioner. The Commission will be empowered to call and swear in witnesses and to take testimonies under oath. In cases where a hearing is required, the Commission will be authorized to travel and set its own practice and proceeding rules.
September 11, 1985

The Commission will submit its annual report to me so it can be presented to Parliament.

1 believe that such an external review committee is an invaluable mechanism for ensuring to the Commissioner an impartial review of all issues. Such a committee is extremely important because its proceedings and recommendations will be open to scrutiny.
Part III of the Bill outlines the procedures for the handling and deciding of grievances for RCMP members, by which any member may grieve any act or omission in the administration of the affairs of the Force if no other process of redress exists.
What the Bill seeks to do in this area is to guarantee by statute an equitable grievance procedure. By these proposals, members will have an inalienable right to a hearing for any inequities they perceive to apply to them. To ensure full and informed grievances are presented, a member will be given complete access to the process without fear of reprisal, including all necessary policy documentation and the assistance of a representative for the preparation of any grievance. The Governor in Council prescribes certain types or classes of grievances which may be submitted by any member to the review committee after having exhausted the various appeal levels determined by the Commissioner.
Historically, a disciplinary process has always existed within the RCMP. The unprecedented addition to this process to be made by Part IV, of Bill C-65 is the definition in statute of what is expected of Force members in a set of standards of conduct. These standards are also intended to ensure full public confidence in the administration of the Force.
[ Translation]
Along with these standards, a Code of Conduct will be implemented in the regulations. Any contravention to the Code by a member of the RCMP will be the object of an investigation and will be dealt with in the manner prescribed in the Bill. The Code of Conduct is not included in the Bill but it will be in the regulations so that the RCMP will be able to adjust to the verious circumstances by requesting if need be, that amendments be made to the regulations. A contravention to the Code of Conduct may be treated formally or informally, depending on its seriousness.

Minor contraventions of the code of conduct will be dealt with informally, by minor sanctions, including recommendations for special training, professional counselling or direction to work under close supervision, or reprimand. Appeal procedures will be available for the more severe of these disciplinary actions.
Formal discipline, for more serious breaches of the code of conduct, will be dealt with in a formalized disciplinary hearing. Hearings will be presided over by an appointed adjudication board of three officers, one of whom will be legally trained. Hearings will take place with a number of judicial safeguards to guarantee due process.
RCMP Act
There will be occasions when it will be necessary to deal with a member who may no longer be considered suitable to continue to perform his duties. The Bill would enshrine in law a formal and open process to be applied in deciding on unsuitability, the one ground being repeated failure to perform the required duties. Again, the member in question has the right to know fully the particulars for recommending his discharge or demotion, the right to be represented, and in such cases, the right to have a discharge and demotion board set up to decide the issue. The remaining sections of the Bill provide for matters of constitution and organization and miscellaneous provisions.
I might disgress just briefly, Mr. Speaker, to give an assurance to the House, and particularly to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby who served with me on the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I noted in reviewing the Bill that there were provisions made for the Governor in Council to make regulations which would flesh out the provisions included in the Bill. We believe those provisions are necessary.
As the Hon. Member knows, there is a long-standing concern that members of the Standing Joint Committee have about the so-called magic formula, where the Government in previous years has taken the position that unless the phrase "by order" is included in that particular section, the regulations that result from that might not be deemed to be statutory instruments, might not be required to be published, might not be required to be made available to the standing joint committee.
I give the House the assurance today that the Government will itself propose in committee, in any instance where we are seeking to give authority to the Governor in Council, to make regulations that the so-called magic formula will be inserted there as well to protect the the rights of Parliament and the rights of the public.
Let me conclude. I am satisfied that the proposed revisions to the RCMP Act have been thoroughly examined and the necessity for the implementation of these provisions has been well established. The recommendations of the Marin Commission are substantially implemented in this Act and considerable time and effort has been invested in developing revisions that will support and further the work of the RCMP and adequately preserve the delicate balance between the protection of the rights of the public and the individual members of the RCMP.
I have appreciated the discussions that I have had with my colleagues opposite and the interests they have taken in the provisions of the Bill. I know members of the Force, members of the public and certainly members of the contracting provinces as well will appreciate any co-operation that can be given by the House in speedy passage of this Bill. I undertake, again, voluntarily at this point, that the Government will listen with an open mind, to a legislative committee, to technical proposals that are made by colleagues to improve the Bill should some come up. We welcome input from Members on all sides of the House.

September 11, 1985
RCMP Act


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr, Speaker, I would like to begin by congratulating the Minister for his recent appointment as the new Solicitor General of Canada. I am sure he will serve the position well. I am also certain that as long as he does not hold any private meetings at any hotels in town he will survive.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: Bill C-65 is an extremely important piece of legislation. I would like to indicate at the outset that the Official Opposition supports the Bill in principle. A number of concerns might be raised with respect to the complaints procedure outlined in the particular Bill. Specifically, there are six concerns or issues which I feel ought to be addressed at committee stage. Indeed, we look forward to a very thorough investigation of the Bill at that stage.
The first concern or issue at which one ought to look is the definition of a complaint provided in the proposed legislation. The Marin Commission provided a more expanded definition of exactly what is a complaint. I will have more to say on the six points which I will raise at this time.
The second concern is with respect to the model of the complaints commission which was adopted by the Government. The Marin Commission recommended a police ombudsman, a single individual, to deal with complaints against the RCMP. Certain individuals have proposed other models, and I should like to discuss some of them today as well.
The third issue at which one ought to look is the powers of the public complaints commission. As the Minister indicated, the commission has the authority under the proposed legislation to make recommendations to the Commissioner and to the Minister. The commission does not have the authority to make final decisions, nor does it have any authority to conduct its own independent investigation. The Act provides that the RCMP will continue to conduct investigations into complaints by members of the public. Some would argue that the commission or the complaints procedure should provide for independent investigation of police complaints.
The fourth issue which ought to be addressed at committee stage is the size of the commission. As I indicated, the Marin Commission recommended that there be a police ombudsman, a single individual.
The legislation provides for a commission consisting of 12 individuals. As the Minister pointed out, four of those individuals would be appointed by Order in Council by the federal Government. The other eight would also be appointed by the federal Government in consultation with the eight contracting provices. It is also important to determine whether it is economical and appropriate to have such a large commission, whether indeed it is necessary to have 12 members. As the Minister indicated, there appeared to be a need or desire on the part of the contracting provinces to have some input
into a complaints system or commission. I suppose the reason for the commission being so large is to accommodate the concerns of the various contracting provinces to ensure that they have some input.
The fifth concern which ought to be considered is the powers of the commission to hold in camera meetings. The legislation provides that under certain circumstances the commission could decide to hold in camera meetings. I should like to discuss that point later in my comments.
The sixth issue which I feel ought to be considered is the right of the Commissioner to refuse or to terminate an investigation. One could argue that too much power is vested in the Commissioner to deal with complaints against the force.
As I indicated at the outset, Bill C-65 is an important piece of legislation. It is virtually identical to other legislation which was introduced by the previous administration. The public has waited a long time for this particular piece of legislation with respect to the formal complaints procedure. Members of the force have waited a long period of time for that aspect of Bill C-65 which deals with internal grievance and discipline procedures. In my view the Bill will go a long way toward improving morale in what I consider to be the finest police force anywhere in the world.
I am not sure whether Hon. Members have stopped to think about it, but Canada is one of the few countries in the world, if not the only country, where a police force is identified as a national symbol. That says a lot about this country where we cherish above all else, peace, order and good Government. However, it says even more about the RCMP, its history, its record and its vital contribution to Canadian nationhood. The many tales of heroism and the quiet devotion to duty by individual RCMP officers form some of the most colourful stories in our history. As a nation, we owe them a great debt of gratitude, more perhaps than many of us appreciate on a daily basis. Of course the responsibilities of the RCMP have mushroomed since Sir John A. Macdonald decided in 1873 that a police force was necessary to keep law and order in the Canadian west.
Today the RCMP works to prevent, detect and investigate offences against federal statutes. Its members enforce laws, prevent and detect crimes, investigate offences, and maintain law and order in the provinces, territories and municipalities under contract. They work to improve police-community relations. They maintain internal security. They provide investigative and protective services to other federal Departments and agencies. Finally, they assist, upon request, all Canadian law enforcement agencies by providing specialized police training, forensic laboratory identification and information services.
Like any other organization which has seen fairly rapid expansion, as is the case with the RCMP, the RCMP has had its share of organizational and administration difficulties. Some of its problems were dealt with by the Macdonald Commission which recommended that the national security component of the RCMP be split from the force and delegated to a separate civilian agency. Other problems were examined by Judge Rene Marin in his commission of inquiry relating to
September 11, 1985

public complaints, internal discipline and grievance procedures within the RCMP.
As the Minister indicated, the report was commissioned in 1974 and it was released in early 1976. However, unfortunately it has taken a great deal of time to reach the floor of the House of Commons for debate. There is little doubt that the Bill has been on the legislative backburner for far too long. The first Bill, Bill C-19, based on the Marin report was introduced in 1978 during the third session of the thirtieth Parliament by the Hon. Jean-Jacques Blais, Solicitor General. It was followed subsequently by another Bill, Bill C-50, also introduced by Mr. Blais in the fourth session of Parliament.
Another Bill, Bill C-69, based on the Marin report was introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), in the first session of the thirty-second Parliament. The same Bill was reintroduced during the second session of the thirty-second Parliament as Bill C-13, which was virtually identical to the Bill before us today. With time running out for the thirty-second Parliament, Bill C-13 was introduced in the Senate. Although it was debated and considered in committee, it died on the Order Paper. Essentially the measure which we are considering is a Liberal piece of legislation.
While we are supportive of the objectives of this legislation, we on this side of the House would also like to see it pass in the best form possible. I think we can and should approach this Bill in a spirit of non-partisanship.
As we know, and as the Minister indicated, the Bill has two main objectives. It proposes the establishment of a public complaints commission, and it also seeks to update the internal discipline and grievance procedures within the force.
The public complaints commission is intended as an external and independent authority composed of a permanent chairman and up to 12 members, as I indicated earlier.
Under the legislation any member of the public, whether or not he or she is affected by the subject matter of the complaint, will be able to file a complaint with the commission, with any member of the RCMP or with the provincial agency responsible for the receipt and investigation of public complaints against the police. The Bill also circumscribes the commission's authority in so far as they are limited to making recommendations to the Commissioner of the RCMP. The Bill also provides for the complainant and the Minister to receive a report on the outcome of the complaints.
As 1 indicated, I think we should approach this Bill in a spirit of non-partisanship. After all, what we are attempting to do is to find the proper administrative mechanics to deal with the problems before us. As such, there are a number of suggestions I would like to offer. In my view, for instance, the section dealing with the definition of a public complaint is rather restrictive. Part VII of the Bill, Section 45.35(1) states the following:
RCMP Act
Any member of the public having a complaint concerning the conduct of any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of this Act may, whether or not he is affected by the subject matter of the complaint, make the complaint-
The operatives words are in Subsection (1) which states, "the conduct of any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of this Act".
As I indicated earlier, the Marin Commission offered a much broader definition which I think is the sort of approach we should be taking in this particular Bill. After all, members of the public have to be assured that if they do have a complaint, they are not going to be tripped up in the process by an overly restrictive definition of what constitutes a complaint.
The Marin Commission offers a more expanded definition of a public complaint. The report reads:
-any communication received from a member of the public, either orally or in writing, which criticizes the behaviour of a member of the force or alleges the failure of the force itself to meet public expectations.
The commission suggested that complaints received by the force could be divided into two categories: first, complaints alleging specific injury or abuse by a member or members of the force; and second, complaints of a more general nature such as matters of police service or the operational policies of the force.
The manner in which the legislation is presently worded, for instance, precludes a person from complaining to the force if he or she feels that certain RCMP policies or administrations are not effective or appropriate. If a person lives in a remote community and feels that the force has allocated insufficient resources to police that particular area, then that person, under the proposed legislation, is not entitled to complain. The question of high-speed chases has attracted considerable attention lately as well. This Bill would not allow someone to complain about RCMP procedures in that respect.
Obviously there is a balance that must be reached if the interests of the general public and the interests of the force are to be respected. The last thing any of us would want to see is a system which encourages complaints for the sake of complaints. Having said that, however, we must make sure that if legitimate complaints do exists, they are considered and dealt with.
One of the problems the Marin Commission discovered was that many people are reluctant to bring their complaints to the attention of the force. Among the reasons given to the commission were that the person involved did not know how to bring the complaint to the attention of the force and that some felt that a complaint would do no good since the force would simply cover it up. Others felt that retaliation in some form by the force would follow the lodging of a complaint. As well, some people who sought the advice of friends were discouraged from filing a complaint.
I think our object in connection with this aspect of the legislation must be to make the procedures as open as possible. I think that that is the only way one can instil public confidence in this type of a system.

September 11, 1985
RCMP Act
Another issue that I would like to raise in connection with this Bill is the proposal in the complaint mechanism to have the force investigate itself. For example, we see in Section 45.36(4) that any complaint which is not disposed of informally is to be investigated by the force subject to Section 45.38. This Section states:
The Commissioner may make rules governing the procedures to be followed by the force in notifying persons under this Part and in investigating, disposing of or otherwise dealing with complaints under this Part.
It would seem to me that this tends to give quite a bit of authority to the Commissioner. I do not doubt for a moment that the Commissioner would be totally circumspect in discharging this duty if it is given to him. However, in my view we must be concerned about the public's perception of the police investigating themselves.
As many Members may know, Professor Allan Grant of Osgoode Hall Law School, a former professor of mine, has done considerable work in the area of the control of police behaviour. Professor Grant is a former police officer and is renowned throughout the world for his expertise in this particular area. He has developed a number of models involving the external and internal functions of investigation, adjudication and discipline. My own predisposition is toward an independent investigation with external adjudication and discipline. It would seem to me that this would make the process meet the twin tests of Caesar's wife which are to be not merely above reproach but also appearing to be above reproach. In fact, I have a number of questions regarding some of the details of this Bill which I am looking forward to raising in committee.
In connection with the need for independence, the Marin Commission offered as a recommendation the establishment of the office of police ombudsman. From the point of view of independence, I am attracted to that recommendation. As I indicated earlier, the fact that a 12-member commission is recommended in this legislation might cause some concern. It is my understanding that the reason the legislation was drafted in this manner was to placate the provinces which wanted
some representation on any body set up to deal with complaints. I think we should take a hard look at this justification to determine whether or not it is cost effective and in the public interest. After all, if we can get the job done with a minimum of resources, I think that Hon. Members opposite would agree that we should opt for this route.
I think there is a lot to commend the office of the ombudsman. First, the ombudsman derives his authority from and is answerable to Parliament. Second, he has powers to investigate all administrative but not legislative decisions. Finally, he has the power to criticize administrative decisions and recommend change. He does not have the authority, however, to reverse administrative decisions or to mete out discipline.
There are many other aspects of the public complaints commission about which I am concerned, but I note that time is running short. Another concern that was raised by a number of members of my caucus was the fact that a time limit was not put on dealing with a particular complaint. The legislation provides that a complainant is to be notified of the status of a particular complaint after 45 days, I believe, and to be advised of the status every month thereafter. However, there is no time limit with respect to how long it should take to investigate completely a complaint that is issued by a member of the public. As the old maxim states, justice delayed is justice denied. I am sure that an advisable and appropriate change to this legislation could result in a time limit being put on the investigation and disposition of a complaint made by a member of the public.
I would now like to deal for a few moments with the other major section of the Bill which contains provisions for revised discipline and grievance procedures and which formalizes rights for members of the force in these matters. I note that the time has expired for today and I look forward to continuing my remarks in the morning.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being six o'clock, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, September 12, 1985