1985-04-15

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, April 2, consideration of the motion of Mr. Masse that Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Mr. Speaker:: Before 1 recognize the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) for debate, may I indicate to him and to the House that there is a ruling 1 will be delivering later this morning. Unfortunately, it is not ready at this moment. 1 suggest therefore that the Hon. Member resume debate and I will be back later with the ruling requested by the Hon. Member.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have almost completed my remarks, but I was interested in the ruling which the Chair has indicated will be given later today concerning the appropriateness of this Bill since it was introduced as a Government Bill. It attempts to amend a series of what were Private Members' Bills. In light of that I wonder whether the Bill itself should not have been introduced as a Private Member's Bill and argued as a consequence under Private Members' Business instead of taking up the regular time of the House.
The Bill itself is seen by us on this side at least as an effort by Bell Canada to reorganize itself in a manner, as I was saying on April 2 when the debate began, so as to change the structure of the Corporation to make it possible for Bell Canada to omit the cross-subsidization that now occurs between ordinary users of telephones and those heavy users who are in business in the large metropolitan areas.
As you will know, Mr. Speaker, and as many people in my riding are very much aware, there is a move being contemplated by CN-CP. We think perhaps there is a move by CN-CP to get a hold of the very lucrative long distance, big business part of the communications network. Bell Canada would like to be able to supply services between the very large centres and very large businesses. Bell would be prepared to grant reduced rates
for high volumes which are evident in the very large metropolitan areas and Bell could offer a lower per unit rate.
What we think Bell is attempting to do by reorganizing itself is to set itself up into a structure that would permit Bell to put its ordinary household telephone service into a separate corporation which would not have the benefit of cross-subsidization available from the very lucrative long distance business rate. It would mean in the end that users of telephones-and this is of great concern to people in my area because they tend to be by Canadian standards in rather remote communities, small communities-would be left in the position of having to pay two, three or four times more for the use of a telephone and some of them will find they will not be able to afford to keep their telephones. It is a question even in very large urban areas as to whether people who are currently on welfare, or on pensions eroded by inflation, will be able to keep telephones. It is extremely important for those people to be as close as the end of the telephone to their neighbours and to services for their medical, social, or commercial needs.
We think the move by Bell Canada to break itself into very small units is not something in the public interest. As I said in my remarks on April 2, we have seen this kind of thing happen with the CPR which gradually divested itself of all its very profitable business and left itself essentially with just the railway part of the business which is perceived as a public service. As a result the public purse is subjected to calls upon it to provide subsidies to keep a very necessary public service going. We fear that is a project Bell Canada has in mind; that Bell is attempting, through the use of telephones in homes, something Bell realizes the public will not forgo, to put itself in a good position to raid the public treasury through the CRTC, which for political reasons would obviously require that the service continue to be supplied.
We think Bell Canada should continue to stay in the organizational structure it now has, to use some of its very profitable subsections of its business to subsidize the over-all community. This is not just because we are stubborn and want to hold things up; it is because we think it makes good economic sense to have sources of long distance business located in every household, whether that household is made up of old age pensioners, welfare recipients, or people living in remote communities.
We urge this House to defeat this Bill. We urge the Government to withdraw it and permit those remote communities and the people on lower incomes to have complete access to the full service available to them now.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there any questions or comments? Debate.
3696

April 15, 1985
Bell Canada Act
MO)


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, I do not plan to take a lot of time discussing Bill C-19 today, but I have a few thoughts which I would like to put on the record. Obviously this specific legislation is extremely important in terms of the Government's legislative timetable. However, I believe there is a great deal more associated with the points of this Bill than perhaps meets the eye at first glance.
The way I see it, Bell Canada has been operating in a monopolistic situation for some time. It is highly regulated by Government. Government hears representations on a regular and frequent basis by which Bell makes the case that a certain profit is necessary for the continuation of its service. We appreciate that. We understand the need for that general approach. However, when Bell Canada indicates that it must have a return of 15 per cent, 18 per cent or 20 per cent on its investment, then we begin to have some concerns. During these difficult economic times, many sectors of the economy do not have such returns on their investments. Perhaps they are fortunate if they have any return at all in certain sectors. But that is not the issue.
Over the years Bell Canada has operated within a highly regulated environment and has been guaranteed a profit. After years and years of that particular approach, we see quite a radical and substantial departure from that process. While Bell Canada expects to receive its profits in terms of the telephone system and the service it provides, it now wants to take those substantial profits and invest them into other enterprises.
I ask the House to give some thought to this notion. On the one hand we are saying to Canadians that we will permit this corporation to be guaranteed a profit from its provision of telephone services, a substantial and decent profit at that. On the other hand, rather than seeing that profit reinvested into new telecommunications research and development programs, into better ways to provide service to Canadians, or seeing those profits returned to its shareholders, we are saying that Bell can take the profit and put it into some other venture at its discretion or choosing.
I remember another corporation which went through a similar process over the years, and that is our friend, Canadian Pacific.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: Friend?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I use that term loosely. Canadian Pacific, again a highly regulated corporation providing in a sense a monopoly service in vast parts of the land and guaranteed profits, has been allowed over the years to take the profits from that monopolistic situation and reinvest them in a variety of economic pursuits.
The people of Canada are providing those profits. Is it unrealistic to expect at least a certain portion of those profits to be either reinvested in research and development in the telephone service or to provide a lowering of rates? We are here as parliamentarians not to find ways and means for Bell
Canada to make more profits. That is not our role. Our role involves a multitude of purposes, one of which is to ensure that the people receiving a service from Bell Canada and paying a particular rate for that service are getting a reasonable deal.
[DOT] (MIS)
When I hear a request from the new Government to allow those profits which accumulate year after year not to be reinvested for improved service or be used for decreasing rates, but to be used for Bell Canada to get involved in a number of economic pursuits, I wonder if we are doing our job. I wonder if the taxpayers of Canada are requiring us to support this kind of legislation which is here for no other purpose than to allow Bell Canada to invest in a variety of other areas.
This is taking place because we as a country have no over-all telecommunications policy. One area in which we take some pride is in fact the telecommunications area. We say that Canada is on the leading edge of a number of technologies in the telecommunications area, yet we are absolutely vacant of any over-all telecommunications policy. We are the second largest country in the world with people strung out along the southern boundary. There are hundreds of thousands of kilometres across this country. To have no telecommunications policy seems to be a real shortcoming.
To be introducing legislation like Bill C-19 in the absence of this over-all, blanket, long-term telecommunications policy seems to really be a case of the cart before the horse. In what context are we to make our decision? What is it we are attempting to do with this Bill? When it was introduced, this Bill simply said that all of the changes had been made and now they have to be legalized. The Government has made all of the changes. Bell Canada came to it with a number of requests and it has now met every request that it raised before it. The Government then said: "Oh my gosh, there were other requests, other groups making comments. The CRTC, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Bureau of Competition Policy and many other intervenors were concerned". The Government ignored all of those folks and all of those groups as well as all of the representations they made and listened carefully to what Bell Canada wanted. It has given Bell everything it requested.
I ask Hon. Members who are assembled here today on our first day back from the short recess whether we are doing our job if we simply put into practice all of the requests made by a corporation in Canada and ignore the representations made by so many individuals, groups and agencies. If we pass this Bill, that is essentially what we are doing. One could raise the point as to whether we are doing our job if we allow this legislation to pass with very little discussion and debate as it moves to committee stage.
I appreciate that this is simply a discussion of the principle of the Bill. We will have an opportunity as soon as it leaves this House and goes to committee to look at some of the particulars. However, this is the time when the particulars at least have to be flagged. We want to hear from Hon. Members on the Government side that they are concerned about A, B, C
April 15, 1985

and D and that they want to examine them with witnesses in committee. However, that is not what we are hearing. We are hearing no debate, just a muteness rising from the benches of the Government. This is a serious oversight.


Mr. Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: We just want to hear what you fellows have to say.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 1 appreciate the point that the Hon. Member makes, that they want to hear what the various Opposition Members have to say. That is a fair comment. We do want to say that we are particularly concerned about the lack of research and development in the telecommunications industry, something this Bill fails to come to grips with. As parliamentarians, we have all had over our desks numerous articles and reports about the fact that research and development in the telecommunications field is moving southward, whether it is Northern Telecom or any other corporation that may be involved. More and more of our research and development is being moved southward. It is something that we as Canadians ought to become very concerned about.
This Bill is an opportunity to recognize that particular, apparent process and to require Bell Canada to take some initiative, to take some aggressive steps in terms of guaranteeing that research and development in this critical telecommunications field will in fact continue in Canada. Let us recognize what is going on. More and more often we are seeing corporations moving from regulated areas into non-regulated areas. We are seeing them using profits that they have accumulated in the regulated areas to reinvest into other areas. While this diversification has some good points, and there is no question about that, there are also some very insidious concerns that are being raised by this process.
Earlier today the Government announced regulations to change the financial institutions of Canada quite substantially. For example, a trust company that was unable to get involved with major loans of a commercial nature will now perhaps have the opportunity to open up a bank and call it a trust company bank. There will be another entire set of banks called Schedule C banks in the system. Again, this allows diversification of interest.
With that kind of movement in the market-place arises a certain concentration of power. There are few western industrialized countries that allow for the concentration of economic and financial power as we do here in Canada. The Bill before us and the announcements made by the Government today have indicated that there will be a concentration of power. Trans-national, multinational and national corporations will move into a variety of other economic interests.
We as parliamentarians have a responsibility to the people of Canada. We must ask ourselves if this Bill is in the best interest of the people of Canada. We must ask ourselves if this Bill will provide for better phone service for the people of Canada. The speakers to whom I have listened and the reports which I have read would indicate that it is not clear whether or
Bell Canada Act
not this is necessarily the case. As a matter of fact, it looks as though this is part of the process that will result in higher rates for local phone calls.
I would like to conclude my remarks by saying that this Bill gives Bell Canada virtually everything it wants. Bell Canada officials could probably have written this Bill themselves.


Mr. Orlikow:: They probably did.


Nelson Andrew Riis: My friend, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), says that they probably did. Nevertheless, they laid out a list of requirements that they would like to see put into legislation. This legislation gives them virtually everything they asked for.
This legislation is being enacted in the absence of any over-all telecommunications policy, and that is really a failure in the development of public policy, particularly in the critical area of telecommunications where there is a great deal of change and where Canada plays a significant role in the international community. This area is very critical in a country as large as ours. Again, I am afraid I must cast some aspersions not only on the present Government but also on my Liberal colleagues. When they were in power for such a long period of time, this critical piece of public legislation was either overlooked or simply never dealt with.
My other concern is that the profits of Bell Canada as they relate to its telephone system do not necessarily go back to the subscribers in any way. The subscribers pay more and more to guarantee a return to the corporation. Do subscribers receive improved service? Do they receive any of the benefits from more efficient systems? Indirectly they do, but financially, they certainly do not. Do subscribers benefit from new and additional research and development? Not necessarily. As a matter of fact, this legislation just may provide the opening for which corporations of this nature are looking that will enable them to drain more and more of their research and development opportunities into another country.
We have many concerns. Previous speakers have specifically identified some of them. We will certainly be raising these concerns in committee as soon as possible. I do ask members of the Government opposite to consider seriously our amendments when they are brought forward. Too often Government Members feel that they have an obligation not to listen very carefully to the points which are made by Government backbenchers or members of the Opposition in committee. However, many of us feel very strongly about this Bill. Members on all sides of the House have spent a considerable amount of time studying it and communicating with individuals and groups who are deeply concerned about the far-reaching implications of Bill C-19. I ask Members on all sides of the House to give fair consideration to the amendments which will be proposed.
Hopefully, by doing that, we will ensure that Bill C-19 will not only provide better services to telephone subscribers, but will also assist in promoting research and development in

April 15, 1985
Bell Canada Act
Canada. 1 hope it will also raise the appropriate flags in terms of additional corporate concentration and providing certain corporations with an overwhelming powerful mandate when overseeing economic activities in a variety of spheres. We are seeing that in the proposed legislation which was introduced earlier today concerning financial institutions, and it is a similar situation in the telecommunications industry.
Finally, I would ask the Minister responsible to take the matter of the lack of a telecommunications policy in Canada very seriously and place it as a high priority in terms of the legislation which is to be brought forward. It is a matter of critical concern for the reasons which I have outlined. With the introduction of a telecommunications policy, I believe the Government would find that the Opposition Parties would support it with some enthusiasm. A telecommunications policy is badly needed. It is absolutely critical. If we look at other countries of a similar size, we see that they all have a telecommunications policy which is more advanced than ours. It is time for us to update the policy at least to the 1960s, and we should strive to update it to the 1990s.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments? If not, we will resume debate with the Hon. Member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo).


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I can only stand and say: "Here we go again". What we are doing in this legislation has been witnessed throughout the history of the corporate structure in Canada. We are being faced with a situation which has been repeated over and over again.
Many of the services which have been provided to Canadians began as services which were assisted by the Government and continued by the Government. Our Party feels strongly that these services should continue to be services and not profit-making operations. Consequently, we are very dismayed that the Government has recognized and accepted this corporate power, and is throwing in the additional factor of deregulation. By putting those two factors together in this legislation, the Government is giving Bell Canada an opportunity to make its money-making operations profitable to itself and not to the country.
We can foresee in future years that Bell Canada will tell the Government that it cannot provide telephone service because it is not profitable. Bell Canada will tell the Government that if it wants to continue the service it will have to pay for it. We can look back at the history of Canada and see that this process has gone on before. As the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) and the previous speaker just indicated, the Canadian Pacific Railway is probably as good an example as we have of this particular approach. What this Bill does, Mr. Speaker, is legalize the reorganization of Bell Canada and it is a perfect example of how corporations, which for many years had a monopoly and a guaranteed profit, are permitted to spin off into different fields than their original objectives and to use the profits made in the regulated fields to make huge capital gains and unlimited profits.
I suggest that what this Bill really does is allow Bell Canada to do in the 1980s what the CPR did earlier. Our Party is very disturbed that the Government does not recognize that it has a responsibility to provide the kinds of services which the people of Canada have had at a fairly reasonable rate for a long time. The previous Government regulated those services so that the population was able to receive that reasonable rate. When 20 per cent to 30 per cent of the population using telephones across the country are at the poverty line or below, any increase in telephone rates is likely to make it impossible for them to keep telephones in their homes. If the industry is deregulated, as suggested in this Bill, we will allow the telephone companies by this Bill and the partner Bill, Bill C-20, to charge more for their telephone service and eventually eliminate the opportunity for some people to have telephones at all.
The CRTC was supposed to be a government agency which regulated communications in the country. The present Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) just last week was very articulate in stating that the CRTC would be doing exactly that and would not only provide the service that the people of Canada want but would listen to them. These two Bills indicate that the people of Canada cannot speak as loudly as the corporations because this Bill is exactly what Bell Canada wants. This Bill is not what the CRTC wants, it is not what the consumers want and it is not even what the Government wants. What we have here is a Bill which gives Bell Canada what it wants.
I suppose there is no better example of corporate control of the Government opposite than this Bill, which is a real testament of the kind of corporate power we have in Canada. Instead of the CRTC regulating communications as it was supposed to do, what we have is Bell Canada taking on the CRTC, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, the Bureau of Competition Policy and all manner of people who have intervened in the public hearings. It has seemingly fought them all off and got exactly what it wanted in the area of communications. The Government has backed off and produced a Bill which only legislates what is actually already in place. It allows the Bell Canada Corporation to join Canadian Pacific and the other major companies which prospered heavily while they had a government monopoly. When they had established themselves as one of the corporate giants in the country, they then decided they would take their assets and use those assets to control other areas of industry. They now say: "Well, the service that we were intended to provide is now too expensive and you will have to help us pay for it". I would challenge any Hon. Member of the Government to give us any proof that two years or five years down the road Bell Canada will not come to the Government and say it cannot afford to provide telecommunication services at the price the Government wants it to charge and, therefore, it must have some subsidies to keep its operation going, just as the CPR operates a huge corporation which is very profitable and asks us to subsidize the movement of every train it operates.
April 15, 1985

In this Bill as well we have the Conservative "baby", I suppose, of deregulation which we face in almost every industry across the country. The regulation which has served us well for many years is now being tossed out and what we are receiving instead is the kind of approach taken by corporations like Bell Canada which is that of take the money and run. Bell Canada is almost entirely free in this situation to do as it pleases in the market-place with assets which were acquired from the people of Canada when that corporation had a monopoly. Existing Bell telephone service still remains under the CRTC regulations but without the important financial support which provided the kind of cross-subsidization which made it possible to hold down telephone rates all across Canada. What we will have is increased costs now and increasing costs looming in the future, so that some time down the road the idea of a telephone being available to every household in Canada will cease to exist because the costs will become too great for that 25 per cent to 30 per cent of the population which is already at the poverty line or below.
What we have in this Bill, Mr. Speaker, can best be described, I suppose, as a genuine failure on the part of Government to develop a public policy for the good of the people of Canada. We in this Party fully expect that the analogy which we have presented of the Canadian Pacific Railway is going to happen. In fact, it has already happened to a certain extent as far as Bell Canada is concerned. Bell Canada Enterprise will become rich in just the way that Canadian Pacific Investments has prospered at the expense of the users of CP Rail. This need not have happened as far as the CPR is concerned, and it need not happen here.
When this Bill goes to committee, Mr. Speaker, we need to make sure that we separate the two ideas of service and profit. Like the railways used to be operated, communications in Canada is operated as a service to the people of Canada. But the railways are now being operated for profit and that is what is going to happen to communications; it will be operated for profit in the future.


Mr. Lewis:: What is the matter with profits?


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Profits are okay if you put them in the right spot. Profits are not okay when you make them the be-all and end-all for areas of service such as medicare or telecommunications. These services should not be carried on for profit but as a service to the people of Canada. When we allow services to be carried on so as to make excess profits, we as Members of Parliament are failing in our duty to provide the best kind of service possible for the people of Canada.
I have one more point that I want to make, Mr. Speaker, and that is that we feel that this Bill is simply a good example of how much the previous Liberal Government and the present Conservative Government defer to corporate power. This Government says it has a mandate for change. It has had every opportunity to examine and change this Bill. Bell Canada has given us reason to take a look at its operations with the
Bell Canada Act
provocative action of Bell Canada International in acquiring as a subsidiary the Cable and Wireless Company of Great Britain. But this Government did not take the opportunity. So we believe that major changes should be made in this Bill and we should wait for a national telecommunications policy before we pass this Bill into law.


Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt to advise Hon. Members of the decision I have reached pursuant to the request of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse).
On Tuesday, April 2, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) moved the second reading of Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, and the question was proposed to the House. The Minister gave a very detailed explanation of the history and purposes of the Bill. This was added to by the Hon. Members for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guil-bault) and Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow). Later in the debate the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre asked the Chair to examine the Bill to see if it was proceeding properly through the House and specifically he requested the Chair to examine the Bill to see if it should not be classed as a private Bill.
Private Bills are defined on page 891 of Erskine May's Twentieth Edition in the following terms:
Private bills are bills for the particular interest or benefit of any person or persons. Whether they be for the interest of an individual, of a public company or corporation, or of a county, district or other locality, they are equally distinguished from measures of public policy; and this distinction is marked in the very manner of their introduction.
This definition is confirmed in Citation 700 from Beau-chesne's Fifth Edition which states:
A public bill relates to matters of public policy while a private bill relates to matters of a particular interest or benefit to a person or persons.
The same citation indicates that the British hybrid Bill- that is, a public Bill affecting private interests-is not recognized in Canadian practice. It also indicates that a Bill containing provisions which are essentially a feature of a private Bill cannot be introduced as a public Bill.
Citation 836 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
Private legislation is legislation of a special kind for conferring particular powers or benefits on any person or body of persons, including individuals and private corporations, in excess of or in conflict with the general law.
Citation 838 sets out four principles which have been followed in determining whether a private Bill should not be allowed to proceed as such, but should be introduced as a public Bill. The first of these principles is the essential one, namely that public policy is affected.
Given these definitions and principles the determination as to whether a Bill is a private Bill or a public Bill should be fairly straightforward. However, the Canadian practice, both in the federal Parliament and the provincial Legislatures, has not always been consistent. I do not propose to go into any detail with regard to these inconsistencies, because the immediate duty of the Chair is to make a determination in respect of Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada.

April 15, 1985
Bell Canada Act
This Bill deals with a company incorporated under the Canada Business Corporations Act in 1982 but it is a company which was first incorporated by private legislation in 1880. The present Bill makes provision for duties and obligations which the company must follow but it goes on to place restrictions on the company obviously not found elsewhere. Thus the Bill at once provides for exceptions to the general law and at the same time it imposes obligations on the company. The Bill also goes on to give the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission authority over the company, and the right to make certain orders towards it, as well as to demand certain information from it.
The first 10 clauses of this Bill, including the declaration that the works of the company are works for the general advantage of Canada, are, in effect, a reformulation of the provisions of the private Bills or statutes under which Bell was established and continued since 1880. These statutes are listed in Clause 14 of the Bill. While the question whether a Bill is properly characterized as private or public does not arise frequently, there are precedents that are of assistance to the Chair. After examining them the Chair feels that it must rely on the February 22, 1971 ruling of then Speaker Lamoureux.
In that case Bill C-219, an Act to establish the Canada Development Corporation, was before the House and Messrs. Baldwin and Lambert, then the Members for Peace River and Edmonton West, argued long and hard about the regularity of that Bill. Experienced as they were, their arguments did not convince the Chair. In that case, Speaker Lamoureux mentioned a third class or category of Bills, that is "hybrid Bills", a class of Bills that he ruled does not exist in Canadian practice.
Speaker Lamoureux was clear in 1971 that:
-in order that a bill be designated as private it should not and cannot include any feature of public policy because such characterization will transcend any private nature it may have.
He went on to find that where a Bill was not purely private but also affected the public interest, it must be treated as a public Bill.
It is clear to me that while this Bill affects private interests, it also clearly affects public policy concerning, as it does, a multiplicity of public interests.
The conclusive argument, in my view, is to be found in Clause 3 of the Bill, which states:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and any other Act of Parliament or anything issued, made or established under that other Act, the provisions of this Act prevail.
In the opinion of the Chair such a provision could only be included in a public Bill since a private Act, being an exception to the general law, could not prevail over any other Act of Parliament. It is therefore the view of the Chair that Bill C-19 is properly before the House as a public Bill.
Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is as follows. Mr. Masse, seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-19, an Act respecting the reorganization of Bell Canada, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture.

Hon. Flora MacDonald (for the Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-33, an Act respecting the import and export of and interprovincial trade in meat products, the registration of establishments, the inspection of animals and meat products in registered establishments and the standards for those establishments and for animals slaughtered and meat products prepared in those establishments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.


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


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has already had occasion to discuss the main points of Bill C-33 in this House. The Minister explained very aptly our reasons for amalgamating in a single Act the present legislation on federal meat inspection and the humane slaughter of animals. With the passage of the new legislation, it will be necessary to repeal the current Meat and Canned Foods Act which has become obsolete. Mr. Speaker, I shall, if I may, elaborate on several points that will, I am sure, help to clarify this debate.
The proposed legislation will make it possible to further modernize and enhance the credibility of our Canadian meat inspection system which already enjoys an excellent reputation, both on our domestic markets and outside Canada. When we consider that the new legislation will replace an Act that goes back to 1907, it is not exactly a luxury. At the time, Canada had only 27 federally inspected abattoirs, and to ensure quality control, there was a grand total of 39 veterinarians, all of whom were, at that time, trained in the United States. Today, we have over 500 abattoirs and meat processing plants licensed by Agriculture Canada, and a team consisting of more than 500 veterinarians and inspectors who monitor the
April 15, 1985

use of the meat inspection legend on between 85 or 90 per cent of meat products marketed in Canada and elsewhere.
Mr. Speaker, our emphasis on the proper handling of the meat we consume in this country goes back even further. In fact, 200 years earlier, in 1707 to be exact, the French Government in Canada had adopted a ruling that controlled the slaughter of animals, both from the point of view of production and animal health. It is therefore clear that the Canadian Government and the authorities that preceded it before 1867 have had an ongoing concern for both meat production and animal health.
Mr. Speaker, today, in 1985, we are not going to criticize our present meat inspection system. It has already passed the test of time, and I do not think anyone will deny that. However, it is also clear that Agriculture Canada should continue to increase and upgrade the protection Canadian consumers need.
Mr. Speaker, Bill C-33 will also put us in a better position to meet the very strict standards set by our various trading partners across the world. This is a very important point when we consider that annually, export sales of meat produced in Canada generate more than three quarters of a billion dollars. Since competition in this sector is often fierce, it is imperative to maintain the highest possible standards for quality and quality control.
Mr. Speaker, it is not enough to introduce regulations to ensure high health standards. The legislator must also close several legal loopholes so that our courts can deal with businesses and individuals, small though their number may be as we have seen in the past, who would otherwise be able to take advantage of such situations with almost complete impunity.
Stricter controls will not only provide a higher standard of hygiene for our domestic products but, as far as foreign imports are concerned, will also make it possible to deny entry of or to destroy, meat and meat products that are tainted or do not meet Canadian standards. Bill C-33 would also provide for charging a fee for the inspection of imported meat and meat products upon entry into this country and if necessary, for re-inspection once the products have reached registered establishments. Protection of the federal meat inspection legend will discourage misuse of this guarantee of fitness for human consumption. It will help reinforce the credibility of the inspection system and further protect the consumer, which is one of the principal aims of this legislation.
Other provisions have been made in accordance with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. From now on, a search warrant will be required to inspect residential premises, and the police must be present if force must be used. The Bill provides that the requirements for humane slaughter of animals will apply to all establishments that are federally licensed. Mr. Speaker, at the present time, standards for humane slaughter must be met only when the meat or meat products are to be sold on international or interprovincial
Meat Inspection Act
markets. One of the provisions of Bill C-33 will make it possible to withhold from slaughter animals affected by chemical, antibiotic or other substances that could make the meat and meat products unfit for human consumption. Finally, Mr. Speaker, the proposed legislation does not provide for any increase in our present inspection services and will therefore not involve additional expenditures.
If we consider the body of legislation being proposed, Mr. Speaker, it is clear that it is mainly a matter of updating legislation that has been on the books for nearly 80 years and is extremely important. Usually, consumers are not often, and probably rarely, concerned about this kind of legislation. The general public depends on the Government and its legislators or the executive authority to monitor the fitness for human consumption of meat and meat inspection and sales both inside and outside the country. People are rarely concerned about this kind of legislation. Nevertheless, Mr. Speaker, the Government I represent thinks it is important, from time to time, to revise and update legislation that has been on the books for a number of years. This particular legislation, and I think we can rely on the opposition to help us, tends to be more technical. While doing away with a number of legal provisions, we want to update a piece of legislation that is important and continue to provide the assurance-and that is probably the most important aspect of this Bill-that Canadian consumers can continue to rely on existing services. Other types of legislation and other announcements made in this Parliament since last November have reflected the Government's will to reduce its spending and to ensure that the Government can also, to a certain extent, recover the costs-


Mr. Boudria:: By charging exorbitant fees!


Pierre Blais: Yes . . . When my hon. friend, the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) refers to exorbitant, he must be referring to the deficit we were left by the previous administration, and I agree wholeheartedly. Indeed, to reduce the exorbitant deficit we now have to cope with, we must take very stringent measures to control the deficit and Government spending.
Mr. Speaker, I said a few minutes ago that this legislation will certainly not increase Government spending, and that we must give the Canadian public and Canadian consumers the assurance that meat inspection in Canada, both for the domestic and the foreign market, will be carried out, without having to increase costs. I think this is a very important guarantee. I see that my hon. friend from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is dying to intervene. He will have a chance to do so in a few minutes. Mr. Speaker, because of the foregoing considerations, 1 urgently recommend that the second reading stage of the Meat Inspection Bill be adopted as quickly as possible.

April 15, 1985
Meat Inspection Act


Don Boudria: On behalf of my Party, Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-33.1 listened attentively to the remarks of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais) in which he referred to the outstanding reputation of Canada's meat inspection system. That is true. In my opinion, no one will question the fact that Canada's excellent meat inspection system is world famous.
As I was listening to the Hon. Member's remarks, Mr. Speaker, 1 had the impression that he was actually taking issue with the budget cut-back program of the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in which he raised the possibility of higher rates for inspecting meat and many other foodstuffs, which would have the effect of jeopardizing the meat inspection system that the Hon. Member so eloquently praised. I must say that 1 share his concern about the Minister of Finance's intention to go ahead with budget cut-backs and slash Government spending at the expense of Canadian farmers. I am glad to see that the Hon. Member for Bellechasse agrees with me that we cannot stand still, that we must protest vigorously to the Minister of Finance against these unacceptable increases which I mentioned earlier and about which the Hon. Member for Bellechasse is trying to convey the message that he does not quite understand what I am saying.
In any case, 1 agree with him that our meat inspection system is second to none and that we must keep it at any cost.
One of the obvious reasons for introducing this Bill in the House is that legislation concerning meat inspection must be made consistent with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, particularly with respect to inspectors who, until now, could enter a private dwelling without a warrant or a court order on the pretext that meat had to be inspected. In my opinion, all Hon. Members will be glad to know that henceforth we will be in full compliance with the new Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. We are proud indeed to see that this new Bill is in keeping with the provisions of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.

The provisions of Bill C-33 are such that they will prescribe by regulation certain inspection fees which the Minister will be able to levy on meat products and certain carcasses of meat products. While of course Members will be agreeable that there are certain inspection fees which should be levied on meat products that are imported into Canada, I have some difficulty with some of the proposals from the Government over the last few months, particularly as they apply to adding inspection fees of various kinds on different agricultural products.
We know that the Ontario Pork Council has severely objected to the proposal to have a 26-cent carcass inspection fee for hogs. The Ontario Cattlemen's Association has also protested, as have several other groups from across the country. These protests have come not only from meat products areas but from several other areas. The Horticultural Council, for
instance, has objected to fees being charged on agricultural products. The Feed Growers' Association has said that it will now have fees in the order of $1,000 per grower.
I think we should seize this opportunity to remind the Government that if it is going to reduce the deficit, the last person who should be affected is the farmer. Farmers are very ill-equipped at the present time and generally are not in good financial situations. Farming is a capital-intensive industry with low profits. Especially at this time farmers are in very difficult positions and definitely cannot afford any increase in inspection fees. However, if the Government wants to levy fees on meat being imported into Canada, 1 must say I will not have too much difficulty with that proposition. We know that several meat products entering Canada do so at rates subsidized by foreign governments. This puts some of our farmers in difficulty, and perhaps it will serve as a lever to bring the prices slightly back up to where they should be, and therefore not continue the unfair competition we have.
I have a few issues relating to specific clauses of the Bill that I would like to raise with the Parliamentary Secretary. First, in terms of application, I would like to ask the Parliamentary Secretary about Section 20(b) of the Act. Perhaps he could indicate to us how the provisions concerning the suitability of persons operating registered establishments are to be put in practice. I have read the Bill. There is not too much mentioned in the Bill itself as to Section 20(b) and that particular aspect. The Minister referred to the suitability of individuals in his briefing notes.
What is deemed to be a suitable versus an unsuitable applicant? Are we referring to persons who may have-


An Hon. Member:: No Liberals.


Don Boudria: I am glad the Hon. Member brought that up. He was just saying no Liberals. 1 was going to ask if this could perhaps lend itself to patronage. I was somewhat reluctant to bring it up in those terms but a Conservative Member in this House has brought it up. Perhaps the Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis) does bring up an interesting point to which the Parliamentary Secretary could refer.
Are we referring here to people who have had a bad record in terms of being meat processing plant operators, individuals who could have been charged several times and who generally have failed to respect the law?
As much as we could be in agreement with that clause, Mr. Speaker, I am a bit at a loss to determine how we could reconcile that clause with the Charter of Rights. If someone were charged 20 years ago with a contravention of preceding legislation, would that individual be deemed unsuitable because of his past? If that is the case, are we again offending the Charter of Rights by suggesting that what someone may have done a number of years ago could be used against him or her in a future application? Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could comment upon that particular clause of the Bill.
April 15, 1985

I also have a question concerning Clause 22(1) of the Bill. As it is presently drafted, the Bill is organized in such a way that if a person convicted of certain offences under subsection 21(3) and subject to a fine is in default of that fine, no prison punishment will be imposed. Why is that? From a cursory reading of the Bill, it seems to suggest that if the individual does not pay his fine, nothing else will be done to him or he will not be put in jail. 1 am wondering why it is explained in those particular terms. It is almost an open invitation to someone not to pay a fine levied against him, knowing that nothing else will happen. Perhaps there is a reasonable explanation which the Parliamentary Secretary could share with the House. However, I must say that I am a little concerned about the way in which it is presently drafted, that if someone does not pay a fine levied against him, he will not be imprisoned.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: They are trying to be humane.


Don Boudria: Perhaps the Government is trying to be humane but, all puns aside, I must say that we are dealing with an important issue-the preservation of the meat inspection system. The Parliamentary Secretary said that all Canadians are very proud of the system and that it is second to none in the world. We would want to ensure that the system remains as good and as strong as it is now. Surely an indication that a default in payment of a fine would not be further prosecuted would not enhance the chances of the legislation being observed by individuals in that particular line of business.
In closing, of course our Party is in agreement with the provisions of the Bill relating to the Charter of Rights. We want our laws to adhere to and respect the Charter of Rights. Of course we are in agreement with that part of the Bill and with the general principle of consolidation. However, we are concerned with the general trend of the Government to increase inspection fees. We feel that inspection fees, be they on meat products or any other agricultural product, are for the benefit of consumers generally and therefore should not be paid for by farmers. If ever there was a time when implementing inspection fees for Canadian farmers would be appropriate-and I am not sure there will ever be such a time-surely that time is not now with the very difficult economic conditions with which Canadian farmers have to live. The $32.3 million which will be generated by the Government in recovering inspection fees will not be a saving, if it causes a similar amount of financial default, bankruptcy or otherwise on the part of Canadian farmers.
1 reiterate that position on behalf of our Party to the Parliamentary Secretary, in the hope that he will be able to convince his colleague and friend, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), not to levy those exorbitant charges on Canadian farmers.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I listened with interest to the presentation of the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais). The Bill
Meat Inspection Act
itself purports to tie together some old meat inspection laws. It is an attempt to consolidate the old Humane Slaughter of Food Animals Act, the Meat and Canned Foods Act and the Meat Inspection Act and replace them with this Bill which is before us at the moment and is known as Bill C-33.
When I listened to the Hon. Member for Bellechasse, 1 was left with the impression that the only reason for introducing the Bill was because the old ones were 70 years or 80 years old.
I guess they wanted it on new paper. I am not sure that the humane slaughter of animals will be extended to some provincial jurisdiction under the provisions of the Bill, but that is what I understood the Parliamentary Secretary to say.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) saw this as an attempt to bring the Act up to the provisions required by the Charter of Rights, since that is about to come into play. I really question why the whole Bill was necessary if it was only to increase humane slaughter provisions and provide for adherence to the Charter. One of the all-encompassing Bills which occur from time when minor amendments are made to bring laws up to current practice or requirements of the Charter could have been used in this case.
As I look at this Bill and discuss its subject matter, I realize a number of questions were not answered in the dissertation of the Hon. Member for Bellechasse. I hope we will be able to get answers from the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) when the Bill goes before committee. I have some suspicion that it is a necessity to go along with the cost recovery program announced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) last November.
Some of the requirements listed in the mid section of the Bill seem to look forward to that and provide some startling power or lack of power in terms of the frequency of inspection levels program initiated under the previous Minister of Agriculture. It seems that it is being pursued with even more haste by the current Minister. In addition, the frequency of inspection levels program was an effort by the Department of Agriculture to pull back from the financing of the inspection of meat products and some canned products in plants and leave inspections up to the jurisdiction of the plants themselves. In other words, the plants would be responsible for keeping the public's interest at heart and for their own monitoring. They would provide their own inspectors, but the rules would continue to be set by the federal Government. Plant employees would be hired to look after the regulations and to make certain that their employers adhered to the rules. If that is not a conflict of interest, I do not know what is. This Government has proposed to spread that even further so that inspections would be conducted at many more places. The responsibility for hiring and training inspectors and looking after inspections, again in the public interest, would fall with the corporation hiring the inspector.
There are some strange things in the Act. My hon. friend in the Liberal Party alluded to some of them. He indicated that Clause 22 pointed out that if fines imposed as punishment were not paid, they would just rest. He failed to explain that there is a subsection indicating that the federal Government

April 15, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
can have a judgment rendered against the person in the next court by way of civil proceedings. In the very unlikely event that the meat packing plant went out of business, there would be a mechanics' lien against it, I suppose. That virtually never happens because these corporations have an almost unending life. From the point of view of the very large corporate meat packing plants, the big three or four, the effect would be almost non-existent.
What worries me even more is when you go down the list to the next clauses. You find, and I quote:
-it is sufficient proof of the offence to establish that it was committed by an employee or agent of the accused-
The accused is the corporation.
-whether or not the employee or agent is identified or has been prosecuted for the offence, unless the accused establishes that the offence was committed without his knowledge or consent and that he exercised all due diligence to prevent its commission.
Management can always opt out of any responsibility by saying they did not know what the inspector was doing. Management hires the inspectors and provides them with the method of operation and tells them how to operate. However, if there is any subsequent problem from the spot checks that will continue to occur by federal officials, management can say they cannot help it, the guy or the gal doing the job was not doing the proper job and it is not their problem. The Bill goes on to point out in Clause 24:
Where a corporation commits an offence under this Act,-
In the unlikely event that the federal spot checker finds that the corporation has been negligent and the court finds it as well, and I continue to quote:
-any officer, director or agent of the corporation who directed, authorized, assented to, acquiesced in or participated in the commission of the offence is a party to and guilty of the offence and is liable on conviction to the punishment provided for the offence whether or not the corporation has been prosecuted or convicted.
The way that is worded and knowing how the meat packing industry operates, probably 99 times out of 100 that would result in the inspector being fined or sent to jail, if that is the punishment, rather than his manager or the leadership of the corporation. This puts the inspector in an invidious position. He or she is required to carry out on one hand the laws of Canada and on the other hand the requirements of his or her employer. The law as we are about to pass it provides that the employer is pretty well hands off. He sets the rules. He pays the employee and he fires the employee. Therefore, the employee is very much under the thumb of the employer, if the employer is not in any way responsible for the actions of that employee. As long as a directive is given verbally, it is very difficult to introduce that evidence into court. The employee has no way to go except to be fired and take the punishment that is meted out under this Act. The employer simply continues on his merry way, breaking the intention of the laws of Canada. He runs through a lot of employees, making them the scapegoats for the company's actions.
There are some loose ends in this proposal that will have to be checked in committee. I am truly sorry that the Minister was not here to explain why this Bill has to be brought in at this time. The explanation given by the Parliamentary Secretary only focused on humane slaughter, to which no one objects. It was in the old Act. It provided adequate safeguards whereby animals going into slaughter would be treated humanely and slaughtered humanely. That is not an adequate excuse for introducing a new Bill. The argument that this brings the search and seizure provisions in line with the Charter is not a legitimate excuse for bringing in the Bill. I suspect that this is very much one and the same as a necessary contribution to a carrying out of the cost recovery process that was initiated on November 8 last.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture did not deal with that. I hope we will be given ample opportunity to discuss this with the Minister when the Bill goes to committee. It is extremely important because, under the proposed extra charges, in some cases the small processors will be forced out of business. That will be as a result of the fees they will be charged. They are not in a category where current regulations permit them to do their own inspection. They must have a federal inspector, both ante-mortem and post-mortem. A veterinary inspector has to make certain the animals were healthy and free from residue, antibiotics, before going into the slaughterhouse. They have to do a post-mortem inspection to make certain there are no anomalies that may make the meat unfit for use.
In those provinces which make use of federal inspectors, there will be a minimum charge of $125 per plant. A lot of these plants only slaughter or process a few dozen head per day. This will run their costs close to an extra $10 per head compared with their counterparts in the larger centres. It will much reduce their competitive ability. It continues a process that has to be slowed down of concentrating economic activity in very large centres to the disadvantage of the very small.
There are vast spaces in this country between the metropolitan centres. The economy of this country cannot survive if those centres are reduced to the point where they cannot supply basic goods and services. The populations of those areas will ultimately be forced out of the hinterland and into the metropolitan areas if this kind of policy continues. Frankly, 1 do not see how Canada can continue to make way for an economic recovery when vast regions of the country upon which that recovery is based are put at such a disadvantage that there can be no economic activity taking place there. It is discriminatory to small businesses, the producers as well as the consumers who would prefer to use local products, slaughtered and processed in the small communities.
The questions raised by this Bill, while not raised by the Minister, are questions that must and will be raised in committees. Canada's farm community, Canada's food processing and meat processing industry require the answers. It is not in the best interests of Canadians to come in with a program as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) did last November 8 which discriminates against small businesses and small communities
April 15, 1985

to the advantage of the very large centres and the very large processing plants.
We have some difficulty with this Bill since it leaves far more questions than were answered by the Hon. Member who introduced it for the Government. We hope that when we get to committee the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and his officials will have clear and straightforward answers and will not try to hide and stonewall as sometimes has been the wont of Ministers of Agriculture, both past and present, when appearing before the committee.


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to take part in the discussion on Bill C-33. The Bill is not as ominous as the two previous speakers have tried to make it out to be. As the Bill states, it is simply an Act respecting the import and export of and interprovincial trade in meat products, the registration of establishments, the inspection of animals in registered establishments, the standards for these establisments and the standards for animals slaughtered and meat products prepared in these establishments. As the Member who spoke previously said, this Bill has been introduced to update some of the other Acts and to put everything under one cover. These Acts include the Meat Inspection Act, the Humane Slaughter of Food Animals Act and the Meat and Canned Foods Act. Most of these regulations have now been brought up to date.
I had the pleasure of working under the old Health of Animals Act and the Meat Inspection Act for several years after graduating from the Ontario Veterinary College. As other Members have said, our meat inspection system is the best in the world and I can certainly attest to that. We can rest assured that anything that has the "Canada Approved" stamp on it is respected all over the world.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there are two inspection systems in Canada, the federal inspection system and the provincial inspection system. Anything that is exported or goes from one province to another has to have the federal stamp on it. Anything that is used within the province of origin pretty well falls under the meat inspection system of that particular province although there is nothing to prevent a federal meat inspector from also acting in that capacity.
Ante-mortem inspections are carried on by veterinarians at all plants in order to determine whether or not anything peculiar is evident at that time. This prevents the wrong animal from going to slaughter. Quite often, very little is done at ante-mortem inspections and the key role is played when the animals are slaughtered on the killing floors. I can say from the outset that there is a great deal of co-operation received from every person who works in a slaughterhouse or abattoir. All inspectors receive the utmost of co-operation for the simple reason that most of a plant's employees buy their own meat at that plant and they would not want to sell anything that they would not want to eat themselves. Some of those people have worked in abattoirs for 25, 30 or 35 years and they have very
Meat Inspection Act
keen eyesight, to say the least. They were certainly of great help to us when we were inspecting in those plants.
There is nothing in the Act that has anything to do with inspection charges. I read every one of these clauses very thoroughly and none of them deals with that. 1 do not think that it is quite right to read something like that into Bill C-33. As well, the issue of spot checks was raised. There are no spot checks that take place at the time of the actual slaughter of the animal. Those inspections are done very, very thoroughly under the jurisdiction of a veterinarian with the assistance of primary products inspectors who actually do the knife work. The primary products inspectors are supervised by the veterinarians and they certainly do a very excellent job. They are quite qualified to do what they are doing. It is up to the veterinarian to look at carcasses that have been railed out for some reason or other by the primary products inspectors.
The number of veterinarians employed by the federal Department of Agriculture is in the vicinity of 273 at the last count. They carry an extensive responsibility in assuring that we do have the best inspection system in the world and that our products are very well received. Of course, there are instances when inspectors from other countries will come to Canada just as inspectors from Canada have the right to go to the plants in other countries. Other inspectors come here to make sure that our plants are adequate and we go there to make sure that their plants are adequate before we actually allow the importation of their products into our country.
As I read them, the regulations do nothing more than update the old regulations that have been in existence since almost the turn of the century and, as I mentioned earlier, bring them under one cover so that they can be more easily scrutinized and followed by the professionals in the inspection system under Agriculture Canada.
There is not much more I wish to say except that I welcome these regulations. Certainly they will go a long way toward updating the whole process of the meat inspection system and giving the authority necessary to keep our inspection system on the high level it is at present.
Right now we are short of veterinarians in the public sector both provincially and federally. This is due primarily to the fact that there are not enough graduates from the three veterinary colleges in Canada. Many of those who graduate go into private practice and this makes it very difficult for the Governments to employ them. The new veterinary college that will be opening in Prince Edward Island in the very near future will hopefully alleviate the problem and enable us to fill these more than 100 positions in the federal public sector that are vacant. Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me these few moments to comment on Bill C-33.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I understood the Hon. Member to say that he thought that this Bill had nothing to do with the implementation of fees and that it was not necessary as a part of the package to implement the cost recovery program. I wonder if he would care to comment on Clause 20, Subclause (g), in which it is indicated quite clearly that some of the

April 15, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
powers that will be provided under this Act will include provisions for the inspection of establishments and registered establishments and the animals and meat products in registered establishments and-this is the point at issue-prescribing the fees payable therefor. Subclause (h) provides for the re-inspection of meat products and also prescribes the fees payable therefor. If it is not the Government's intention to use this Act as a means of providing for fees, is the Government prepared to exclude those particular words when we get into committee?


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, nothing has been decided regarding whether or not fees will be charged. There are ongoing discussions between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and this sector as well as other sectors of the agricultural industry.
Fees could also apply to the fact that the establishments always paid for overtime. If the inspector had to be on overtime, it was the duty and responsibility of the plant to pay that overtime. Those subclauses could very well apply to any overtime that may be charged, as was the case on many, many occasions when I was with the Department in that capacity.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I would like it made clear that the Hon. Member is apparently now telling us that this does give the power by regulation to impose those fees and that he does now recognize that there is such a power in this Act.


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I said no such thing. I said that fees could mean overtime as well. As I said earlier, nothing has been decided about whether or not there will be extra charges as far as inspections are concerned. These discussions are still ongoing and nothing has yet been determined.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, it is somewhat confusing that an economic statement was presented to the House on November 8 and, when it pleases them, Government Members say that all of the items which were proposed in that statement are not the intention or the policy of the Government. If it was not the intention of the Government, why did it bring forward those items? If it was the intention of the Government to create discussion, why were those items not presented in the form of a study or discussion paper? The practice over the last 100 years has been, when an economic statement is presented, that it becomes the policy of the Government. I cannot understand why Members are deluding themselves into thinking that the economic statement and the position of the Government is somehow not now the policy of the Government. There has been no indication that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) is willing to forgo the money which he is intending to collect, or the money which the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) will collect for him. The Minister of Agriculture has not indicated that he is willing to forgo that amount of money. Therefore, why do Government Members insist on telling us that these are matters which are still being considered when it is quite clearly the policy of the Government, and the Minister
of Finance who needs the extra $65 million and who will cut $33 million from the Department's estimates?


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member would take the trouble to look at former Acts covering the health of animals and the Meat Inspection Act, he would see that the legislation was very similar and that the overtime period which inspectors were required to work was described as fees. 1 would suggest that the Hon. Member take a look at those Acts, which have been in effect since the turn of the century. If I am not mistaken, the Hon. Member will discover that those Acts are the same as this legislation.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, I have great difficulty understanding why the time of the House is being taken up with the regurgitation of Acts and powers which have existed since the turn of the century if this new legislation will not do anything differently. Why are we wasting our time if it is exactly the same?


Constantine George (Gus) Mitges: Mr. Speaker, I do not think we are wasting time. We are attempting to put everything under one cover. If the Hon. Member has any idea of the difficulty in working with several Acts, he would realize that a lot of time was wasted in that respect. Now that everything is under one cover, it is much easier.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: 1 will now recognize the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) on debate.


Mr. Sid Fraleigh (Lambton-Middlesex):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to take part in this debate and to set the record straight with respect to statements which were made by previous speakers.
Our meat inspection system is recognized world-wide as the best in the world. For people to cast aspersions on the system does not serve agriculture or the meat packing industry well.
The system has not only protected consumers, it has allowed them the luxury of having the full confidence that all foods that they buy that bear the "Canada Approved" stamp will be wholesome and free from bacteria or germs. There has been no thought of reducing the inspection or increasing the costs under the cost recovery program. It has simply been a matter of redistributing the costs in order that the people who benefit from the inspection will pay a share.
The Minister promised from the very outset that he was prepared to negotiate with all the commodities and that inspection fees would not be imposed until an agreement was reached with the commodities on a fee structure.
As I previously pointed out, our major plants have a worldwide reputation. I want to assure Hon. Members opposite that those plants will do nothing to harm that reputation. Our meat packers export a tremendous volume of products. The only way in which they can maintain the ability to export those products is through maintaining their high standards.
April IS, 1985

It was mentioned that the plants were involved in the hiring of inspectors. 1 would suggest that that is not correct. Federal inspectors are hired by the federal Government, and therefore they come under the jurisdiction of the federal Government.
The allegation that this Bill was introduced simply to facilitate the implementation of cost recovery in inspection services is erroneous. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has had that authority all along and this Bill will not change that authority.
Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me the opportunity to set the record straight. 1 look forward to questions from the Opposition on the points which I have raised.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Are there questions or comments?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, quite rightly the Hon. Member pointed out that we have a good inspection service in Canada which is recognized world-wide. We are prone to say that we have the best, but in some cases we still must take second place to the United States. The United States does not always recognize our standards as being equal to their standards. The United States sends their inspectors to Canada, and occasionally they have been known to turn down some of the plants with standards which we considered adequate for the export of meats. In some cases the United States considered the standards to be inadequate and our plants had to change their standards to suit the Americans in order to continue with the shipments. While our standards may be the highest in the world, they are not always perceived to be so by some of our major customers.
The Member pointed out that the system was in place and that there were no changes proposed in this legislation. I must return to my previous question: If there are no changes proposed in this legislation, and as the legislation has existed for 70 or 80 years and is well understood by everyone involved, why is the Government introducing it?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, for the benefit of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), I will tell him that I did not indicate that there were no changes in the Bill. There are changes in the Bill. Those changes mainly deal with streamlining the legislation and addressing the sections which pertain to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. He also indicated that the Americans do not necessarily accept our inspection system and that they send their own inspectors. I agree with him. That is absolutely correct. However, we also send our inspectors to their meat plants. It is a reciprocal agreement which allows the plants to ship products back and forth across the border with limited interference.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) said in his preamble that he would set the record straight and correct those who had cast aspersions on the meat inspection system. As I remember from the debate which took place, the Parliamentary Secretary began his remarks by indicating that Canada has the greatest meat inspection system in the world. I said the same thing, and if I
Meat Inspection Act
remember correctly, the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse) also began his remarks in a similar manner. I am wondering, was the Hon. Member referring to debates which happened in this House or elsewhere?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I would have to agree with the Hon. Member that he did start his preamble by saying that we had one of the best systems in the world, but he then started to cast doubts about certain Sections within the Act.


Don Boudria: What has that got to do with it?


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: It has a lot to do with it.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add very briefly that recognizing we have a good system does not mean that 1 approve of everything the Government does. For this Government to think that it is always on the side of righteousness and that anyone who even questions its legislation is somehow on the wrong side of the fence just goes to explain to you, Mr. Speaker, that very arrogant attitude which is developing in the minds of Hon. Members of this Government. After only a few months in office, the attitude that we in this House cannot even stand up and question sections of this Bill because if we question this Bill we must have something against the agricultural industry is preposterous, and the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh), who knows a lot more about agriculture than most Hon. Members of this House, should know better. He should not make ridiculous statements like that.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: Mr. Speaker, I look forward to this Bill being referred to committee and the Hon. Member coming to committee on a regular basis to debate it. The only times I have seen him show up at meetings of the agricultural committee have been when he simply wanted to score political marks rather than be constructive. I look forward to seeing him participate in the debate in committee.


Don Boudria: You show up too.


Sidney Arthur Fraleigh: I will be there.


Hon. Charles Mayer (Minister of State (Canadian Wheat Board)):: Mr. Speaker, there have been some very valid questions raised with regard to some of the sections in the Bill which I will attempt to answer, hopefully, to the satisfaction of Hon. Members opposite. If I have any time left I will make a few general comments on the Bill.
First, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) raised a couple of good questions. One question had to do with Section 20(b) of the Bill which proposes to separate the registration and licensing of a meat packing establishment. Our concern is that presently an establishment is licensed and if there is a problem associated with the continuation of that facility, the Government has no choice but to simply delicense the operation and it ceases to function. What is proposed in this Bill is to register an operator and

April 15, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
license the plant. That is very similar to what is done with an automobile on the highway. We license the vehicle and license the operator to drive it. If there are troubles with the operator, we simply take away his operator's licence. The vehicle itself can still operate.
In the case of the meat packing establishment, there is presently no provision for separation. Therefore, if there is a problem we simply have to shut the plant down, which I do not believe serves anyone very well. What we are proposing in the Bill is to separate the operator from the establishment so that if there is a problem with the operator, we can stop the operator. The establishment itself will still be licensed and can be operated by someone else which will provide, hopefully, the opportunity for some continuity of service to the producers in that area. I think that makes reasonable sense. If there are some concerns with the way that procedure is to be carried out, those issues can be raised at committee and if there is a problem we can certainly look at it. I hope that clarifies that section.
With regard to Section 22(1) which was raised by the Hon. Member, it is my understanding that Section 21(3) ahead of it has no provision for a jail sentence. It is simply a fine. The legal opinion is that we cannot then come down to a subsequent section of the Act and by the back door make provision for a jail sentence. That section, as it was explained to me-1 am not a lawyer but it makes sense to me-is put there to be consistent with the Act. I hope that answers the Hon. Member's question with regard to Section 22(1). We are just being consistent throughout the Bill.
The Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Alt-house) expressed concern with Section 24. Frankly, I do not understand the concern he raises because, as I read the section, it is very clear that the section is designed to make the officers and people associated with the operations of the company financially liable so that they will do exactly the opposite to the concern the Hon. Member raised in his question. Again, if there is some possibility of another interpretation, then I think that is something which should certainly be raised at committee. As I understand it, it is not the intention of the amendment in this Bill to shift the responsibility for any problems which may come about to the inspectors. As I read the section in the Act, it does exactly the opposite. And if my interpretation is correct, then I think that should satisfy the concern of the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre.
With regard to the question he raised about Section 20(g) and 20(h) of the Bill, I can tell him that this is nothing new. The provisions to provide for fees are in the present legislation. There really is nothing new. So to say that what is being done by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) with respect to cost recovery in Section 20(g) and Section 20(h) in this Bill is something new is not correct, because there are provisions in the present legislation for fees to be prescribed.
With respect to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Fraleigh) that we have the best meat inspection service in the world, I think that is certainly the case. If we wanted to be a little more modest about it, we
might say that there are no meat inspection services around that are any better-which is another way of saying we have the best. I have been in some of the plants mentioned by the Hon. Member but have not worked under the Act, as has the distinguished Hon. Member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) who is probably as good an authority in this House as we are going to have. I believe we should pay attention to him when he says it is a lot better to work under one Act than to have three or four separate Acts where sometimes there can be mixed signals. Essentially, that is the intention of this Bill.
Going back to the question of how Canada's meat inspection service works, I agree that we do have a very good meat inspection service and the consumer in this country is very well served by it. But that does not mean we cannot improve it even more, especially when we realize what goes on back and forth across the border. Sometimes it gets to be a contest between the different inspectors on each side of the border as to who can be the most picky about the conditions, and I want to suggest that in terms of having some of our plants delicensed, that is more of the reason than our falling down on our side of the border with respect to having a well qualified meat inspection service.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, this is a Bill which I think the Government should take responsibility for. It is something which is going to consolidate various Acts and make the whole system work a little better. Hopefully we will find the process a little easier to administer and better understood by the people to whom it applies. It will also be a little more economical to administer. It does provide some additional protection to consumers in the sense that there is provision to reinspect meat products coming in from other countries, which was not there before. It also provides additional protection for the humane slaughter of animals. As I understand it, the present humane slaughter requirements apply only for shipment outside of the province. If the product was not going to move out of the province and there was some question about it, it was previously difficult to make the humane slaughter of animal provisions work. This Bill eliminates that problem because it applies to all products regardless of whether they travel outside of our borders or not. It further protects against the misuse of seals for grading and inspection. I think this is a Bill which should go to committee and if there are some legitimate concerns, and there have been some good questions raised here this morning, I am sure the Minister will be more than happy to take them into consideration in looking at amendments to the Bill.
It is getting very close to one o'clock, Mr. Speaker, and 1 will conclude.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Bill-


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Call it one o'clock.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Perhaps I can ask that question after lunch.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It being one o'clock p.m., I do now leave the chair until two o'clock.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.
April 15, 1985



COMMONS DEBATES AFTER RECESS

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, yesterday a leak of the highly toxic chemical PCB occurred between Kenora and Vermilion Bay from a tractor trailer carrying this chemical from Montreal to Edmonton for disposal. As you know, this substance has two effects which we are all concerned with damage to the environment, because PCBs in a liquid state persist in the environment and do not break down, and, of course, the harm to human health. Will the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) give leadership, initiate talks with her provincial colleagues, and put pressure on them to have this problem tackled through technological disposal within each province rather than having waste hauled thousands of kilometres across the country to disposal sites?
This matter falls under provincial jurisdiction, but the Minister of the Environment should show leadership by calling a meeting in Ottawa with her provincial colleagues to discuss better management of waste and resolve the problem of transprovincial shipments of hazardous chemicals.



SEARCH FOR EQUALITY

Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, on Wednesday, April 17, women will take a very important step in their search for equality, for on that day, Section 15 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms will come into force.
This section prohibits any discrimination based on sex, among other things, and that is a significant victory for women since it will now be possible to take legal action to uphold their rights.
The Legal Education and Action Fund has been established for that purpose. In a way, this non-profit organization will be used as a means to defend women's rights. It will use the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms to help women bring before the courts any case of discrimination against them.
Mr. Speaker, allow me to urge all Hon. Members of the House to wear the "A Date With Equality" button. Wednesday will be a memorable day for all Canadians, women and
men alike. After all, the best deals are made in an ambience of equality.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, if one were to set in motion a process to study the merits of legalizing the use of marijuana, you would not expect the process to be carried out by someone who had just planted 100 acres of the crop. That would not be logical nor acceptable. So what can we say about a very real and similar case before us regarding the use of unprescribed semi-dwarf wheats? They are not now licensed in Canada because they are of lower quality than current spring wheat varieties. Their being undistinguishable leads inevitably to mixing and the consequent downgrading of Canada's current pre-eminent world position as a most reliable supplier of top quality wheat, wheat which can be blended with domestic wheats of importing countries everywhere.
It is no accident that Canadian granaries are nearly empty at the end of each crop year at a time when American and European stocks have been building. We have consistently offered superior quality, and that quality has been beyond question.
The Government has decided to review the admissibility of the undistinguishable and therefore currently unlicensed varieties, which is its prerogative, but should the job be handled by a man who admitted in this House to growing such varieties? How can the report be deemed to be objective? These varieties cannot now be licensed in Canada or legally imported into Canada. Since the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) has admitted that he is guilty as charged, I urge him to turn over the responsibility for reviewing this matter to someone in a less compromising position, in the interest of maintaining the credibility of this multibillion dollar industry in the eyes of our customers abroad.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Andrew Witer (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) displayed great courage during his recent trip to the Soviet Union when he raised the matter of political prisoners languishing in Soviet labour camps, and in particular the case of Danylo Shumuk, one of many unjustly imprisoned Ukrainians whose families in Canada have been waiting many years to be reunited with them. On behalf of all freedom-loving Canadians concerned with human rights, I convey to the Minister their support, admiration, and pride that the Government of Canada has the

April 15, 1985
fortitude and compassion to come to the defence of persecuted human rights activists incarcerated for exercising the right to live peaceably in the global community.
As a signatory of the 1975 Helsinki Accord, the Soviet Union is responsible for upholding the provisions of family reunification, freedom of conscience, freedom of travel, freedom of thought, and freedom of religion or belief. It must be held accountable for flagrant violations of that agreement. Future agreements with the Soviets hinge on their willingness to honour past agreements.
After many years of silence by the previous Liberal Government, we are happy to announce to Canadians that the Progressive Conservative Government actively defends, and will continue to defend, the rights of all persons who are exiled, persecuted, or unjustly imprisoned.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Mr. Speaker, many of us from Saskatchewan have welcomed this crop year's interim payment under the Western Grain Stabilization Act. It comes as good news that the Minister responsible for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) has announced the interim payment at $450 million. This is the largest single pay-out under this program, and for Saskatchewan farmers it will mean $254.6 million. Farmers rightly claim that the grain stabilization program involves a large amount of their own money. They are correct, but in the past they suffered under a Liberal Government which never managed the program effectively and neglected western Canada. This pay-out now means a significant amount of money will be in the hands of producers before seeding.
Prior to the election our Party promised a fair and flexible grain stabilization program. The farmers wanted this, and they wanted our Government. Another promise made, another promise kept.



VOLUNTARY ORGANIZATIONS


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, volunteers, more than two million of them, work in thousands of organizations in fields as diverse as amateur sports, dramatics, health and welfare. If paid, their work would cost Governments billions of dollars. In this time of recession they are Finding it increasingly difficult to finance their activities.
For a number of years the voluntary organizations called on the Government to eliminate the automatic $100 deduction for charitable purposes permitted to all income tax payers, which the former Government did, and replace it by a give and take option whereby every taxpayer would be given a 50 per cent
tax credit for any contribution to a recognized charity. Such a method would eliminate the present unfair situation whereby people with high incomes, who pay income tax at a higher rate than people with low or middle incomes, can get a bigger deduction.
This proposal was endorsed by the NDP, and by the Progressive Conservative Party when it was in the opposition. I urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) to incorporate this principle in the Income Tax Act when he brings forth his next Budget.




Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Today, Mr. Speaker, I want to pay homage to society's most innovating sector, the voluntary sector, which accounts for about 1.7 per cent of our GNP, employs nearly 200,000 people, and constitutes a network through which close to 25 per cent of Canadians generously give their time and energy.
This being the National Week of the Voluntary Sector, I would urge Hon. Members to consider the contribution made by that sector. It has proved able to find new and moderately-priced solutions to a wide variety of individual and collective needs. This spirit of community initiative has to be acknowledged as having a significant economic impact. There are many good reasons to keep a closer contact with the voluntary sector. First, it is the most efficient means to promote the active participation of citizens and to make Canadians prouder of themselves, while at the same time being a boon to society as a whole. Participation in community or cultural organizations and working together to meet the needs of the community create a confident and resourceful society.
In addition, the voluntary sector has shown leadership in job training. Youths, native women and the handicapped alike have all found promising training prospects and, in many instances, full time jobs.
I want to take this opportunity-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that her allotted time has expired.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bob Porter (Medicine Hat):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform Parliament of the urgent need to act on behalf of our


April 15, 1985

Canadian sugar-beet producers. In Ottawa today we have over 100 representatives of the 1,500 Canadian sugar-beet producers, from Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec. Those people also represent approximately 1,200 industrial jobs in the three provinces, plus over 5,000 indirect jobs in machinery, fertilizer, chemical, and services industries.
Canada is the only western nation of some 41 which does not protect its domestic sugar industry. Eighty-five per cent of world sugar trades at prices set by the Governments of producing countries. Canada's price is determined by the 15 per cent which is world surplus. While this is good for consumers at the present price of four cents a pound, we should be reminded of what can happen if the price returns to its 1975 level of 83 cents a pound U.S. We need a policy which protects consumers during times of high prices and still maintains our industry during temporarily depressed world markets.
Our current domestic production of 12 per cent of consumption acts as our only real measure of protection. If we lose this, we will be 100 per cent dependent on large multinational companies and foreign Governments to supply this major staple in Canadian diets. Once this industry is gone it will be lost forever, as the start-up costs are high.
Time is of the essence. The 1985 crop must be planted now, and the growers need assistance to produce this year's crop, as well as consideration by the Government of a national sugar policy.


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



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Brian Tobin (Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, recently I received correspondence from the children of the community of Parsons Pond in my riding of Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe.
Parsons Pond is a small rural community situated on the Great Northern Peninsula of Newfoundland. Like other communities situated on the Northern Peninsula, it lacks many of the facilities that are taken for granted in cities such as Ottawa. I refer to decent water, sewers, paved community roads, adequate recreational facilities for young people and, of course, enough job opportunities for the citizens of Parsons Pond.
These problems are constant irritants to the people of Parsons Pond, but they are not what the 10 children of Parsons Pond wrote me about. Let me quote directly from one of their letters:
Dear Mr. Tobin:
As a student in the community of Parsons Pond, nuclear destruction seems a long ways away. However, the incident is possible. Would you please do all in
Oral Questions
your power to make sure that the Canadian Government does everything in its power to prevent a Global War? We want to live to be adults in the future.
Thank you Brent Caines
We are the bows from which our children are sent forth as living arrows. If their flight through life is to be long and fulfilling, then let us turn away from participation in the deadly nuclear game. Let Canada say absolutely not, instead of maybe, to the American invitation to participate in star wars development.



WESTERN GRAIN STABILIZATION ACT


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Mr. Speaker, on April 7 the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) announced the largest pay-out in the history of the Western Grain Stabilization Fund. Prairie Canada was jubilant. The hard pressed agricultural economy was about to receive a respectable return from its own investment.
It was disappointing, however, that this announcement received barely a breath of comment from the major media. Those persons who sit above and behind you, Mr. Speaker, and whose duty it is to keep us pure, need to be informed and reminded of the importance of reporting on the world's most important industry, agriculture.
An Alberta observation is that the media are virtually never in the Legislature during an agricultural debate.
On the Continent of Africa, where malnutrition and starvation are rampant, not one Government gives even a moderate priority to agriculture. Sadly, it is a world fact that no national Government anywhere gives a top priority to agriculture. The peoples of the world have come to believe that agriculture lacks excitement. Yet every day 40,000 children under the age of five die of starvation.
The science and business of food production is an exciting and demanding challenge. Surely Doug Fisher could stand taller in the interest of agriculture. And I ask, rhetorically, of course, where is Mike Duffy when it comes to defending food? I tell those big reporters that there is a lot of the world that would like to "Eat Too, Brute".



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last September 4, when the Prime Minister won the election, there were 1.385 million Canadians out of work. Seven months and

April 15, 1985
Oral Questions
11 days later, there are 1.450 million Canadians out of work. Why are there more Canadians looking for a job now than on the day he won the election?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, in excess of 100,000 new jobs have been created. There are new and strong indications of investment and recovery.
My hon. friend, having been a Minister of Finance, knows of some of the time it takes. We have put in place an energy agreement with Newfoundland-Labrador, as well as another important energy agreement with western Canada, that will throw off many employment opportunities. We have begun a new relationship of civility and co-operation with the provinces to launch new job creation projects.
I believe that the stage has been set for a rebirth of confidence and new job-creation possibilities that involve the entire country, and that will do honour to this Parliament throughout its life.


EMPLOYMENT
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has mentioned a number of programs that, although they were announced some time ago, have yet to be implemented. In September, the Prime Minister and his Government cancelled a special program called First Chance, a billion-dollar program that would have given 100,000 young Canadians an opportunity to acquire experience on the job. Today, 505,000 young Canadians under 25 are looking for work, far more than on election day.
My question to the Prime Minister is this: Is he going to stop making promises to Canadian youth and start doing something for young Canadians?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition is aware, in Regina the Minister of Employment and Immigration announced a job creation program of historic dimensions and of particular interest to Canadian youth, and I think we are already seeing the results of this program. I certainly agree that the unemployment rate is too high in Canada. It is too high today, it will certainly be too high tomorrow as it was too high a year and a half ago. It is a major problem for all governments and for all levels of government. I can give my honourable colleague the assurance that we are loyally and, I trust, honourably, all the Members of this House, working with all governments to wipe out unemployment. As I said before, I agree unemployment is too high, and we are going to make an effort unique in our history to bring unemployment down in Canada, because our young people truly need jobs.


REQUEST FOR CREATION OF JOBS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will understand if I remind the House of his promise during the course of the summer and before, of jobs, jobs, jobs.


Mr. Deans:: Tens of thousands.


John Napier Turner: Tens of thousands of jobs, overnight, once his Government took power. The Prime Minister has been in power for over seven months. Today he did not blame the past, as he is sometimes inclined to do, and I am glad to see that. However, would he give the House the assurance that he will start fulfilling those promises that he made to Canadians when he was in opposition and during the election campaign? Will he produce more jobs because that is the underlying reason for any economy in any country?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition will readily acknowledge, as sustained by any subjective data, that indeed, as he indicated, there are tens and tens of thousands of new jobs that have been created since September 4. That is an absolute fact.


Ian Deans: That has always been true.


Mr. Broadbent:: That has been true since 1933.


Martin Brian Mulroney: There is the voice of 17 per cent.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: He was at 17 per cent in 1933, and he is still there today.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Pretty soon the unemployment will match our percentage.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We have been creating jobs. Interest rates have been declining. There is a strong rebirth of confidence in the private sector in job creation.


John Edward Broadbent: Where?


Martin Brian Mulroney: There are tremendous new possibilities emerging out of complex and, I think, very effective energy sector negotiations that took place. There are new prospects in Atlantic Canada. All of this is coming on stream in a new sense of harmony which a Budget will reinforce, and we believe that Canada can do infinitely better than the 1.6 million jobless which the Liberals left on snow banks. We can
April 15, 1985

do a lot better and we guarantee that we will improve. That is for sure.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SPACE WEAPONRY
Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In view of the fact that a consultative group on disarmament and an arms adviser to the Prime Minister's Government disagreed with his policy on star wars, and in view of the fact that in the universities of this land and in many places all across the country there is more and more opposition to star wars will the Prime Minister answer the following question? The Ambassador of Disarmament to the United Nations, an appointee of the Government, told 2,500 members of the Physicians for Social Responsibility in Toronto on Saturday that they should go out into the streets of Canada to show their opposition to the star wars madness. Will the Prime Minister tell us whether this is the new policy of the Government?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, that was a rather liberal interpretation of what was said by the relevant Ambassador.


An Hon. Member:: Is he still employed?


Charles Joseph Clark: The proposal that was made by the Ambassador on Disarmament was that Canadians should, as they had in the past, take advantage of those values which we are defending here, the values of freedom, to express their views, even when they disagree with the Government. That is a position and a value which this Government actively supports.
With regard to the consultative group, it is true that there was a report by the consultative group. It is true that that report does take issue with some of the positions of the Government. It is also true that when the hon. gentleman was Secretary of State for External Affairs he would not appoint a consultative group on arms control and disarmament because he was not interested in the opinions of anyone outside his Government.
[ Translation]


UNITED STATES INVITATION-CONSULTATION WITH CANADIAN PEOPLE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, since the Prime Minister does not want to answer that question, I will direct a supplementary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
We set up the Institute for International Peace, and we tabled a Bill in Parliament to which the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs objected, and today he is trying
Oral Questions
to use it and it is now one of this Government's initiatives. In any case, considering this Government's commitment to consulting Canadians and the fact that opposition to Star Wars is growing daily in this country, is this Government going to live up to its commitment to consulting Canadians and let the arbitrary 60-day deadline imposed by President Reagan on Star Wars pass, and ask Canadians for their opinion before involving this country in a policy that will be disastrous to world peace?


Charles Joseph Clark: First of all, Mr. Speaker, as far as the Institute is concerned, I can inform the Hon. Member that the Institute was supported and, in fact, improved by Members of this Party, and today, the independence of the Institute is being actively supported by the present Government of Canada.
Regarding the invitation extended by the United States, I would like to point out that it is being considered. As far as consulting the Canadian public is concerned, the Canadian people were consulted on September 4 of last year.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister, of course, has an abiding concern with the truth, and he will know the reality is that the rate of job creation for the last six months is lower than for the previous six months, and that unemployment has increased in three of the last four months when figures were produced.
Since the Parliament of Canada in the past has set targets for reducing the rate of inflation that ultimately became effective, will the Government commit itself to the same kind of target principle when it comes to unemployment, and will the Prime Minister commit his Government to bring down unemployment, say by a minimum of 2.5 per cent, during the next 12 months?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I suppose if the Hon. Member had a formula, or the Leader of the Opposition, or anyone else, that he could give me, whereby we can bring down unemployment by 2.5 per cent in the next month or two, I would grab it and say thank you, and I know the country would too.
In point of fact what we are trying to do, and I think with some success, is to lower interest rates, to get government spending under control, and to create a climate favourable for investment for job creation. There have been indications of lower interest rates, greater foreign investment, and national investment. There have been instruments of growth and economic prosperity in place in western Canada, for example, which in job creation will be of remarkable proportions, and in

April 15, 1985
Oral Questions
eastern Canada and elsewhere. I think with all of this coming together, with a genuine desire by the Government of Canada to create a climate that rewards risk and entrepreneurship, that the small business sector, the people who take the risks who create the jobs, the farmers, the fishermen, the small businessmen, will get a break, and in getting a break they will create jobs for Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister asked for suggestions. We have given him many from this side of the House. I remind him that it was in the election campaign in the summer of 1984 that he promised the people of Canada he would produce tens of thousands of jobs overnight. We want to see where those jobs are.


TAX REDUCTION PROPOSAL
John Edward Broadbent: I have a supplementary question for the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker. Considering the Cabinet that he happens to lead has been remarkably bereft of positive ideas about job creation, at least one of his backbenchers in the last week or so, the Member for York East, has joined with others in making a positive suggestion about stimulating the economy and, therefore, the creation of more jobs, by giving Canadians a tax break. There is something positive and constructive. Will the Prime Minister assure the House that he will act on this constructive idea when the Budget is brought down next month?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any constructive suggestion from the Leader of the New Democratic Party, I acknowledge that we have been getting tremendous ideas from a tremendous caucus, not only from the Member for York East, whom I salute, but from all of the other Members of the Conservative caucus who have contributed some magnificent ideas which are being considered by the Minister of Finance.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: With regard to the New Democratic Party, that Party sent a task force across the country. The NDP copied the Minister of Employment and Immigration's ideas. The New Democrats announced their new policy after the Minister of Employment and Immigration had brought in the greatest program of job creation heard in this country in decades.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I see, Mr. Speaker, that the Easter break has not changed the theatre. I shall try the Minister of Finance to see if we can get some commitment to action from him.


BUDGET INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, let me now put a question to the Minister of Finance. The only action which the Government has taken so far is to announce a number of cut-backs in a whole variety of programs which have led to the reduction of jobs, just as it did in Great Britain, West Germany, British Columbia, and a lot of other places that took the same approach. Will the Minister of Finance assure us and, more important, the people of Canada, that when he brings in his Budget the old cut-back approach will be abandoned and that he will bring in some stimulative measures which will create more jobs and give Canadians some good reason to be optimistic about their future?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am amused that the Hon. Member should take this approach. I believe it was the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor who was expressing a great deal of concern about the level of the federal government deficit, and now his Leader is ambivalent and does not know which way he should be going. I suggest that he wait until the week of May 20 when we will be bringing down a Budget which will give a clear signal to the people of Canada that there is a new environment, an environment wherein small-businessmen, people who have demonstrated a clear ability to create jobs, will be given the opportunity to do just that and solve our unemployment problems.


AGRICULTURE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It is on the same topic of how we go about creating jobs and also preserving them. As he probably knows, within a matter of days the major sugar beet industry in Alberta, Manitoba, and Quebec will be put out of business because of lack of action by the Government. The Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board has failed to obtain any form of agreement from Cabinet on remedial measures to deal with a problem which will put some 1,500 growers into the ground and result in the loss of some 600 to 800 production jobs.
Will the Prime Minister, as he has sometimes in the past, particularly in the Domtar case, personally intervene to ensure that Cabinet this week will deal with the sugar-beet problem and provide direct assistance to the growers so that they will not be put out of business?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely what the Government is doing. We are coming to a decision as quickly as we can. There are sugar-beet growers in town this week; many of them are in the gallery. It was 75 degrees yesterday in southern Manitoba. The planting season is upon us in southern Alberta, and they are very quick to plant in Quebec. We know all that.
April 15, 1985

The reason we are in this mess is the previous Government, of which that Member was a part, did absolutely nothing about it. We are not doing that. We are accepting our responsibility, and are intending to do something about it.


REQUEST FOR ASSISTANCE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister can no longer get away with that kind of excuse. The sugar-beet growers who are in town today expected action two months ago from the Government and did not get it. Will there be action this week? Will it be positive action? Will the Government provide direct, immediate assistance to sugar-beet growers before they go out of business because of government inaction?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member referred to an excuse. If there ever was anyone to ask for an excuse on behalf of agriculture, it is that Member. He has been in the House since last November, and this is the second time he has asked a question on agriculture.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Just take some action on it.


Charles James Mayer: We will have a decision this week and we hope that it will be favourable-


Some Hon. Members:: Hope!


Charles James Mayer: -because we are interested in agriculture. When that Member was responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, he did not even know enough to sign papers to get the cash advances out, so western farmers had to wait an extra month. Let's not talk about action; we'll get some.


TIMING OF ANNOUNCEMENT
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the same Minister. On March 11 the Minister of Agriculture, in reply to a question of mine concerning the future of the sugar-beet industry in Manitoba, Alberta, and Quebec, replied that he hoped to have an announcement to make within the next week. The Minister, speaking for the Government today, said perhaps this week. What happened to the last three weeks when the Minister promised that there would be a clear-cut policy from the Government? What will the policy be? Instead of just hopes, could we have a guarantee of what the announcement will be, and when?


An Hon. Member:: Sweeten it up, Charlie.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, for the first time the federal Government is taking the sugar-beet industry seriously.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles James Mayer: I know as well as anyone that ideally we would have liked to have a decision sooner. We know that. That is why the growers are here today. However, the point is that we are still in the process of deciding, and we will have a decision this week.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, since the process of deciding is still ongoing, and since the Minister of Agriculture indicated that he would have a decision within a week, more than four weeks ago, could the Minister tell us what are the problems? What is holding up the decision? What new information has made the promise of the Minister of Agriculture non-existent?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, again, for the first time we are looking at the prospects of developing a long-range sugar policy. One certainly does not do those kinds of things overnight, as 1 quickly found out. If the Hon. Member looked into it, he would find that out as well. I went into it with every intention of having something done as quickly as we possibly could, certainly sooner than this. Ideally we would have liked an answer sooner than this, but the point is that we are looking at a long-range policy and those kinds of things are not developed overnight.
As I said, we must have a decision this week because the season for planting sugar-beets is upon us. If we do not plant sugar-beets this year, we will lose a very important industry.


APARTHEID
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering the serious escalation in South Africa-every day we have more reports of killings, riots, and human rights violations, a very real threat to peace internationally-is the Government now ready to re-examine its policy, to implement economic sanctions against South Africa, and to implement a mandatory program with respect to Canadians doing business in South Africa, all this to help in the battle against apartheid and to bring justice to the black African citizens of South Africa?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, as I have reported on previous occasions in the House, indeed the Government is undertaking a very thorough review of the appropriate Canadian policy toward South Africa. That review is under way now. Its purpose is to do everything effective that we can to reduce the sin and crime of apartheid.
[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1985
Oral Questions

[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, we appreciate the review which is going on. However, considering the growing escalation in South Africa, would the Minister not agree that something should be done immediately with respect to this matter? So that we could have the support of the entire House, would he do this review in consultation with the opposition Parties? Then Parliament could speak with one voice against this horrible crime against humanity.
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think all Hon. Members of the House would agree that what we most need is to take action that would be effective, and that that means a co-ordination of action with other countries. That is one of the factors which has to be considered by the Government of Canada and by the Parliament of Canada.
With regard to the question of consultation, I would be pleased to engage in consultation either with official spokesmen of the two other Parties in the House or with persons they might designate, with an eye to seeing whether there might be unanimous agreement in the House of Commons on any statement, or position which might be taken.


INDUSTRY
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. In view of the attempt being made to save some 600 jobs at White Farm Equipment in Brantford, Ontario, would the Minister meet with the company president, Mr. William Sinclair, as soon as possible?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member for Brant, that meeting has been scheduled for midweek.


FINANCIAL GUARANTEE PROPOSAL
Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Mr. Speaker, the provincial Minister for Youth, who is also the provincial Member for Brantford accused the federal Government by asking: "Where was the action in Ottawa which might have helped us pull something off?" Would the Minister assure the House that he would at least look into the possibility of extending financial guarantees to the company during its troubled period?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I know that he must be aware of the fact that the Hon. Member for Cambridge brought this to our attention. We have, through our officials, met with Mr. Sinclair. We heard his approximately $50 million refinancing plan and where he felt the Government could be of some help. We have been in touch with the provincial authorities. In short, we have it in hand. We will be meeting with Mr. Sinclair in midweek, but we have nothing further to confirm or otherwise at the present time.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Will the Minister indicate why the Department of National Defence has transferred Commanding Officer Colonel de Tracey to an Ottawa desk job, even though the results of the inquiry into the crash of the two C-130 Hercules at Canadian Forces Base Edmonton have not yet been released? Will the Minister also give the assurance that this outstanding individual will be allowed to continue in advancement in the Armed Forces?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, base commander Colonel de Tracey is being transferred to responsibilities here in Ottawa for which there was an outstanding vacancy and which, I am sure, he will fill in an outstanding way. With respect to the accident itself, if the inquiry is complete, it is not yet in my hands, but I can assure the Hon. Member that the posting for Colonel de Tracey was intended as a matter of course, notwithstanding the events that took place.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I draw the attention of the Minister of the Environment to the scary experience of people in northern Ontario, and, for that matter, all people along the route from Montreal to Edmonton, following the spill which occurred over the weekend on the Trans-Canada Highway. Considering the danger that PCBs pose to human health as well as to the environment, I would like to ask the Minister what action she intends to take in order to prevent this occurrence from happening again.


Hon. Suzanne Blais-Grenier (Minister of the Environment):: In my opinion, Mr. Speaker, it is difficult to predict all hazardous situations that may occur, such as the spilling of PCBs, among others. Although this incident falls under provincial responsibility, I immediately got in touch with my colleague Minister Kells who gave me the following information. If Hon. Members are interested in knowing what immedi-
April 15, 1985

ate steps he took ... if you are not interested I can simply not say anything more.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, obviously the Minister does not realize that the trailer was travelling from Quebec all the way to Alberta and, therefore, there is a responsibility which goes well beyond the responsibility of one single provincial Minister of the Environment. What action, if any, does the Minister intend to take? Is she going to take any more interest in this matter of toxic substances than in acid rain? She failed to attend an international, high level meeting last weekend in Quebec City. Neither she nor the envoy on acid rain took the trouble to attend. What action is she going to take with regard to toxic substances?


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, I will reply to both questions, including the one which was an accusation. I could not possibly attend the Quebec City meeting on acid rain since I was in Sweden to meet with my counterparts and getting information on the way they protect their environment.
As to the measures taken, it is a matter of co-operation between the federal Government and the province, and as a former Minister, the Hon. Member knows very well that the first steps must be taken by the province. The provincial Department has kept me informed about what has been done so far, and today I was in touch with the office of Minister Kells.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. I believe the Minister knows that a report came out last week that strongly stressed the need to expand our economy to get people back to work through community initiatives, and to get greater corporate accountability in our country. I want to ask the Minister about a specific case which demonstrates vividly the problems that come up when corporate accountability is not there. What is the Minister prepared to do about the case of ITT Rayonier in Port Cartier which, despite the strong claims from that community, is dismantling the pulp and paper mill within that community? Would he intervene personally and see to it that a different direction is taken which meets the needs of that community?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, that
Oral Questions
case is of course being reviewed by our Department, but at this time we have no statement to make.


SINGLE INDUSTRY COMMUNITIES-DIVERSIFICATION FUND RECOMMENDATION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, no statement, when 2,000 jobs and $130 million worth of Canadian Government or federal-provincial investment are involved in a project, is surely inexcusable. Does the Minister not believe that this case demonstrates clearly one of the points we made in our action group this past week that single industry communities need a diversification fund to give them a chance to develop other kinds of industrial activities so that they are not so dependent upon a single industry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, inasmuch as the question relates to my constituency-

-I can tell the Hon. Member that I worked earnestly with a group of private investors to attract ... Yes, but what can you expect! I see Hon. Members of the Liberal Party are smiling. It was under the Liberal Government that the Port Cartier mill went under, the Liberals were in office when that happened. They find that funny. The people of Quebec will see that the Liberals find that funny today. Well, 1 certainly do not find that funny, nor does the NDP Member, and I thank him for his assistance. I went to my riding last week and told the people: either we attract private investors who were turned down when the Liberals were in office, or we will put federal facilities in the city of Port Cartier to make sure that Port Cartier and the riding of Manicouagan pull through.


REFUGEES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Last week all Canadians were saddened to learn that one of the country's most outstanding citizens, the former Chairman of the Royal Commission on the Status of Women, Florence Bird, had been denied re-appointment on the refugee advisory committee in a "Dear Flo'' letter that she received from the Minister. Can the Minister tell this House what possible reason she had to refuse this reappointment, recognizing the proven skills, competence, and experience of the individual in question?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I can assure the Hon. Member that the communication that was sent to Mrs. Bird indeed conveyed my deepest regard for the contribution that she has

April 15, 1985
Oral Questions
made over many years to this country. I can also tell the Hon. Member that no one recognizes the emerging new areas of refugee concern in this country better than Mrs. Bird and what has happened in response to those changes. There are many new fields of expertise that are developing. It is important that we draw on these new fields of expertise from across the country. I would say that, in conjunction and in consultation with the refugee communities of this country, we will be able to do so.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister now come clear with this House and tell us whether or not she is merely apologizing for the Prime Minister, who is obviously attempting to replace competence with another Tory hack?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I gather that the Hon. Member is not very well informed about the committee. It is a Ministerial Advisory Committee. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that the persons who will be appointed to this committee are persons who have humanitarian concerns at heart, who are dealing with refugee problems; people who know the situation, not only in this country but in other countries around the world where we must address the refugee question in deeper terms than it was addressed by the past Governments.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence end is supplementary to the question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Pembina. The posting of Colonel De Tracey to a dead and desk job in Ottawa was, as the Minister said, a matter of course notwithstanding the crash event that preceded his posting. Colonel De Tracey was scheduled to attend the National Defence College in Ottawa in preparation for promotion. Will the Minister guarantee that Colonel De Tracey will be allowed to attend the National Defence College, or will the upper echelon of DND in Ottawa be allowed to tie a can to this very highly regarded career officer of the Armed Forces?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member will appreciate that with the 83,000 service personnel that comprise the Canadian Armed Forces, there is a routine of postings from time to time which take officers and men to different parts of the country for different jobs, and indeed to international postings. In this case Colonel De Tracey was due for posting. He is now going to be occupying a position in the Department relating to the Director of the Establishment of
Requirements, a significant posting for him. If 1 took the Hon. Member's question correctly, this should not be regarded as casting the kind of inference that was suggested. He is going to an important posting with an important responsibility. With respect to the staff college, I have not seen the recent list of attendees at the staff college, but I will make inquiries in that respect.


FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who referred earlier to the creation of a new environment. In that same spirit, today he and the Government released a discussion paper on financial institutions which, by and large, does nothing less than create a financial in-breeding system between the financial and commercial institutions. Considering that the proposed discussion paper will now allow a single individual to own a bank in Canada, will the Minister explain how the creation of a "Rosenberg Bank of Canada" will actually help Canadian consumers and borrowers?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think the paper that my colleague, the Minister of State for Finance, tabled today is very clear in its attempts to introduce a new degree of competition into the financial system. It also takes very much into account the importance of the protection of the depositor and in that regard has recommended some very clear and tough conflict-of-interest and self-dealing rules, as well as an increase in the degree of regulation that the financial community would have.


INDIVIDUAL OWNERSH1POF BANKS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, 1 will return to the same question. I would like the Minister of Finance to explain, in terms of providing services to Canadians, how legislation flowing from this discussion paper, which would enable a single individual to be the sole owner of a Canadian bank, will assist the Canadian financial system by providing more competition and a higher level of safe service to the borrower?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am sure the Hon. Member has not had a chance to read the paper through. If he does, he will see that there are some very, very tough conflict-of-interest rules, or self-dealing rules, that will not allow people to take advantage of ownership positions when dealing with the use of the depositor's funds. That, in connection with the tougher and more comprehensive regulatory environment that will be introduced as well, will protect the depositor from the abuses to which the Hon. Member has alluded.
April 15, 1985


AIR CANADA
Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Transport, who, in speaking to the Association des gens de l'air, apparently promised to keep the pilot training centre in Montreal and also ensure that Air Canada personnel would always reflect Canada's linguistic reality. Mr. Speaker, my question is as follows: Has the Minister given Air Canada specific instructions, in writing? If so, does he intend to table them in the House? If the answer is no, how does the Minister intend to make sure that his promise materializes?


Hon. Benoit Bouchard (Minister of State (Transport)):: Mr. Speaker, Saturday evening we announced in Quebec City that we expected Air Canada to act in accordance with the principles that apply with respect to bilingualism within the corporation in terms of reflecting the percentage of Francophones in this country. We have also asked the corporation to take the principle of bilingualism into account in training pilots and personnel at the Montreal centre. To date we have given no instructions, and it is not up to us to give Air Canada written instructions in this respect. I believe the corporation has taken note of the comments and observations of the Department of Transport. Eventually, we intend to take steps that will prove to be at least as useful as those taken by the former government to apply the same kind of policy.


AIR TRANSPORT
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Transport is supposed to have a special mandate for dealing with issues that concern Quebec. I would like to know what he has done and exactly what he intends to do to ensure that Montreal becomes once again a major centre for international transportation.


Benoît Bouchard: Mr. Speaker, first of all, 1 would like to point out to the Hon. Member that I have no specific mandate for Quebec issues. The Minister of Transport and myself share the various issues that concern the Department.
As for the Hon. Member's question, it is not up to the Government of Canada to determine whether Montreal or Toronto or any other city should be what he refers to as the major transportation centre. The present focus of Canada's economy has put the majority of the corporation's operations in Toronto, and it is with this in mind that the corporation is managing its operations. Should the economic situation
Oral Questions
change, the company's policy will change with it. However, I would like to repeat that it is not up to the Government of Canada to determine whether Montreal, or Toronto, for that matter, should be the transportation capital.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board. As the Minister knows, there are over 1,500 sugar beet growers in the country, and for the first time in over 15 years producers from Quebec, Manitoba, and Alberta are working together, in contrast to what happened under the previous Government which used to split those growers apart.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Is there a question?


Blaine Allen Thacker: Will the Minister assure those growers that the Cabinet will take a decision this week?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, we have the answer. We have had questions from all sides of the House. This morning I had a chance to meet with the representatives and I realized that since growers, Members of provincial Legislatures, and members of Chambers of Commerce are involved, this sector represents a broad spectrum of the economy. There are people representing labour who are interested as well. I would like to assure the Hon. Member that we will take everyone's point of view into account when we arrive at a decision, and we will do it as quickly as we possibly can.


MULTICULTURALISM
Mr. Ernie Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Multicultural-ism. The Intercultural Communications Program is recognized by his Department as providing support for multicultural organizations that undertake activities which are designed to increase intercultural understanding, especially in the smaller cities of Canada.
Funding in the Ontario region has been tight for some time, but officials of the Department have assured organizations that the level would not be cut back this year. However, suddenly, in the last several days it seems clear that there has been a reduction. During this week when the Constitution's equality provisions are coming into effect, will the Minister

April 15, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
explain the reason for this sudden change in plans and the reduction in funding for multicultural organizations?


Hon. Jack Murta (Minister of State (Multiculturalism)):: Mr. Speaker, the reduction in funding, in terms of the Department of Multiculturalism, is in line with the over-all reductions which have been taken by all government Departments. I can assure the Hon. Member that there will be no reductions which will directly affect any of the work to which he has alluded in his question. I do not anticipate that, and my Department does not anticipate that, because that type of work, especially as we move into a whole new area in terms of the Charter and the questions relating to it, is far too important to the country to have any major reduction.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, April 3, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, Members will recall that on April 3 I rose in my place and indicated that it was my intention, at the first sitting of the House after the Easter break, to raise a question of privilege related to the publication by The Toronto Star and The Citizen of Ottawa of the second report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration prior to the presentation of the report in the House of Commons.
With respect to the question of privilege, we must establish in this Chamber that a prima facie case of privilege does exist and that the subject matter should therefore be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I would like to present to the Table, and for your information, Mr. Speaker, copies of the two articles. One was written by Joe O'Donnell of The Toronto Star and was published on April 1, 1985, prior to three o'clock of that day when the standing committee report was presented to the House of Commons. The other article was written by Jim Robb of The Citizen of Ottawa and was published on Monday, April 1, prior to the presentation in the House of the committee report at three o'clock. I would like to make these articles available to
the Table Officers because I would like to quote from them later on, and, Mr. Speaker, you may wish to have the Table Officers read them.
I would like to refer to two or three references-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I can hear the objection. In fact, the Hon. Member has the capacity to submit those matters to myself as part of the submission. However, he does not have the capacity to have them tabled. I appreciate the distinction which is being raised by Members opposite, and that distinction will be honoured.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I would like to draw to your attention Citation 606 of Beauchesne's at page 196. The citation comes from Chapter 15 of Beauchesne's which deals with standing, special and joint committees, and reads as follows:
(1) Disobedience to the orders of a committee, provided those orders are within the scope of the committee's authority, is a contempt of the House by which the committee was appointed.
I would like to turn to page 199 of Beauchesne's, Citation 628, which refers to in camera sittings of committees. It reads as follows:
(1)	A committee, having the right to exclude strangers at any time, it may be inferred, has the right to sit in private and have its proceedings protected by privilege. The publication of its proceedings in that case would be an offence which the House could deal with upon receiving a report from the committee.
I would like to remind you, Mr. Speaker, that the committee did, indeed, submit its report. The citation continues:
(2)	The purpose of in camera sittings is to allow Members to feel free to negotiate, discuss, deliberate and, sometimes, compromise without the glare of publicity, which might add to the difficulties of agreeing to reports when it is desirable that these proceedings be treated in confidence. The final decision of whether to sit in camera, however, rests with the Members themselves.
In other words, the members of any given committee of the House have the power to order themselves to sit in camera or to sit in public. They have been given that power by the whole House in the belief that it is a necessary power to the proper performance of their public responsibility.
I would like to refer to Citation 647 of Beauchesne's, which is found on page 203. The citation reads:
(1)	No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House. Upon this principle the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, on April 21, 1937, resolved "That the evidence taken by any select committee of this House and the documents presented to such committee and which have not been reported to the House, ought not to be published by any member of such committee or by any other person". The publication of proceedings of committees conducted with closed doors or of reports of committees before they are available to Members, will, however, constitute a breach of privilege. May, p. 146.
There is a subsequent paragraph which refers to the Canadian situation. I believe that I must quote from it as I believe that the current situation deviates from that and it is important to point that out. It reads as follows:
(2)	In Canada, when a question of privilege was raised concerning the publication of a committee report before it was presented to the House, the Speaker ruled that the matter could not be resolved as in the British practice
April 15, 1985

because the motion appeared to attack the press for publishing the confidential document but did not attack Members of the House for their attitude in respect of their own confidential documents, and in missing this point, it missed something most important with respect to the privileges of the House.
That precedent was established on June 23, 1977, but it is not the only precedent. I was able to discover two other precedents. All three cases dealt with draft reports which were under consideration by standing committees or special committees of the House of Commons. The difference, I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, is that we are dealing with a committee report in its final form, which was published by the two newspapers in question prior to its presentation in the House of Commons. Indeed, that report is currently before the House of Commons and is, therefore, out of the hands of the committee and in the hands of the total House.
There is a well known and well established understanding among Members of the House of Commons, and I believe the understanding extends to the press, that reports are to be treated as confidential prior to their presentation in the House. If there is any doubt about that, Beauchesne's makes it clear. That is the general case.
The specific case of this particular standing committee, and the way in which it approached its task, I believe has to be identified for all Members. Indeed, this may be the first committee of the House of Commons that has utilized the new rules in terms of deciding what it wished to investigate and the way in which it wished to investigate. The committee went through the investigation procedure and actually made a report to the House, which brings us to the last step, which requires the Government to respond within 120 days. If it is not the first, it is certainly one of the first to take advantage of the new power.
The committee wrestled in the beginning with a lot of issues about how best to do it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, I suspect, is now entering into what is very clearly becoming the argument which he wishes to put on the floor should the matter be found to be a prima facie case. I suggest that the Hon. Member has probably by now put forward the precedents he wishes the Chair to consider. The Chair is prepared to hear any further precedents on that matter, but 1 believe the Hon. Member knows that he should restrict himself to arguments with regard to the prima facie case and not make a speech about the importance of the matter should the matter be placed before the House for debate.
SIO)


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I may indeed be straying-I had hoped I was not-but in the minutes of the committee, which are before the House, the Speaker will find a deliberate set of orders, if you like, ways in which the committee ordered itself to behave. That includes a series of in camera meetings to deal with the subject matter of the report, and an in camera meeting to decide to make the report to the House of Commons. Therefore, the committee has ordered the confidential-
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
ity. I think that is perhaps an important point to make in terms of establishing-


Mr. Speaker:: I repeat my comments: does the Hon. Member have anything further to say with regard to a prima facie case as opposed to the case he wishes to make should a prima facie case be found? Otherwise, I would have to suggest that the Hon. Member has finished.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Thank you very much for your advice, Mr. Speaker. Can I draw to your attention the two newspaper articles which I have presented to you and quote from the second paragraph of each of these quite different articles? The Toronto Star states, "In a report to be presented today in the House of Commons and obtained by the Star yesterday". In The Citizen, the second paragraph of the article states, "To be tabled in the Commons today". That particular wording, I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, tells all readers and tells Hon. Members of the House that the newspapers in question, the reporters and their editors, did indeed know that the report had not yet been presented to the House. Therefore, they did a deliberate act in terms of publishing it and, in committing that deliberate act, they showed contempt for this Chamber and contempt for the privileges of Hon. Members.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Hon. Member is still making the speech he wishes to make should the matter be ruled appropriate for debate. Does the Hon. Member have any further matters with regard to-well, I take it the Hon. Member does not.


Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, in attempting to prove a prima facie case of breach of privilege, has made reference to a number of sections of Beauchesne. He first quoted Citation 606 which reads as follows:
Disobedience to the orders of a committee, provided those orders are within the scope of the committee's authority, is a contempt of the House by which the committee was appointed.
However, I submit he did not bring before the House specifically, first, what orders were formally and properly adopted by the committee, second, how they were breached and, third, exactly by whom they were breached. The Hon. Member went on to refer to Citation 628 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads as follows:
A committee, having the right to exclude strangers at any time, it may be inferred, has the right to sit in private and have its proceedings protected by privilege. The publication of its proceedings in that case would be an offence which the House could deal with upon receiving a report from the committee.
I submit, Mr. Speaker, that the report referred to in this citation is a report that any of its proceedings were improperly disclosed prior to the proceedings being tabled in the House. Ordinarily, the House deals with matters in committee on receipt of a report from that committee about them. This citation does not deal with the submission of a report by a committee on the substance of its deliberations but rather a report about what the committee feels has been a breach of its orders or of its proper rules of good conduct. Therefore, I

April 15, 1985
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
submit that the precedent in Citation 628, strictly speaking, does not apply to the circumstances in question.
The Hon. Member went on to quote at length from Citation 647 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads in part as follows:
No act done at any committee should be divulged before it has been reported to the House.
Then the Hon. Member went on to quote what the citation says about a resolution of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom on April 21, 1937. I submit, Mr. Speaker, that a closer reading of the current edition of May's Parliamentary Practice-because the citation read by my hon. friend is based on a quotation from May's-will show that this resolution has been superseded by an amendment of the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom House of Commons which allows a greater latitude in disclosing in a number of ways proceedings and reports of committees before they are fully disclosed to the House of Commons. Therefore, I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that the citation in question, Citation 647, based as it is on a reference to May's at page 146, which in turn quotes a resolution of the United Kingdom House of Commons on April 21, 1937, has been superseded by a later and more up to date change in the Standing Orders of the United Kingdom as put forward in the more up to date edition of May's and, therefore, does not apply.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I want to say that ordinarily an Hon. Member, in seeking to establish a prima facie case of privilege, has to indicate his or her willingness to submit a motion in the proper form calling for the matter in question to be referred to the Standing Committee on Elections and Privileges, or for some other appropriate action to be taken. All the Hon. Member has done so far is to present to the House a number of interesting citations which, I respectfully submit, I have distinguished and shown not to apply. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, in the absence of any clear indication by the Hon. Member that, if you find a prima facie case of privilege, the Hon. Member will submit a motion in the proper form which clearly defines the nature of the breach of privilege, by whom the breach was made and when and what action he proposes should be taken; the Hon. Member, for this and all the reasons I have given, has not made a case for a prima facie finding of a breach of privilege. Therefore, the matter should not be accepted as a prima facie case of privilege, contrary to the submission of the Hon. Member.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, just to make one point of clarification, I have a written motion which I believe to be in appropriate form and I will be quite pleased to move it if you find, Mr. Speaker, that a prima facie case does exist.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for the position being put forward by the Hon. Member. I can well understand why he would want to have the confidentiality of the report maintained until such time as the House of Commons received it. I can understand as well that Hon. Members of the House might feel aggrieved that the report, or certain contents thereof, were divulged through a
press statement in advance of the House itself having received the document. However, having said that, 1 am a little concerned that we are going on a wild goose chase or witch hunt which, in fact, may well be the case. Citation 647(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition states:
In Canada, when a question of privilege was raised concerning the publication of a committee report before it was presented to the House, the Speaker ruled that the matter could not be resolved as in the British practice because the motion appeared to attack the press for publishing the confidential document but did not attack Members of the House for their attitude in respect of their own confidential documents,-
It goes on to say that that in fact, therefore, probably did not constitute a breach of privilege. 1 want to suggest, Mr. Speaker, that there is a risk to be taken by the press in publishing information-


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, could the Hon. Member please bring himself to the prima facie question of privilege, not to the argument he may want to make should the House be debating the matter?


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I thought in fact I was addressing whether or not there was a prima facie case. The case to be made has to fall within the context of the practice of the House of Commons and the practice of the House of Commons, as defined by Citation 647(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition would appear to speak directly to the matter raised by the Hon. Member inasmuch as what the Hon. Member is suggesting is that the press is out of line in publishing information given to it in advance of the report being tabled in the House of Commons. That matter has been dealt with previously and, as I understand the ruling, the suggestion that it was out of order, although gaining sympathy, was not upheld.


Mr. Speaker:: As Members would expect, I take seriously the arguments which have been made. I am particularly grateful to Members on all sides who have chosen to present their arguments by way of citations and references which will be helpful. Since it is significant and since there have been different rulings on matters of this type in the Canadian practice, it would only be appropriate for me to reserve judgment, study the matter and come back to the House.
I have two further questions of privilege, or is the Hon. Member rising on a point of order?


Mr. McDermid:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Then I have one remaining question of privilege, which I must hear because it is put to me that way, and then I will come to points of order.
This question of privilege apparently arises out of Question Period.


MR. RIIS-ALLEGED IMPROPER REMARK OF MR. THACKER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, during Question Period I referred to a trust company which
April 15, 1985

had been owned by Mr. Rosenberg, and suggested that now an individual is able singly to own a trust company. As a result of the report made public by the Government today, and if the report were to result in legislation, it would allow that same individual to be the sole owner of a chartered bank of Canada. I called that into question and referred to it as the Rosenberg bank because that was the individual who had some difficulties as head of a trust company in the Province of Ontario some months back. I could have referred to the Thacker bank or given it just about any other name. However, the Hon. Member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) called out during Question Period that I was making a racist comment. The point, I suppose, was my referring to an individual, and if that is a racist comment, then I suppose we cannot refer to any individual. However, Mr. Rosenberg was chosen for that reason; it could just as easily have been, as I say, the Thacker bank of Canada or the Smith bank of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: We have a difficulty. That is not a question of privilege. The Member is raising a point of order with regard to the use of proper language.


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, 1 did not realize that the Hansard reporter would have picked it up, but to the extent the Hon. Member has explained the point he raised, and I know him personally, and he has no intention of making those types of comments, then if it is on the Hansard record I would withdraw it unconditionally.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it that will deal with the matter. On a point of order, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid).


POINT OF ORDER
John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, 1 found out that I gave you incorrectly notice of a question of privilege when it is a point of order. In the debate on Wednesday, April 3, 1985, as we were concluding the sitting for the day, the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) said, and I quote:
Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) is deservedly acquiring a reputation for being one of the thickest and dumbest Members of the House of Commons.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: I know opposition Members will applaud that. Although I have been called a lot worse by a lot better, I am asking that the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway withdraw those remarks as they are unparliamentary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown gave me notice of his intention to raise this matter which he thought in the beginning was a question of privilege. He is complaining that certain language used by the Hon. Member
Business of the House
for Vancouver-Kingsway was unparliamentary. The language in question was used on Wednesday, April 3, 1985, the last sitting day prior to the Easter recess. The Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown was in the House at the time. In the view of the Chair, the point of order should have been raised at the time the language complained of was used. The Chair is of the opinion that complaints of unparliamentary language or alleged unparliamentary language should not be pursued unless they are raised at the time the offending words are used. If I may take one moment to explain the reason for that, it is because it is only at the time the disorder results, which is why it is called a point of order, that the question of whether disorder has been created can be determined. I refer specifically to the point of order just raised by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis).
However, I should like to add in general terms that the Chair deplores the use of the kind of language complained of. Hon. Members should observe the normal courtesies in the course of debate. Offensive language, whether or not it is particularly unparliamentary, should always be avoided in the interests of good taste and the preservation of the dignity of our proceedings.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, I rise to indicate that we are making progress today. I had understood that Bill C-19 might take some time. I had an indication from the NDP it was going to take a long time, so we are very pleased that we were able to deal with it this morning.
As Your Honour will know, we therefore move to consideration of Bill C-33. I wanted to advise the House that if we are able to conclude that Bill today, and I am hoping we will, we will then move to Bill C-36 relating to the Aeronautics Act.
I would also like to advise the House at this time that I would like to designate tomorrow as the second allotted day in the Supply period in this trimester, and, therefore, the business for tomorrow will be debate on a motion from the Opposition.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, even though technically the Government House Leader can designate tomorrow as the second allotted day, generally there is more notice given of this type of thing so that the opposition Parties can consult among themselves as to whose day it should be and have sufficient time to prepare the debate on the Opposition Day. I just wanted to signal to you, Sir, and to the House, my concern as to the manner in which the Government House Leader has designated tomorrow as an Opposition Day. I regret that in doing it in this way he is not showing due respect for the importance our rules have given to the concept of Opposition Days, and I hope he will do better in future. If he does not, then the next report card he gets from the press will be a lot worse than the one he got last weekend.

April 15, 1985
Petitions


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, what are we going to do about the Opposition Day is quite a legitimate question because the fact is that one of us has to be prepared to put down a motion for debate within the next hour and a half. That does pose somewhat of a problem. However, I do want to apologize to the Government House Leader for allowing his legislation to get past second reading. 1 thought the Government wanted the legislation to go to committee, and I want to assure him that the Bill will take a long time to pass. It has only just been referred to committee.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the comments made by members of the Opposition. I tried to consult with them concerning the disposition of business, as I always do. The fact is we did make progress and so the government Party is always in the position, and we are quite prepared to do so, to receive notice before six o'clock of any opposition motion. We do not require a long time to defend our record because it is a very defendable and wonderful record. On the other hand, if the opposition Parties cannot find anything to debate, they should let me know and I will try maybe to give them some help on how to operate as an Opposition.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Blaine Allen Thacker: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs in both official languages. As this relates to Bill C-18, the Criminal Law Amendment Bill, I am sure that Members will be interested in directing their attention to this Bill.
[Editor's Note: For above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by 225 residents, mostly from the Province of Alberta, requesting assistance for the sugar beet industry in that province.
Mr. Speaker, I have another petition signed by a number of residents from the Province of Manitoba requesting assistance for the sugar beet industry.
[ Translation]


Lucie Pépin: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition signed by the Quebec sugar producers, drawing the attention of the House to the worst crisis ever experienced in the history of sugar production in Quebec.



RAOUL WALLENBERG HONORARY CITIZENSHIP ACT


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-233 to proclaim Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada, and requesting his return to freedom.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Hon. Member have leave to introduce the said Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Roland de Corneille: Today I have the honour and privilege to introduce a Bill to make Raoul Wallenberg an honorary citizen of Canada. It is a Bill which doubtless is of special interest to the Speaker himself. This Bill is intended as a one-time unique response and is not intended to set a precedent.
During World War II in Budapest, Hungary, this Swedish diplomat, at great risk to his life, saved tens of thousands of Jews who otherwise would have gone to the gas chambers of Auschwitz, by making these people honorary citizens of Sweden.
In a non-partisan and unified effort, we can do for him what he did for others and try to save his life by making him an honorary citizen of Canada. This will give him the opportunity to impress upon his-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that this time is allowed for a very short summary of the purpose of the Bill. I take it that the Hon. Member is concluding his remarks.


Roland de Corneille: I just want to add one thing. This will give us the opportunity to impress upon his Soviet captors for 40 years that this man is revered enough by Canadians to make him one of us and thereby justify our right to speak on his behalf.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know that the Speaker must officially disapprove of all bootlegging. I refer specifically to the Hon. Member's earlier comment in his remarks.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
April 15, 1985

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Government House Leader)):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 168, 180, 232, 249, 250, 275 and 284.


Mr. Stackhouse: In 1983, what were the total expenditures of the Defence Industry Productivity Program including salaries, publicity and grants?
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial
Expansion): The defence Industry Productivity Program (DIPP) expenditures for the fiscal year 1983-84 were as
follows:
Order Paper Questions
Since January 1, 1984, CMHC has conducted two apartment-vacancy surveys in Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton: one in April and another in October, 1984. The results of the most recent survey (October, 1984) where as follows:
Saint John 4.5 per cent Moncton 0.8 per cent Fredericton 0.5 per cent
The survey in these centres covers all private apartment structures containing six units and over.


Mr. Nunziata: What percentage of the budgets of the (a) Solicitor General Secretarial (b) RCMP (c) Correctional Services (d) National Parole Board is devoted to research and development?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Solicitor General of Canada):: Contributions:	$144,231,855
Loans:	$	534.389
The related expenses for DIPP for the fiscal year 1983-84 totalled approximately $2.5 million. This figure is made up of salaries for personnel evaluating and processing projects, contract costs, assets management and audit costs. There are no publicity costs for DIPP. However, a press release is prepared to inform the public of commitments made by the Government and the salaries related to this activity are included in the above figure.
(a) Ministry Secretariat
(b)	Royal Canadian Mounted Police
(c)	Correctional Service of Canada
(d)	National Parole Board
1985-86 Budget 5 per cent of the total budget 27.9 per cent of the budget after deduction of transfer payments to the provinces (young offenders)
.05 per cent .08 per cent Nil


Mr. Stackhouse: In 1983-84. how often did the Expert Advisory Committee on the Management of Severe Pain meet and what reports or recommendations did it publish?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: 1. Six times.
2. (i) Cancer Pain-Report of the Expert Advisory Committee on the Management of Severe Pain in Cancer Patients.
(ii) Cancer Pain-A Monograph on the Management of Cancer Pain.


Mr. Howie: Has the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation conducted a survey of rental accommodation vacancy rates in Saint John, Moncton and Fredericton, New Brunswick since January 1, 1984 and, if so, on what date was the most recent survey completed and what were the rates disclosed in each case?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: I am informed by Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows:


Mr. Nunziata: What are the names, titles and salary ranges of the (a) exempt staff (b) office staff in the House of Commons (c) constituency staff of the Hon. Elmer MacKay, Solicitor General?


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: (a) Exempt stuff
Names	Titles	Salary rangesPeter Mccrburg	Chief of Staff	up to $80,970Vicki Huntington	Executive Assistant	" " 51.591Eunice Nicollc	Private Secretary	" " 26.563Patricia Egan	Special Assistant	" " 43.931Robert Kawccki	Special Assistant	" " 43.931Bernard Bujold	Special Assistant	" " 43.931Richard Labcllc	Special Assistant	" " 43.931Mary Clarke	Special Assistant	" " 43.931Myles Kirvan	Special Assistant	" " 43.931Jo Clcall	Administrative Assistant	" " 43,931Office staff in the House of Commons	Names	Titles	Salary rangesLynne Groulx-dcLeyva	Member's Assistant	$11.177-$27,550Richard Borden	Member's Assistant	$11.177-$27,550
April 15, 1985
Order Paper Questions
(c) Constituency staff
Names	Titles
Olive Bowen	Special Assistant
Melody Goodwin	Member's Assistant
Leonard Reid	Member's Assistant


Mr. de Corneille: Is the Department of Communications presently re-organizing the offices of the National Film Board throughout Canada and, if so (a) which offices will (i) be closed (ii) remain open (b) at what date in each case (c) how many persons will lose their jobs?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: The
NFB's new mandate calls for several changes in its production and distribution activities and the reallocation of internal resources. This includes the gradual consolidation of its library-distribution system into larger regional centres and an increased emphasis on having its productions delivered via new distribution and exhibition modes.
Salary ranges $18,644- -$29,850 $11.177-$27,550 $11.177-$27,550



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Miss MacDonald (for the Minister of Agriculture) that Bill C-33, an Act respecting the import and export of and interprovincial trade in meat products, the registration of establishments, the inspection of animals and meat products in registered establishments and the standards for those establishments and for animals slaughtered and meat products prepared in those establishments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture.
Mr. Speaker:: I should indicate to the House that there are nine minutes remaining in the question and comment period following the speech by the Hon. Minister of State for the Canadian Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer). Therefore, I will recognize Members for further questions and comments.
Greater reliance on the new delivery technologies, as well as gains in efficiency and quality of service resulting from consolidation will mean better service to users and a more vital contribution, by the NFB, to Canadian cultural and social life.
The NFB's finalized five-year operational plan outlining how the Board plans to implement these, and other changes has not been completed.


RESEARCH INTO USE OF BACILLUS THURINGIENSIS
Mr. Caccia: Is the research on the use of Bacillus Thuringiensis as an alternative to chemical product spraying to destroy the spruce budworm, being transferred from the Laurentian Forest Research Centre in Sainte-Foy, Quebec to the Forest Pest Management Institute in Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Gerald S. Merrithew (Minister of State (Forestry)):: No.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, first I want to apologize to the Minister for keeping him here because I am sure that he has other things to do.
Since this is a Bill which will establish a new Act, there will be new regulations which may affect the long established regulations concerning the procedures for hiring veterinarians as for the pre-inspection as well as the post-inspection of slaughters. Are there any guarantees that those procedures will be maintained in the new regulations, because this Bill provides an opportunity to change the whole structure of the inspection process?


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, essentially, I can answer the question in the affirmative. My understanding of the legislation is that there is no intent to change hiring practices.
If the Hon. Member wants to compare Section 6 of the old Bill with Clause 12 of this Bill, he will see that they are essentially the same except for one difference. Clause 12(3) states that the Minister may designate any person as an analyst for the purposes of this Act. That is the only real difference.
I am told that the reason for Clause 12(3) is that in the past, when issues affecting this subject went to court, it would have been useful if the Minister could have designated someone as an analyst to act on behalf of the Crown as far as court proceedings are concerned.
In answer to the Hon. Member, there will be no changes, as I understand, to the hiring practices that are presently in place, with the exception that the Bill provides for someone to be designated as an analyst when there is deemed to be a need for an analyst.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Resuming debate.


April 15, 1985


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this Bill because I feel its intent is in contradiction to what the Government and its Members have expressed as its policy.
The purpose of this Bill is, hopefully, to improve the Act by combining several other Acts that are already in effect. Therefore, the contradiction is that while this legislation may improve the already excellent inspection services, the Government, in its cut-backs during the last several months, has taken steps to reduce the number of inspectors, reduce the need for inspections and eliminate the requirement to have inspectors at the plants at all times.
The Government has strongly defended this action in the committee and the House. This Bill is intended to improve the structure, yet, according to meat inspectors, the Government has moved to decrease the amount of inspection taking place in the abattoirs. Therefore, one must question why the Government is putting this Bill before the House.
First, it has been suggested that the possibility of collecting fees was already in the old Bill and therefore it was not necessary to pass this Bill for the new fee structure to be put in place. However, because of the suggestion by the Department in the last little while that it is going to reduce the number of inspectors and will start charging fees for the inspection of meat, it looks as though this Bill is a requirement to make it possible to carry this out smoothly.
I mentioned earlier that we had hoped there would be some improvement in this Bill as far as inspection was concerned. If you read the Bill carefully, Mr. Speaker, you will find that a lot of the meat inspection is left to regulation. That is why I asked the question of the Minister a few moments ago. For instance, there is nothing in the Bill which gives us any indication of the qualifications of inspectors. That is left to regulations, I assume. All the Bill says is, "The Minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purposes of this Act." It is not necessarily a veterinarian in the case of postinspection, or any inspection as far as that goes.
Also, at the present time federal inspectors work for the Government. There is no indication in this Bill that they will continue to work for the Government. Again I refer to what has been going on in committee and in the House regarding meat inspection. There has been at least an assumption on the part of government Members that a certain amount of inspection in the future will be left to the plant and will be controlled by the plant. There is no indication in the Bill that from now on, as in the past, federal inspectors will be employees of the Department of Agriculture. All it says is that "the Minister may designate any person as an inspector for the purposes of this Act."
As I said before, there has been an indication that possibly there will be a move to leave the responsibility of inspection to the processor himself. Again, by whom will the inspectors be employed? That is something we want to clarify in committee. Second, we are already well into discussion-indeed I think it
Meat Inspection Act
has gone further than that. We are well into the establishment of a cost recovery program that will reduce the budget of the Department of Agriculture by $33 million. That $33 million, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and as the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) have indicated, will be recovered from inspection fees. Those inspection fees will be paid by the processing industry, although we know from experience that most likely they will be paid by the producer, that is, taken from the price paid for the slaughtered animal. We have a cost recovery program being established or already in place and the Bill being put before the House allows the changing of regulations so that this cost recovery program can be put into effect. You must recognize, Mr. Speaker, that we have to suspect that the two are related.
If, as we have been told in committee and also in the House, these cost recovery fees are going to be put in place and there is the possibility that the inspector will be hired by the corporation rather than the Government, then we will have a situation where, as my colleague, the Hon. Member for Hum-boldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse), said, a large corporation which kills a large number of animals can easily put somebody on staff in place and pay for the inspection done, thus keeping inspection costs very low. The alternative for a small operation with a small number of carcasses to have a member of its staff appointed as an inspector is unlikely. The cost for that small operation will be much greater because the fees will be established directly by the Minister of Agriculture in his cost recovery program. Consequently, there is an almost built-in discrimination against the small abattoir that wants to provide the best quality of inspected meats to its neighbourhood or to its neighbouring communities. The small operator will be forced to pay much more for his inspection than the large corporation.
Prescribing how the inspection will be done is part of this Bill. I think we also have a concern that because we are passing this Bill and are able to establish a new set of regulations without necessarily following past and well established regulations or procedures of the past-and this is something we would like to find out in committee-we must be sure that the new regulations do not allow a kind of loose relationship between the large corporation and the government inspection process. Again I have to suggest that we suspect the relationship between large corporations and this Government are such that the large corporation is likely to get the easiest end of this operation.


Mr. Mazankowski:: Prove it.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: There are a number of questions which come out of this Bill which need to be looked at and which need to be part of the discussion in committee. We and the people of Canada need to know that the structure which is being put in place by this new Bill will be as adequate as that which we have had in the past and that the regulations to be drafted after this Bill is passed will guarantee the same kind of structure which may not or will not discriminate against the
3728

April 15, 1985
Meat Inspection Act
small producer or processor. This seems to be indicated in the Bill as it is presently written.


Charles James Mayer: Mr. Speaker, I should like very briefly to allay three of the concerns of the Hon. Member. First, the frequency of inspection level has nothing to do with this Bill at all. In fact, if the Hon. Member wants to check, we have 38 more inspectors in operation now than was the case before we assumed power. However, let me say again that it really has nothing to do with this Bill.
With regard to his concern about subclauses 12(1) and 12(2), the reason that the regulations need to be flexible is that when we export out of the country, the EEC particularly requires that veterinarians do the inspections. However, in the United States, for instance, that is not the case. We are trying to allow for some flexibility in the Bill so that we do not bind ourselves totally to having veterinarians at additional cost doing inspections which can be done presently by inspectors. We do not see a concern there, and I hope I have answered the Hon. Member's point.
With regard to having companies hire inspectors, there is no provision in the Bill for that. In fact, it is up to the Minister to designate who the inspector shall be.
Finally, the Hon. Member indicated that the Bill seemed to favour larger operators over smaller ones. That is certainly not its intent nor is that the case, as I read the Bill. If he has those concerns, I hope he raises them in committee and gets them clarified or satisfied because that is not the case.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the Minister's answer very much. The three concerns to which he referred are taken care of by the present regulations, but they are not taken care of in the new Bill. I am concerned about some kind of guarantee or at least a concern on the part of the Government that care will be taken when the regulations are written.


Charles James Mayer: I think all of us on all sides of the House approached the revisions to the three Bills and combining them into one with the noblest of motives. Obviously that would have to apply to the regulations if in fact we are to achieve some of the things we want to achieve in the Bill. That is the intent of the Bill.
As I said, the Hon. Member should raise those issues in committee and make sure he is satisfied there. Some of the regulations should be flexible to allow us to make the best use of the people we have. I hope he is satisfied that the regulations will be drafted with those kinds of motives in mind, to maintain the inspection service we have had in the past and to give us as good a chance to export with as little problem in terms of health standards as possible.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Wise, seconded by Mr. Crosbie, moves that Bill C-33, an Act respecting the import and export of an interprovincial trade in meat products, the registration of establishments, the inspection of animals and meat products in registered establishments and the standards for those establishments and for animals slaughtered and meat products prepared in those establishments, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. 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 the Standing Committee on Agriculture.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: that Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased this afternoon to have an opportunity to introduce Bill C-36 for second reading. It is a very important Bill. It is part of the complete reorganization of Canadian aeronautics legislation. Essentially the purpose of the Act is to provide for a framework to allow a safe national transportation system to be instituted to serve all parts of Canada. We are looking at legislation covering all parts of Canada, including areas in the far North which cannot practically be served by any means of transportation other than air.
At the outset I should say that the work in drafting the Bill and pulling it all together was the culmination of tremendous effort on the part of officials in Transport Canada and previous Ministers. While the legislation is very complex and technical in nature, by and large it will serve as a very satisfactory framework for the continued growth of the aviation sector in Canada.
Also I remind the House that there has been a tremendous amount of consultation with the industry, with special interest groups and indeed with the public at large with regard to the provisions of the Bill.
I think all of us recall the establishment of the Dubin inquiry, appointed by the previous Conservative Government in 1979. It was charged with the task of investigating and reporting on, among other matters, the investigation of accidents and reporting systems, investigation of incidents involving aircraft, and the formulation of the laws, regulations and rules necessary for the safe and proper navigation of aircraft. As a result of this very intensive and comprehensive inquiry on aviation safety, the Dubin Commission presented three volumes of recommendations in its report. They were unveiled to the public between May, 1981 and February, 1982.
qi


* *

April 15, 1985

The major recommendations were in the areas of airworthiness, accident and incident investigation reporting, enforcement of laws and regulations, navigational aids, uncontrolled airports and personnel. The Dubin recommendations on accident and incident investigations in Volume 1 resulted in the passage of the Canadian Aviation Safety Board Act. It was introduced in the House by the former Minister of Transport, the Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin, and was passed. The Canadian Aviation Safety Board is now operational.
The Aeronautics Act amendment Bill with which we are now dealing implements the legislative recommendations of Volumes 2 and 3 of the Dubin Commission and represents the first attempt at a comprehensive scheme of amendments for the Aeronautics Act since the Act was passed in 1919. I believe there were some minor modifications in 1921. Essentially, the legislation which has been on the books heretofore was the product of the 1919 variety, and I think we all recognize that there have been some tremendous changes in the aviation business between 1919 and 1985.
The proposed amendments will strengthen the Department's enforcement program with stronger enforcement powers and increased penalties. These should prevent a recurrence of the situations described by Mr. Justice Dubin such as unlicensed air carriers which operate in an unsafe manner and undercut legitimate competitors and which are not deterred by the currently available penalties; operators who fail to comply with safety standards and continue to operate unsafe aircraft; and individuals who ignore the rules of the air or the instructions of air traffic controllers while operating aircraft.
In his findings Mr. Justice Dubin cited many examples of these situations. The proposed amendments will give the Department the necessary tools for more vigorous enforcement. In order to enhance the enforcement of the Act, the offences will be reorganized so that some may be prosecuted by indictment, fines will be increased, and there will be new penalties for operating an illegal commercial air service including the possible forfeiture of the aircraft.
The amendments also increase the administrative powers of enforcement as well as suspending or cancelling a licence. The Department will be able to assess monetary penalties varying up to maximum of $1,000 for certain regulatory offences. This is a relatively new concept in Canada, but it is used by the Federal Aviation Authority in the United States and has been advocated by the aviation community in Canada.
The proposals for more vigorous enforcement, however, will be balanced by a method of review of administrative enforcement decisions. The establishment of an independent civil aviation tribunal, as recommended by Mr. Justice Dubin, will provide a vehicle for such a review. This body will hear and determine appeals from administrative penalties in an expeditious and fairly informal fashion. It will provide two opportunities for challenging the Department's decision, first by an application to a single member of the tribunal and then to a panel of the three members.
Aeronautics Act
In most cases the tribunal can substitute its own decision for that of the Department, but where the matter would involve medical qualifications or professional incompetence, the tribunal will be limited to affirming the departmental decision or referring the matter back to the Department on the basis that the Department has a responsibility to the public to ensure the competence of those involved in aviation. The tribunal will be composed of people representing expertise in the various areas of aeronautics. Most will serve on a part-time basis and members will be drawn from all parts of Canada. The aim of the tribunal is to provide a system whereby these matters can be decided in an expeditious and informal manner by persons who have the technical knowledge of all factors involved.
The amendments to the Bill also permit the consolidation of the aeronautical regulations system by expanding existing regulatory powers and introducing new regulatory powers so that all requirements necessary for aviation safety can be mandatory. Heretofore some of these matters could only be dealt with by administrative recommendations.
Some of the new areas of regulatory activity will include: airworthiness of aeronautical products such as aircraft engines and propellers; the location of aerodromes so that they will be sited in a manner that will lessen the risk of mid-air collision; air navigation facilities so that the increasing number of private aids will operate to the same standard as those provided by the Department of Transport; regulations with respect to the handling of aviation fuel to ensure that proper fuels are used and that these fuels are free of contaminants will be included in the new areas of regulation; liability insurance for private aircraft so that the public may be assured of compensation for damage caused by aircraft.
Concurrently with the development of these amendments, the Department of Transport has been engaged in a massive revision of the existing air regulations in order to present them in a new consolidated format that will be easier for the aviation public to understand. It is very clear that in order to have a system of laws and regulations and in order for those laws and regulations to be respected and their integrity to be upheld, there must be some assurance that the laws and regulations are clearly understood, that they are spelled out in fairly clear and coherent language. As a result of the many developments that have taken place in the aviation industry since 1919, some of the wording and some of the interpretations with respect to the rules and regulations have caused some problems in terms of the administration and the enforcement of these rules and regulations.
There are as well provisions in the Bill with respect to zoning. These provisions are aimed at clarifying the purposes of procedures used in zoning and also to extend zoning powers to areas around air navigation facilities. The amendments distinguish between zoning at airports for safety purposes, such as the safe landing and taking off of aircraft, and for purposes that are incompatible with airports, such as protecting access or preventing developments that would be affected by noise. The latter type of zoning is authorized only at federal airports and airport sites. Where zoning is aimed at incompat-

April 15, 1985
Aeronautics Act
ible land uses, the interest of the province in planning the development of areas around airports is recognized by a requirement for provincial participation in the zoning process.
The new power to zone around air navigation facilities is aimed at preventing development of lands in a way that would interfere with air navigation signals that provide information vital to the safe operation of aircraft using the facility. The current provision that provides for compensation for loss in value of land because of zoning is repealed. The reason is that it will make the law compatible with provincial and municipal laws. At the present time provinces and municipalities do not compensate for these losses. As a matter of fact, apart from a number of settlements made 20 years ago, there have been only two cases where applications for such compensation have been made.
With respect to fees, amendments are incorporated into this legislation aimed at improving the collection of fees. They provide for interest on overdue accounts and the authority to require a bond or letter of credit as security for fees which will be exercised where there is history of non-payment or late payment of fees. This measure incorporates good business practices. It also provides that a court order may be obtained authorizing the Government to detain an aircraft until any outstanding fees have been paid. It is recognized that there has been insufficient clout in the hands of the Department of Transport on many occasions to exercise the necessary powers to collect fees that have been outstanding and past due.
The amendments provide a procedure whereby doctors and optometrists who believe their pilot patients have a condition that could lead to an aviation accident can be sure that the Department of Transport is made aware of that condition. The amendments provide that where the doctor or the optometrist feels such a condition exists, the doctor or optometrist must advise the patient to report the condition to the Department of Transport. As well, the patient must then report his condition and the doctor or the optometrist must, within 72 hours, confirm that the report has been made.
As a result of the report, the pilot will be examined by departmental doctors and a determination made as to whether his licence should continue. Doctors and optometrists will be protected against legal actions arising out of making these reports. This amendment tries to strike a balance between the confidential relationship between the doctor and his patient and the public interest in having only those persons who are medically fit operating aircraft.
The remainder of the amendments are aimed at modernizing the wording of the Act, updating it and authorizing current departmental practices such as the provision of navigational aids, the publication of aeronautical information, and the provision of aid to non-federal airports. What we are doing is upgrading a piece of legislation that has certainly served us well but clearly needs to be updated and modernized in tune with the realities of the 1980s, 1990s and the 21st century.
As I said earlier, the provisions of this Bill have been discussed exhaustively over the years during which they were developed with the aviation community, the public, special
interest groups and, I suspect, Members of Parliament. While it is a technical and rather detailed Bill it is very important because it will provide the framework for the aviation community in Canada for some time. A lot of Members have a very particular interest in this kind of legislation. I know that my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), has been active in the work done on many pieces of legislation having to do with aviation safety. It is an issue with which all Members are deeply concerned.
What we are trying to do here is to strike a balance whereby an effective framework can be put in place to ensure the safety and security of the aviation environment. The Hon. Member for Dartmouth-Halifax-East (Mr. Forrestall), the Parliamentary secretary, has been a long-standing advocate of better ways and means of ensuring the safety off all modes of transportation. As a matter of fact, 1 think Members will recall that over the course of seven or eight years, he had presented a private Member's Bill recommending the establishment of an independent accident investigation board. While this has not been implemented in its totality, at least a portion of it has. I think there are a number of recommendations and suggestions indicating that it might very well be in Canada's best interest to opt for a multimodal safety board. The Hon. Member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Ellis) has also been very closely involved in matters relating to aviation and particularly aviation safety.
I commend the Bill to all Hon. Members of the House. I want to assure them that they will have the utmost co-operation. We will provide the kind of departmental advice, assistance and briefings that will ensure that they will understand all aspects of the Bill. I commend the Bill to the House for quick passage with the assurance that there will be ample time to deal with all elements of it during the course of the committee considerations. I suspect that if it is deemed desirable to call witnesses, that could also be done, but I think Members will quickly find that there has already been a very exhaustive consultative process. Nonetheless, if information is required from the Department or from my own office, we will certainly be very pleased to make it available. I thank Hon. Members for this opportunity and I hope that we can move quickly to have this matter referred to the committee, at which time we can consider it in much more detail.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 45, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows:
April 15, 1985

The Hon. Member for Davenport (Mr. Caccia)-Environmental Affairs-Acid rain-Canada-United States discussions, (b) Niagara River pollution; The Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand)-Unemployment Insurance-Inclusion of severance pay in income calculation, (b) Effect on laid-off workers; and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata)-Administration of Justice- Premier's trial-Prime Minister's knowledge of marijuana find, (b)) Date of inquiry.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Mazankowski: That Bill C-36, an Act to amend the Aeronautics Act, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Transport.
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the Bill to amend the Aeronautics Act, Bill C-36, and to give the Hon. Member the assurance that the Official Opposition supports this Bill and will co-operate with the Government in referring the Bill to committee as soon as possible.
I should remind the House that this Bill is the result, as the Minister himself said earlier, of numerous consultations that took place in recent years with the various parties involved in the aviation sector. I believe the Minister recalled that, in 1978, a task force was created in the Department of Transport to start a review of all aeronautics regulations, in order to introduce appropriate amendments to the Aeronautics Act and provide this vital industry in Canada with modern legislation to meet the needs of the hour and of 20th and even 21st century aeronautics. Consequently, I am very pleased to see that all the major parties concerned were consulted and consulted often in the past few years, preparatory to drafting what is before the House today as Bill C-36.
I am equally pleased with the decision to incorporate in this Bill the principal recommendations made by the Dubin Commission of Inquiry on Aviation Safety in Canada. This Commission, which was formed when my hon. friend, the present Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), was doing his first stint, that is, during his short mandate . ..
As his first mandate as Minister of Transport in 1979, he had the good fortune of creating that commission which did an excellent job. All Canadians must be grateful to Mr. Justice Dubin for his exceptional work which ended with a whole series of important recommendations we now find embodied in and implemented through specific amendments to the
Aeronautics Act
Aeronautics Act. I thank the Minister for following up on many of the Dubin report recommendations.
I should like to emphasize, Mr. Speaker, that if we in Canada believe that deregulation is a must if we want to foster more competition on behalf of consumers, on behalf of civil aviation users, it is just as important to admit that deregulation would not be advisable with respect to safety. I am pleased to see that the Bill advocates stricter and more severe regulations on aviation safety and the protection of Canadians. To me, that is essential. We can have confidence in the airlines, in market forces concerning user services, in the range of prices and services made available to passengers, but I do not think we can give free rein to the companies when it comes to air safety. Therefore, though the former Liberal Government was in favour of deregulation to make users benefit from improved competition, it too had every intention of implementing stricter aviation safety regulations.
I am pleased to see that this Government has decided to seek the same objectives we had in mind a few years ago to make sure that the air travelling public and air terminal users are better protected in a safer environment.
I want to make a point concerning incidents that have occurred, such as the aircraft forced down at Gimli in Manitoba because of fuel shortage. 1 have been told that the Government has received or is about to receive the report on that incident. It is to be expected that the report will contain suggestions and recommendations which might bear directly on this Bill. I am not advocating a delay in the adoption of the Bill, for it will certainly be referred to a parliamentary committee for clause by clause consideration. But until the Bill comes up for third reading, if the Minister gets the report on the Gimli incident, I would like the report to be tabled in the House and made public so that we might consider its recommendations and perhaps learn something and take it into account before final passage of Bill C-36.
Finally, I want to thank the Minister for his generous offer to give a technical briefing on the various aspects of the Bill to Hon. Members who sit on the parliamentary committee to which the Bill will be referred. It is obviously a very complicated piece of legislation and I am sure that senior officials of his Department or a few experts could give the required briefing to the Members of the parliamentary committee who will do the clause by clause study of this measure.
Mr. Speaker, I conclude therefore my comments by congratulating the Minister who has introduced a legislation which assuredly is nearly identical in every respect to the one which his predecessor could have introduced if the Canadian electorate had voted differently. I can assure him that although this may be a golden opportunity to make a whole series of speeches on the needs of our respective constituents, the area of transportation being so vast that each and everyone of us could rise and make representations on behalf of our

April 15, 1985
Aeronautics Act
respective ridings and constituents ... But the Official Opposition will show magnanimity; it will not abuse the time of the House, because we recognize that this is a technical bill, not a political one; we will not play politics with this bill, preferring to help the government provide Canada with a modern and effective legislation in the area of aeronautics.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the eagerness of the Minister to have the Bill dealt with in the House as quickly as possible in order that it can be referred to committee. It has been a long time in the making. I have listened to discussions in Transport Committee meetings with seven different Ministers of Transport during the last 17 years and on every occasion the matter of rewriting the Aeronautics Act arose.
I suppose the delay has been due to the new developments in technology and the increased variety of aircraft. Those factors have meant, and will continue to mean in the future, that the regulations have to be updated continually.
The Bill allows the Ministry to administer the regulations. However, most of the areas which affect the industry or civil aviation are not contained in the Bill but exist only in the regulations over which the Minister has complete control.
The Bill itself is not very technical. It merely establishes the machinery and the bureaucracy for the regulatory powers. I submit that much analysis of the regulations will be required before the effect of the legislation can be measured. In that light, 1 hope the Minister will make the commitment that the committee, in dealing with the second reading of the Bill, will have access to the regulations, if they have been printed, which will be brought in under this legislation. The committee should go over every regulation which is proposed under this legislation and, as well, should hear witnesses from the various groups which are directly or closely involved in civil aviation.
I appreciate that there has been a great deal of consultation with concerned groups, including the Canadian Owners and Pilots Association, the Canadian Air Line Pilots Association, air traffic controllers, the Saskatchewan Flying Farmers Association, and others. However, being consulted with respect to the Bill is different from being consulted on the actual detailed regulations. Some of that consultation may have already taken place. But in any case I would ask the Minister if the regulations have been printed and if they will be referred to the committee in conjunction with this Bill. In addition, will the committee be allowed to hear witnesses with respect to the regulations? I find very little in the Bill with which the organizations or other interested groups would take serious issue or to which they would take exception. I suspect that if there are serious exceptions they will arise from the regulations.
Canada has more pilots and planes per capita than any other country in the world. The fact that this Act has not had a good going-over since the 1920s should suggest that a sufficient amount of time must be allocated in committee to
ensure that proper consultation is held with the public regarding the regulations. The Bill gives the Minister complete control over the regulations and operations, as well as over security and the imposition of charges for the use of air services. Again, I hope the Minister will depart from the practices which were too often carried out by previous Ministers who arbitrarily made decisions with little or no consultations, including consultations with the standing committee. I am confident that the Minister, with his long-standing membership on the committee and his hard work and experience, will want to hold those consultations.
The legislation not only gives the Minister complete control over the regulations and operations, it also gives him the power to appoint members to a board of inquiry in order to investigate an incident or accident involving an aircraft which affects safety. I hope the Minister will call upon all the various agencies and organizations and ask them to provide a list of names of people who have expertise from which he can choose. 1 realize the Minister will want to choose a few people himself, hut that is a way of consulting which would provide a broad cross-section of people who have knowledge and expertise regarding air safety and the investigation of incidents and accidents.
I agree that the Ministry of Transport should not investigate accidents which pertain to the regulations that the Department will enforce. I agree that those kinds of investigations should be carried out outside the Ministry. However, I thought that the CTC would have been strengthened and its independence increased. I feel that the Air Transport Committee of the CTC should have been strengthened and that its investigatory powers should have been enlarged. If that had been done, it would not be necessary to set up independent tribunals. But I suppose it is a case of six of one and half a dozen of the other. Whether it is an additional body which is appointed from time to time to investigate an accident as it pertains to safety, or whether the CTC Air Transport Committee does it, it still must be done in each case. However, I believe that the establishment of an independent tribunal for each separate incident or accident would mean a much greater cost, unless the CTC was to maintain a permanent staff which would have the expertise to analyse and keep records about incidents and accidents, so that as and when a tribunal is appointed a staff would be immediately available to it. Those people would then become part of the staff of the tribunal, rather than of the Canadian Transport Commission.
A former Minister of Transport, Jean-Luc Pepin, and myself, were the only two members on the committee who opposed the degree of deregulation which was being suggested by the Government of that day and supported by members of the Conservative Party. I took issue with this for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that deregulation in the areas in which it has occurred is nothing more than a return to, or an appeal to, mediocrity. We are now in the situation where air fares are cheaper for some people in some places and more costly for some people in other places. Service to isolated, small and medium-sized communities, as I predicted, has
April 15, 1985

worsened. We can hardly blame the major air carriers, be they regional or national, but if they can vacate a small market and rely only on the larger markets then we will find we have a multiplicity of jerk-water outfits which start out by leasing second-hand aircraft and hiring laid off crews, running a mediocre operation and giving mediocre service to the smaller markets. There has already been a number of instances where this deterioration, this appeal to mediocrity, has taken place.
There is another danger, Mr. Speaker-and I am confident the Minister is aware of it in the back of his mind-when Government panders to this appeal to, "get Government off our backs. There's too much regulation, too much government and we want a free and open market system". When we go the route of deregulating the air industry, for example, we can end up in a rut of shortcuts and lack of enforcement of regulations which are in place, whether or not they are adequate, because the industry wants government off its back. We have heard these kinds of speeches from inside and outside Parliament for a number of years.
1 want to say, Sir, that as far as we in the New Democratic Party are concerned, there are three kinds of regulations: First, there is safety and airworthiness. There cannot be, must not be, and I am confident with this Minister that there will not be, any compromise and our safety standards will be updated frequently and strengthened. There can be no compromise on safety regulations and airworthiness no matter how tough economically it is for the operator. Second, there is the whole matter of entry and exist and the use of aerodromes and airports which are build at the taxpayers' expense. There must be a measure of regulation in that area because when we allow entry and exit in and out of cities there shoud be no remote or isolated area in Canada, no small or middle-sized city in this country, that would not be able to depend on a reasonably permanent basis of civil aviation services. If there is no regulation, there will be so many "inners" and "outers" we won't know from one year to the next which airline is operating into one's city. And it has already started, Mr. Speaker. There must be regulation on the whole matter of entry and exit into a route. If an airline, be it small, medium or large, wishes to enter into a route or a pair of cities, it should not be allowed to pick just the good market and leave out the isolated and small and middle-sized communities. It should be prepared and required to take a mix of the market. If it is not prepared to accept some of the bad with the good then obviously there will be worse service for the people in the isolated and small and middle-sized communities because the market is not there so that the airlines can make a big profit. If they want the whole market deregulated, free and open for them to go into, then there surely must be some regulatory obligation placed upon them to provide a reasonable and equitable mix of service no matter where that service is located in the country. Without that, Mr. Speaker, the situation will continue to deteriorate. There will be areas in the northern parts of Canada and in small cities even up to the size of my own city, which will have a deterioration in the quality of service. That has already
Aeronautics Act
started. Some degree of regulation of the whole matter of entry and exit should be maintained.
The third class of regulation is the matter of fares. As far as we in this Party are concerned, if someone is dumb enough to sell an airline ticket at less than what it costs, that is his problem. It will be to the benefit of the travelling public. I have been amazed to see over the past couple of years the jungle of air fares which is already in place in this country. A fare which applies one day out of one city does not apply in that city two or three months later, but does apply in another city. They might want to do the same thing as the variable rate on grain and say, "If you all go into Calgary, Edmonton, Vancouver, Winnipeg, Toronto and Montreal, we can give you real cheap seats". How one gets to those places is another matter, Mr. Speaker. Some good friends of mine went on a trip overseas and the only way they could get the cheap overseas air fare was to drive from Saskatoon to Calgary, leave their car with friends there and drive back when they returned. It was that or pay a regular air fare to Winnipeg or Toronto. That is not what one would call equitable service, Mr. Speaker. Therefore, a limited amount of regulation is required in the matter of fares. A fare which is going to apply to one part of a route must apply to every other part of the route. They should not be able to pick out some and leave out others because that discriminates against some people in this country because of where they happen to live. The more we allow this to happen, the more our very limited market in Canada becomes fractionalized.
We are not in a position because of the size of our market to copy what is happening in the United States or Europe where there are high density markets. To apply some or any of their regulatory regime to our situation, I suggest, is a misapplication because we have a northern climate, a massive geography and a widely and thinly scattered population. What might apply in a high density, heavy market route out of New York, Los Angeles, Chicago or, for that matter, Toronto or Vancouver, does not and cannot apply to the rest of Canada. That would be economic nonsense. If we allow the market to be fractionalized under a multiplicity of airlines, what will happen is that they will take turns losing money. As they lose money, one of three things might happen. First, they might go belly up; second, they might go to the Government to get a subsidy, or third, they might merge with a larger airline. It is inevitable because of the size of the market in Canada that we will see the day when we will be back to just three or four viable airlines operating in this country. That is all we can afford. We need three or four dozen airlines like we need a hole in the head. They would not be able to supply a good enough service and will divide the market up so small that the big guys will run the little guys into the ground. Then the big guys will have a monopoly at the places they select because they can go in and out of them when they damn well please. They don't have to get approval of a fare, all they have to do is file it. It has gotten as bad as the CPR freight rates.
We appreciate the need for this legislation. We support the complete updating and revamping of the whole regulatory

April 15, 1985
Aeronautics Act
regime in civil aviation. We ask the Minister, before the regulations are gazetted, that they be sent to the Transport Committee, that witnesses be invited and that the Committee go over every single regulation. This should be an annual practice as and when new or updated regulations are to be implemented. They should be referred to the Standing Committee on Transport and we can hear from the people concerned. Similarly, as and when a regulation has outlived its usefulness it would be nice if the Minister came and told us about it and pointed out what regulations can be eliminated. We have had too many eliminated where there was no consultation.
I hope the Minister will continue to conduct himself in the manner in which he has in the preparation of this legislation. To be fair about it, a lot of work and preparation has been done by two, three or four of his predecessors. We also hope there will be time to go through it in concert with the regulations envisaged. I suspect the committee is going to have a bit of difficulty in getting at it because it is faced with the Estimates and the Air Canada annual report, CNR, VIA Rail and all the other things on the committee's plate. Given that, we may not be able to finish this before the end of June, but I assure the Minister, on behalf of his Parliamentary Secretary, that we will work hard at it as quickly as we can once the Bill is through second reading. I believe we are having a steering committee meeting tomorrow and no doubt we will discuss when we can start dealing with this Bill or mix it in with the Estimates. We cannot do much about the Estimates anyway, so maybe we should send the Minister a letter and say they are done.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Get that in writing.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: 1 have only seen one amendment to the Estimates in 17 years being passed in committee and in the House, and I have seen quite a few Estimates.
In closing, if the Minister will carry out that sort of a schedule, I know the committee will be anxious to co-operate. We want to hear from all the different organizations he has consulted with in the course of his drafting of the Bill and legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).


Donald Frank Mazankowski: On a question or comment, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The first round is 40 minutes without any question or comments. We now proceed to the next round and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) has the floor.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, not having occupied this position for a long period of time, I would like the opportunity to respond to some of the questions the Hon. Member raised. I
think he would want me to respond, and if I have an opportunity at some point in time I would appreciate it.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 am sure the Hon. Minister will have that opportunity. Other Members will be rising to debate this Bill and he will have the opportunity then, as well as on closing of the debate. But we are now starting the 20 minute round of speeches with 10 minutes for questions or comments.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, the observations I wish to make this afternoon are partly in response not only to the spokesman on transport matters for the NDP, but also to the interesting points and observations raised by the critic of the Official Opposition. This is a somewhat unique Bill. The Minister in his opening remarks suggested that it has been some 65 or 66 years since this Parliament has had an opportunity on which to bring together-not that there has not been prior work with respect to amendments-in a legislative form some of the very necessary, and we hope adequate, amendments which we all know are so needed and which we hope will be welcomed by the industry.
I am not sure which is older, the Act or Mary Poppins. On the other hand, we are attempting to bring the Aeronautics Act into the 1980s. We hope that the work not only of the present Government but of previous Governments as well will serve the industry at least over the foreseable future. Hopefully this will be a basis for allowing the orderly, safe and efficient development of this industry in Canada through to the turn of the century. In that context, I am sure the Minister will have an opportunity, as I do so now, to welcome the assurance of support from both the Official Opposition and the NDP with respect to this measure.
A question has been raised with respect to a technical briefing concerning this Act. It is a technical matter, and this is something to which the present Minister and Government, in a spirit of consultation, is quite prepared to accede and would indeed welcome. 1 might just say as an aside to the NDP spokesman that indeed steps to achieve that were already in motion earlier today. They were superseded by the presence of the Bill itself, otherwise he might have had the opportunity of obtaining that type of briefing together with members of the Official Opposition. It is still not too late for that type of technical briefing and, if that is the wish, I am sure arrangements can be made to accommodate Members.
In that same vein, 1 want to comment very briefly on a further observation or request made by opposition spokesmen with respect to regulations. Over the years the regulations which flow from legislation have always been a matter of concern to members of the Opposition particularly, but I can assure you and all members of the Opposition that the regulatory process which will come into place once this measure has been dealt with here in the House and in the committee will be a matter of concern to all, and I am sure favourable consideration can be given with respect to a review. I hasten to add the simple but very obvious caveat-and I am sure the Hon.
April 15, 1985

Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) will appreciate this-that the current Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankow-ski) is, if anything, not a presumptuous person. Nor would he dare tread upon the territory of the distinguished Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport or, indeed, the members of that august body by presuming for one moment that the committee might make substantive changes in the legislation, thus frustrating and circumventing the proper utility of the regulations which flow from it. Having said that, the matter is too serious for we to be facetious and I do not intend to be that.
This measure is an over-all attempt to bring some sanity to the industry. Very few pieces of legislation have survived as long as has this one. I think to the original drafters must go the accolades and admiration of those of us here in the mid-1980s simply because it has stood up that long. Whatever else might be said about it, it must reflect the wisdom of those who looked at a very fledgling industry. I believe that their wisdom and foresight has sustained it admirably well. Now, as a result of conflicts between jurisdictions and conflicts with federal requirements and provincial and municipal authorities, there is a need for an entirely different framework in order to provide the air industry with a means for a more orderly development in the future.
The Minister has spoken briefly on the general principles of the Bill. These include safety, zoning, the new medical requirements as well as other aspects. I trust that this legislation will be discussed at some length in committee because in certain aspects we are introducing a unique principle. I refer to the requirement for medical information.
Some jurisdictions in Canada allow certain actions by medical authorities to be taken not necessarily with the fullest consent of the individual concerned. In this respect, I suggest it is important to consider that part of the Bill carefully. Let me read into the record the more operative parts of the medical requirement provision in the Bill. Clause 5.5(1) states:
Where a physician or an optometrist believes on reasonable grounds that a patient is a flight crew member, an air traffic controller or other holder of a Canadian aviation document that, to the knowledge of the physician or optometrist, imposes standards of medical fitness, the physician or optometrist shall, if in his opinion the patient has a medical condition that is likely to constitute a hazard to aviation safety-
-take certain steps. Hopefully, in recognition of the privacy of such information, the first step to be taken is to direct the physician or optometrist to advise the patient of his condition. That patient will be advised to inform the appropriate medical authorities within the Department of Transport of that condition.
The physician or optometrist would then ascertain from the Minister within 72 hours whether the patient has reported the condition, and if he has not, the physician or optometrist is required to transmit that information.
We are dealing with the important principle of the privacy of medical information. It is the inviolate position that exists between the doctor and his patient. I believe it is important
Aeronautics Act
that Canadians understand this measure because it is the first step by a federal authority and the first step contemplated by an Act of Parliament. Some provinces have taken steps in this direction as concerns impaired drivers and other issues.
I believe that Clause 5.5(3) is innovative and progressive in terms of safety while at the same time recognizing the right to the privacy of individual Canadians. That clause states:
The Minister may make such use of any information provided pursuant to subsection (1) or (2) as he considers necessary in the interests of aviation safety.
This Bill ensures the sanctity of such information and 1 believe it is important for the committee to pay close attention to those clauses of the Bill.
Furthermore, it is my hope that the committee will consider some of the regulatory questions that were raised by the Hon. Member for Regina West which can best be explained in the committee. I appreciate having had the opportunity to make a very brief intervention.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I commend the Minister and the Parliamentary Secretary on their comments and their efforts to update legislation with respect to aeronautic safety and the administration of airports.
At the present time there is a controversy in Simcoe County over the best location for a municipal airport. The City of Barrie favours a location south of Barrie, close to Toronto, in the township of Innisville. This will cause development to take place south of Barrie. Unfortunately, the town council of Innisville is opposed to that.
The people of my community in the City of Orillia, the business community and surrounding area, believe the airport should be located between Barrie and Orillia. It is a location that makes much more sense for the community. It would serve both communities equally well and prove to be an economic asset.
Does this Bill provide for an independent review process by an independent body to consider the economic implications and social considerations and aeronautical considerations so that it does not remain a controversy between two cities? Since taxpayers at all levels are, in effect, footing the bill, is there provision in the Bill for that kind of independent review process to take place?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member will have to answer at another time. It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.

April 15, 1985
Public Service



PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS

["Order, please. Private Members' Hour has now expired."]
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent for the House to proceed to Item No. 55?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre) moved:: That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be empowered to study the question of granting to federal public employees the full political participation enjoyed by other Canadians and, that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than June 28, 1985.


Mr. Gauthier:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to take the time of the House, but I would like to know whether it is in order for this House to study this motion at this time. Members will remember that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) did try the courts on this issue, I think it was last year. I understand he gave indications that he would also pursue this in the courts with the support of the unions.
Has the Hon. Member pursued this matter in the courts? Has he taken action before the courts? If he has, it changes the picture.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the Hon. Member now saying that this particular item is before the courts?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I am asking whether it is before the courts, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I think what we should do is to go ahead with the debate and the Hon. Member will probably answer that question in the debate.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You may enlighten me here, Mr. Speaker, but if the question is before the courts it is not for us in this House to discuss the matter at this time. If it is not before the courts, fine. I want to participate. I want to make it clear at this time that this House cannot, if the question is sub judice, talk about it. I am asking the Chair to confirm or deny whether the question is before the courts.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I rise on the same point of order, Mr. Speaker. You may recall that, I believe a couple or three months ago, this House debated my Private Member's Bill on the same topic. There were no objections raised. Whether or not this matter is before the courts I have not the faintest idea, but this is the number one court in Canada and we debated the
subject a couple of months ago. I do not know why we cannot do it again.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I appreciate the chance to speak on this motion-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Would the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) like to answer the question so that we may commence the debate in Private Members' Hour?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, this specific motion is that the question should be referred to a committee of the House. That is not a question before the courts. The courts have no power at all to look to that particular question. In response to the Hon. Member's question, the answer is that the matter of referring this question to a committee of the House is not before the courts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I believe that pretty well answers the question. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the chance to speak to this issue. The purpose of this motion today is to get action on a matter of vital importance to 250,000 federal public employees, namely the issue of political rights. It is an issue in which both the Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party spoke quite categorically during the course of the 1984 election campaign indicating they were in favour of giving full political rights to the vast majority of federal public employees.
The situation right now, and we have an election campaign in the Province of Ontario, is that despite the promises made by the Government last summer, the Conservative Party, that it would act to give political rights to federal employees, they are still in a situation where they cannot tell exactly what kind of participation they can enjoy in the current political campaign. The current law says that they must not work in a campaign. Does that mean federal public employees can put up a sign for a political candidate? They do not know. Can they knock on doors? It is not clear. Can they wear a button? It is not certain. Could a public servant's wife or a 14-year old son or daughter participate in a campaign? That also is not known, Mr. Speaker. In fact, there was a conflict between the guidelines now in force from the Public Service Commission which state that public employees should not act or speak in a politically partisan manner nor should they act in a way that would give rise to the perception that they may not be able to perform their duties in a politically non-partisan manner. Those are the guidelines laid down to public service employees and given to the employer and through which disciplinary action may be taken. That is in direct conflict with the promise made by the Government when the Conservatives were campaigning last summer. So far, unfortunately, there has been no action in order to sort out that particular conflict.
This motion is also particularly relevant because on Wednesday this week the equality section of the Charter of
April 15, 1985

Rights will come into force. As you are aware, Mr. Speaker, the equality provisions of the Charter grant "equal protection and equal benefit of the law without discrimination" to any citizen of Canada. 1 am sure that was intended not to exclude people who worked for the Government of Canada.
The specific measure I have here is designed to implement the promise which the Conservatives made in the summer, that is, that the matter would be referred at an early date to a committee of Parliament in order that it be studied. This motion is to refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates, but because of the danger or the fear that some people have had that this could lead to the issue being pigeon-holed in the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee, my resolution calls for the matter to be reported back with recommendations by the standing committee no later than June 28, 1985. In other words, action is required. It is not good enough to leave us hanging with vague promises in the hope that something might then occur. What I want to do in raising this issue with the House of Commons is to seek to urge the Government to carry through with its promise of extended political rights to workers in the Public Service.
I would now like to quote a couple of the promises which the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) made last summer. He was very explicit in making his promise of political rights. In responding to public sector unions, he said:
We believe that this matter should be addressed by an all-Party parliamentary committee in consultation with Public Service organizations and we believe the situation can be quickly resolved.
He said the restrictions on Public Service political activity:
-are unnecessary and likely not justifiable under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is now seven months since the Prime Minister took office. This week also sees the proclamation of the equality section of the Charter of Rights. There are some very specific and immediate reasons why we need action now. Nothing has been done to free up those public employees who may want to be involved in the Ontario provincial election. An election has been called in the Yukon. The same situation will prevail there. Goodness knows what may happen if we do not act with respect to all the other provincial campaigns that are to take place in the very near future.
Second, the Government could be losing its will on this issue. I hope to hear reassurance today that that is not the case. Delays in action may be related to divisions within the Cabinet. Certain elements of the senior civil service are resisting action on political rights. That has been reflected in the points of view which have been enunciated by the President of the Public Service Commission and also by the Commissioner of the Public Service Commission, Jennifer McQueen, both of whom seem to take the view that, unless they are instructed otherwise by legislation from Parliament, neutrality on the part of the Public Service is a requirement and that it should extend to every person, to a secretary, a truck driver and a data entry clerk. Everybody in Government should be neutral so that advice coming to Ministers and to the Cabinet from a
Public Service
handful of people at the peak of the civil service can be seen to be impartial.
I contrast that with the response given to the Public Service Alliance by the Progressive Conservatives during the election.
The Conservatives stated:
The P.C. Party favours a general removal of the restrictions on political activity, especially for those public servants covered by collective agreements. These restrictions are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. There are some senior public servants whose job responsibilities are very political in nature nad whose rights should be somewhat restricted to prevent conflict of interest, but we are confident that these people could be covered separately without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act indicates that Public Service employees cannot hold office in a political Party or attend conventions as delegates. The Progressive Conservatives stated, that most public servants should be free to participate in the internal activities of a political Party and that only if they wanted to become candidates should they request and be granted leave of absence from the employer.
This statement indicates that we are not really talking about the issue as to whether political rights should be granted to most people who work in the Public Service of Canada, but when that will occur and how soon. I note with approval that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in fact has initiated discussions with public sector unions on the issue of political rights. This began three months ago. Unfortunately there is yet to be a concrete proposal put on the table or made public. I hope that in the course of today's debate we might in fact have such a proposal made public.
The Government should in fact lay out its plan now. 1 would like to see the concurrence of the unions, which I believe will come very quickly, because they have made their decision in support of the principle of political rights absolutely crystal clear. That would allow us to proceed with legislation. Legislation could come into the House of Commons now. It could be debated, quickly go to committee and be brought back to Parliament for adoption before the end of June. I would much prefer to see that occur than even to have this issue referred to a committee, as my motion proposes. My motion, however, is designed to give us an opportunity to debate the issue and perhaps to give the Government an opportunity to indicate that it will be acting very shortly with legislation so that we could see it occur and adopted before the end of June.
If that is the commitment of the Government there is no need for the issue to go to a parliamentary committee. Let us see the legislation. However, if this question is being linked to four or five other questions now under discussion with Public Service unions, I would have to say that I have some misgivings. Because of the Charter, because of the fundamental importance in a democratic society of the issue of political rights for so many people who happen to work for the Government of Canada, it seems to me that we cannot use this as a bargaining chip, something which might be taken away if the

April 15, 1985
Public Service
unions were not amenable on other things on which the Government was trying to get a resolution.
I believe it is time, since early action was promised, to separate this one out in order to take early action if the other issues are to take longer to resolve. I call upon the Government to take action so that we can act upon this and put it into law before June 28, before Parliament actually rises for the summer recess.
This issue has been discussed in the House of Commons more frequently in the last few months than in the preceding six years. I am pleased to see that. The only time it was discussed in the previous Parliament was on the two occasions when a Bill to provide for political rights for people in the Public Service, in the name of the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), was debated during Private Members' Hour. A number of Members on all sides have spoken favourably to this particular issue. Recently, the Public Service Alliance in fact circulated a questionnaire or letter to all Hon. Members asking whether they supported the declared position of their Party in favour of political rights. I am pleased to say that some 50 Members, mainly from the New Democratic Party and from the Progressive Conservative Party, have already responded to the Alliance by indicating that they support those principles, that they support the position taken by their Parties during the course of the 1984 election campaign.
I urge all Members to talk with their staff to find that letter which may be in their files awaiting a response and to respond favourably. I also urge them to work through their party caucuses and other means to make sure that the issue does not stay on the shelf but is acted upon very soon.
This is a very important issue for me because my riding is a public sector one with a large number of people who work for the Government of Canada. Many of those people have in fact worked in election campaigns in the past, are doing so now and would like to continue to do so in the future. However, some of them felt intimidated because of the guidelines circulated by the Public Service Commission. If not that, then certainly they feel misgivings because of the wording of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. They are looking for direction from Parliament. They are looking for an opening for them to have democratic rights from Parliament.
I am committed and I intend to continue to pursue this issue of political rights until it is resolved. It is of direct importance not only to a quarter of a million federal public employees, but our decision in Parliament on the issue will touch another
200,000	people who work indirectly for the Government of Canada through Crown corporations, as well as countless people who work in provincial government employ and provincial government corporations.
The idea that one cannot even tell whether or not one can put up an election sign for a political candidate, that one might run the risk of being fired under Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act, is ridiculous in this day and age. Even though that section has never in fact been invoked, it is there as a threat. It is used as a threat. In fact people are
called on the carpet from time to time and reminded of the wording of the legislation. In my opinion it is clearly in violation of the constitutional Charter of Rights guarantees to freedom of speech, to freedom of association and to equality under the law.
As my friend from Ottawa East pointed out, a number of people in the Public Service initiated, along with me, a court case last summer. I do not want to talk too much about it, Mr. Speaker, for the reasons you have indicated, because we are now talking about whether or not this general question should be referred to a committee of the House of Commons. However, as the Hon. Member for Regina West pointed out, this is the supreme court of the land. It would be wrong to delay action by the Government of Canada pending any determination by the courts on this matter. We have the right to act. Legislation could come in. That legislation could supersede any particular court case. I hope very much that in fact that would be the case.
I want to suggest to all Hon. Members that the current situation is truly ridiculous. In 1967 the Public Service Employment Act confirmed a ban on political activity but has allowed a number of specific exemptions. Those exemptions include the fact that a Public Service employee can stand for Parliament with the consent of the Public Service Commission. Therefore we have the curious situation which prevails right now in a riding in Cornwall, in the provincial election campaign, where a Public Service employee working for Transport Canada has received permission to stand as a candidate. If defeated-and I am confident that he will be elected to the Ontario legislature-


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: He must be a Conservative.


Michael Morris Cassidy: He is an NDP member. Were he to be defeated, he would then face the fact that he might find his recent selection as the president of the riding association, of which he is a member, to be in contravention of the guidelines despite the fact that he was able to be so partisan that he could in fact be a candidate. That is a very bizarre situation, a situation which cries out for rectification.
We have the situation where in practice many people of the government Party, of the Liberal Party and of my Party participate in election campaigns, particularly in the Ottawa area. Some of them are the mainstay of particular riding associations, yet they always participate with one eye over the shoulder in case someone might read them the riot act and tell them that that is not the way to go.
In 1980, the Liberals, then in opposition, promised broadened political rights. They forgot that promise during the course of their term in office after 1980, something which I very much regret. I am anxious as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre to make sure that the new Government does not break the very categorical promises which were made at that time and I believe were endorsed by all the Ottawa Members particularly. There is reason to act as well because of the Charter, because of the experience we have had with more stringent application of the present rules, because of the
April 15, 1985

guidelines of the Public Service, because of the Fraser case, and because of heightened awareness on all sides that something needs to be done.
Of course 1 am in support of the concept of collective bargaining. Although the Government said that it would refer this matter to a committee, if through the process of discussion with the unions it can come up with a specific proposal, I would say more power to it. Let us do that with unions on side and let us have a determination of the matter through the House.
I am uncomfortable with the determination of this issue before the courts because frankly, despite the Charter and everything else, it is something we should be able to determine on our own, without the need to refer it to the courts. I should like to make a specific proposal at this time in terms of what I think the legislation can and should contain. I hope either now or at other times Hon. Members will see fit to concur with this particular proposal.
In the first place, I believe that political rights should be granted on as broad a base as possible for people who work for the Government of Canada. Article 1 of the Charter provides for exemptions from the fundamental freedoms which are laid out in the Charter. Those exemptions apply only in the case of the reasonable limits that are prescribed by law which can demonstrably be justified in a free and democratic society.
The jurisprudence which is developing makes it quite clear that those limits should be very narrow. I therefore want to propose, since my time is up, that we grant full political rights to all people in the Public Service of Canada who are members of bargaining units. That would immediately open up political rights to 80 or 85 per cent of the people who work for the Government of Canada. The rule would be very clear and very simple. If you are in the union, in the Public Service Alliance, PIPS or some other union, you have political rights.
The legislation should indicate that the people at the top of the Public Service, deputy ministers and people in the executive category, the top 3,000 or 4,000 perhaps, should have to adhere to the doctrine of neutrality. Those people who are in the management category, not in bargaining units but not at the very senior levels, should probably be looked at on some kind of a case by case basis. It is harder to determine whether or not they can in fact be politically active without jeopardizing the need for neutrality at or near the top of the civil service.
That is a concrete and constructive proposal which I believe would enable us to act now and give political rights to the vast bulk of people who work for the people of Canada through the Public Service of Canada. It would give them-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to inform the Hon. Member that his time has expired.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker-
Public Service


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Are you agreed?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Yes, I guess I should say "agreed".


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Then sit down.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I won't sit down just yet. I have a few words to say.
I would like to thank the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) for giving us the opportunity to look at this subject matter again, the question of political rights of public servants in Canada. Indeed, in the Ottawa area, in the national capital region, it is an important subject which comes up at election time, be it federal, provincial or otherwise. This question, of course, has been thoroughly discussed in the House and in committee. I would like to refer the House to the reports of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates of last year where we had as a witness the Public Service Commission. Extensive discussions were held then with the Commission with regard to Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act and Section 7 of the Financial Administration Act which gives managers the right to discipline public servants. There are ways and means of looking at this subject from every angle.
I submit that since the D'Avignon report was published in 1979, this subject has been thoroughly canvassed by the national capital members at least and I think we are of one opinion on this question. We believe that the law should be changed to allow public servants in support, administrative and other categories the right to participate fully in the political process, as it was given to them by the Charter of Rights, Section 2(3), which is, of course, modified by Section 1 which says that this Charter applies within reasonable limits. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, I have a few comments to make on the proposition by the Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that the issue is not before the courts. As the House is aware, at election time last year, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre had asked the Federal Court for an injunction to limit the scope of Section 32.

I refer Members to articles in the press of December, 1984 which stated that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre had not succeeded in convincing the courts that the question required immediate study. The Federal Court said that the question required in-depth study. As there were only two weeks until the election from when he made his request for an injunction, the Federal Court said that although the subject is important, it requires in-depth study and, therefore, it would not grant an injunction on the basis of that short a time limit.
I take it from the answers to you, Mr. Speaker, that the Hon. Member assured the House that the matter is not sub judice, that the question is not before the courts, and the only question that is before this House and before this court is indeed, "Are public servants authorized in law to participate fully in the political process?"

April 15, 1985
Public Service


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. If I can be very precise, and I hope the Hon. Member does not pursue this too much because I think this is a co-operative kind of debate, I stated that the question as to whether or not this matter should be referred to a standing committee of the House of Commons was not before the courts.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is not a point of order.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I want to address that question also because it is another question that is of importance to Members of this House. On the first question, I take it that we have that assurance. Therefore, it follows that indeed the question is before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and has been there since May 2, 1984. I submit that our rules and regulations are quite simple and clear on that matter.
The Public Service Commission tables it's annual report in the House every May. Last year it was tabled on May 2. This year it will probably be tabled in the beginning of the month of May. It tables the report and that report is referred to the committee automatically, under our new rules. A committee can pick up any subject that it wants which is referred to it by way of an annual report. Standing Order 46(4) reads:
Reports, returns or other papers laid before the House in accordance with an Act of Parliament shall thereupon be deemed to have been permanently referred to the committee designated by the Member tabling the report, return or paper.
If we look at the annual report for 1983, we see that there is reference to political rights. It is indeed in this report.

Mr. Speaker, I am going to read the passage on page 28:
Leave authorized for the purpose of political activity under section 32 of the Act-
-the section in question.
-any employee wishing to stand for elected office or seek nomination in a federal, provincial or territorial election, shall submit to the Commission an application for leave without pay.
And the text elaborates further on this question.
The matter has been referred to a committee, which can therefore put the question on its agenda, examine it as much as it cares to and report on the matter to the House, which report may receive a response, Mr. Speaker, in accordance with Standing Order 69(13).

In our Standing Orders we have a very useful Standing Order, 69(13), which reads:
Within 120 days of the presentation of a committee report, the government shall, upon the request of the Committee, table a comprehensive response.
The Government could be asked by the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates today, tonight, tomorrow if you want, to make its position known in a comprehensive manner on the matter of political rights of public servants. In my view, that would meet the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre quite adequately, thank you very much.
I know the Hon. Member understands the process. I know he will bring it up in the committee, as I did over the years, and as did the former Member for Ottawa Centre, Mr. Evans, and as did many other Members, including the past Member for Nepean-Carleton, Mr. Baker. I have been here for twelve and a half years. I do not know of a year that went by without having some Member of the Ottawa Carleton area bring the subject to the attention of this House, which I think is interesting in that it proves that we are indeed interested.
It is true, as the Member said, that public servants in the Ottawa area do participate in the political process. They do participate in federal elections and provincial elections. We now have a provincial election. If you read Dialogue Express put out by the Commission last year-and this is what got our committee going-you see that it is signed by the three commissioners, Mr. Gallant, Mrs. McQueen and Mr. Lacombe. It states:
Federal public service employees should not undertake activities, assume responsibilities or make public statements of a politically partisan nature or of a kind which could give rise to the perception that they may not be able to perform their duties as public servants in a politically impartial manner.
It goes on to say:
-employees should not personally campaign for or against political parties or candidates-
-employees should not become involved in the solicitation, collection, distribution or administration of the finances of political parties-
-employees should not assume any official functions or be elected to any recognized offices, including being a delegate to meetings or leadership conventions-
The fourth point is interesting. It does not say "should not" but it says "must not". That language is a little stronger. It reads:
-employees must not stand for elected office or seek nomination in a federal, provincial or territorial election-
That is clear Shakespearian English. The problem is that I disagree with the interpretation given by the Commission to Section 32, as does the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). Many of us disagree with the interpretation being given to Section 32.
We dealt with this issue before in committee and in the House. What is now required is for the Government to take its courage into its own hands and come up with a position so that any Member of the House can understand-

-"clair comme de l'eau de roche", as they say in French- [English]
-the position of the Government. I will not recite or read again the communication read into the record by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. Perhaps I should read it again. This communication was from the previous Leader of the Official Opposition to Mr. Jack Donegani dated August 14, 1984. It reads:
The PC Party believes that the present restrictions on political activity arc unnecessary and likely not justifiable under the terms of the Canadian Charter
April 15, 1985

of Rights and Freedoms. While the rights of some senior public servants must be restricted in order to prevent conflict of interest, we feel that this issue could be addressed without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
I agree.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Then cross the floor.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, I will not cross the floor on that issue. I have been saying for 12 years that i agree with those who think reasonably and believe that this issue is indeed intimidating public servants. It makes them feel uneasy when putting up signs on their lawns. I have had people in my riding put "hers" on signs because the public servants, him, did not want the signs to be known as theirs. They wanted them to be known as being "her" signs. It is a situation which I believe must be clarified. It does not make sense.
D'Avignon's report indicates that we should adopt the British system by having three categories of public servants: those who are free to participate, those who must get clearance from the Commission before they participate, and those who cannot participate at all because they give advice to the Government in the higher echelons. I think that is a reasonable approach to the question at hand.
Again, I must congratulate the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre for bringing this up today. I would hope that he would join with me, return to the committee and possibly have the Chairman of the committee and the Chairman of the steering committee agree that we can make a report to the House within the next few weeks, have that report tabled in the House and concurred in and then ask the Government to put its position forward in a clear manner. That will avoid expensive legal costs to the Alliance or whoever is backing the Hon. Member on this case. I know that judges will probably have to rule on that matter. I hope they are not doing it right now. If they are, I apologize to them. I have a great deal of respect for judges so I would not want to be speaking about something which is sub judice. I am talking about something which has been referred to a committee. I agree with him and I hope the House will also agree.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in this discussion for a few moments. First, I would like to suggest that from the very clear question that was put at the opening of this debate and the reply given by the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), my understanding is that the matter is not before the courts now but that it had been before the courts back in September of last year. It is certainly not before the courts now, and if it is, then obviously his answer was more than evasive.
The important thing we want to discuss today is the merits of the case within the framework and atmosphere in which we deal with these things. I do not think that there is any doubt in my mind or the mind of any other Member of Parliament who comes to the National Capital Region that public servants by and large should be given full political rights, rights which they have not had in the past. I say that because we are all too familiar with public servants who do work on our election
Public Service
campaigns and, if we believe the interpretation of the Public Service Commission, are working on our election campaigns illegally. I would feel very sorry for any Canadian citizen who is involved in a political process if that citizen is classified as doing something illegal. I do feel that this is a subject which we should and will deal with in the not too distant future.
The important thing we must consider is that in the last 12 years I have been here, and particularly in the last five or six years, this matter has been discussed more and more openly. A momentum and consensus have been building up among members of all Parties that the public servants should be given full political freedoms and that if they are disallowed from having those full political freedoms at this time, then the law should be changed.
Having said that, I would draw to the attention of the House the remarks already drawn to attention by the previous two speakers, point number four in a letter put out by the leader of the Progressive Conservative Party last August during the election campaign. It has already been read into the record but it indicates that the Progressive Conservative Party favours a general removal of restrictions on political activities for public servants. That clearly states my concern, and I think our Party's concern, for carrying on this process and opening up the political arena to those people who are public servants. I say that with the knowledge that I had some involvement in the phrasing and writing of this article which came out as part of our Party's platform on public servants.
I say that also because perhaps I bring a different point of view to this issue in that I am perhaps the only person in this Chamber who was a public servant who got fired because he sought a federal nomination. Having lost my job over that and feeling, some 12 or 13 years ago, that it was unfair and unjust and having taken it to the Divisional Court and three years later received my response, I must admit that I have always felt that I opted out by not taking the matter further to the Supreme Court of Canada. However, at the time it did not seem that important since I was already through my second federal election campaign before the Divisional Court of Ontario dealt with the matter. There is a reported decision on that matter in the law books.
I personally felt very strongly about this issue at a time when the few dollars that were involved were very, very crucial to my well-being and that of my family. I have not lessened my interest in the topic. However, I ask all Members to consider that the Party of which I happen to be a member, the Party which forms the Government of the day, did make that promise during the last election campaign along with a number of other promises.
Seven months is not a very long period of time. We have implemented quite a few of the commitments that were made during the election campaign, and those commitments are not being introduced and passed within the first six months willy-nilly. One could not possibly, in a well organized and planned program, introduce all the commitments which a Party makes in an election campaign within six months. We have a four-year term, and throughout those four years, I hope that all

April 15, 1985
Public Service
those commitments will be introduced, passed and become the order of the day in this country. Not all can be dealt with during the first six months leaving three and a half years before we implement any other programs. I think that they should be balanced over a period of time.
Having said that, since we are a federal Government looking at a federal situation, I do not see why we should be rushing into this matter within the first six or seven months. It has been a long-standing sore and I do not believe that it has to be wiped out in six months.
Having said that, 1 would like to point out, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) who introduced the motion stated, that the Government has not been sitting back and doing nothing. The Government has begun to negotiate with the unions. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) is discussing this matter with the unions at the present time.
That is exactly what the Government said about the fourth point. The Government feels that the people who are in the bargaining units should be relieved of the illegality of this matter. Because the Government is currently bargaining with the unions, I feel that it is inappropriate to bring the matter forward in other forums. However, in many situations negotiations are very touchy and I do not want to build up false hopes. In addition, I certainly hope that no Member would use this forum to obtain a political advantage during the provincial election campaign. That would be demagoguery. I hope that Members have the better interests of federal public servants in mind, in order that this matter can be resolved before the next federal election.
This Government is the first Government which has taken the step to put the matter on the bargaining table, and I believe the Government should be commended for that initial step. However, if for some reason the topic is not resolved during the negotiations with an agreement arrived at which excludes the topic of political rights for public servants, we will still have about three-and-a-half years left in this term to deal with the issue. The issue could be resolved by way of a motion, by the route which was suggested by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), by striking a special committee in the House, or by way of a Private Member's Bill. I would whole-heartedly support the other means by which this matter could be brought forward for full discussion at a later stage. However, I believe it is important to allow the current negotiating process to continue.
Several matters were raised, such as a person putting a sign on his front lawn. In such case I would ask the person if they owned the house in joint tenancy, and if so, the sign should be put on an appropriate portion of the front lawn. Most people own their homes in joint tenancy and I do not think that the Public Service Commission would get excited about that situation. If it does-and if it is of value-I would offer my services free of charge to defend that person. However, such person might want to pay for services and get someone more skilled
than I am in the courts. I have not been in the courts for a long period of time. But, I do feel strongly about the matter.
The guidelines which were published during the last election campaign by the Public Service Commission had never before been published in such a hard-nosed, definitive and brutal manner. During the previous four election campaigns in which I had been a candidate the matter was not as controversial as it became during the last election campaign. I felt that the Public Service Commission took a very insensitive and dogmatic position, which both surprised and concerned me. However, that action may have crystalized the point and brought it into focus. Because of its actions, the Public Service Commission has now joined the debate.
I do not think there is anything else that can be said at this time. Along with Members from all sides of the House, 1 support the aim, intention and goal of ensuring that public servants, at least those in the bargaining units, have the full rights of all other Canadians in the political process of Canada. I am not convinced, however, that bringing up this matter at the present time is furthering that end. I believe it is unfortunate that the matter was brought up at this time when negotiations are ongoing. I hope those negotiations are successful. Should they not bear the fruit which I optimistically hope they will bear, then I believe the matter should come before the House and subsequently go to committee to be dealt with at that time.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say that the political rights of public servants are an issue which is very close to my heart. In my opinion, Canadians who earn their living as public servants have the right to act as full-fledged citizens, and choosing a government and exercising one's franchise are of course some of the rights of full-fledged citizens. I am therefore very happy that we are discussing this subject today, but I would like the issue of the rights of civil servants to be dealt with and not just the matter of a few isolated political rights which it may seem appropriate at this time to give back to public servants without taking into account the whole context in which federal public servants operate in Canada.

We know, for instance, that political neutrality is an essential requirement in the federal Public Service, particularly in retaining its credibility with the democratic society which it serves.
The question is, if the restrictions which are currently in place are diminished, what else can we put in place to ensure the political neutrality of the public service? We must address the question of political rights by looking at five elements.
We must look at the question from the point of view of Parliament. We know that the historical interests of Parliament have stemmed from the need to remove the influence of the Crown from the electoral process. A related concern of both parliamentarians and Ministers is that officials should
April 15, 1985

not use their public positions to promote their personal political philosophies. Such conduct, rightly, is seen as a contravention of democratic politics. Also, Ministers share many of the same concerns as parliamentarians. They have an additional interest, namely, that they should be assured that the advice which they receive is not motivated by partisan or other types of political considerations. They must also be assured, in the execution of decisions and the administration of policies, that their officials act in good faith.
The Public Service, which aspires to serve Governments of different political complexions, has an interest which is complementary to that of Ministers. Its own rationale depends on being perceived as the impartial servant of the Government that holds office. It is correspondingly important that the public should not feel that political allegiancies enter into or affect their dealings with government agencies. Therefore, the Public Service has an interest in ensuring that its professionalism is protected in whatever rules and regulations apply to the exercise of political rights. We must determine where the rights of public servants meet those of the public.
Individual public servants are affected mainly if they wish to exercise political rights. That has become increasingly visible as the Public Service has increased in number. However, as has been pointed out by previous speakers, there are many public servants who perform routine functions that are not inherently governmental. It seems illogical not to permit those individuals greater political freedom than individuals whose sole service to Government is to give advice on policy, or who have a direct interface with the public on a day to day basis. In those cases, the individuals would find it very difficult to be objective, as they are deeply involved in the political choices.
We must also know that the public interest is diverse as well. The public must be assured that political allegiance is not a factor in the dealings it has with government departments and agencies. It will expect advancement in the Public Service to be on grounds of merit and efficiency, not on political inclination.
That brings up the whole matter of the merit system and the business of intervention within the professional Public Service which has gone on in the past decade and which has diminished the professionalism of the Civil Service. It has created many problems for certain civil servants who wanted to give objective advice but felt the pressure imposed upon them, perhaps by a superior or colleague who seemed to have been appointed rather than having arrived at this position of authority through simple merit and competence.
Therefore, if we are going to look at the political rights of civil servants, we must also look at the merit principle in the Civil Service. We must ensure that the public servant is protected between elections from pressures being put on him or her to give advice which is other than objective and professional. I believe that is as important an element as that of extending political rights to civil servants. We cannot look at increasing one set of political rights without looking at the
Public Service
responsibilities, the climate and the environment in which these public servants must work.
The Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle which completed its review in 1979, stated, and I quote:
With respect to public servants who perform a regulatory role, many interven-ors stated that these public servants should not be given freedom to participate in party politics. Otherwise, the public might well perceive that a licence denial had political connotations when, in fact, it stemmed from failure to meet the requirements for granting of a licence.
That is one example which is given by the special committee. It continues:
The theme of most intervenors who took this position was that, when public servants are in direct contact with the general public, they must be seen to be politically neutral.
Government must be perceived to serve the public and to serve the public good. Public servants in the employ of the Government must also be professional and be perceived by the public as serving its interests first and foremost. It cannot make any discrimination on the basis of age, sex, race, religion or political belief.
I believe that when we look at the political rights of civil servants, we must also remember the ultimate right of every citizen to receive objective service for the taxes they pay to the treasury every year. In addition, Government has a basic concern with the concept of public interest. It must deliver services directed toward the public good and needs impartial employees.
In determining the extent to which public servants should be permitted to participate in the political process, we must endeavour to strike a balance between the individual's rights and freedoms enshrined in the Canadian Charter and at least two other very important rights, namely, the right of the Government to receive objective information and impartial advice based on professional expertise, and the right of the Canadian public to be confident that its public servants deliver the Government's services in a professional and impartial manner. Any relaxation of the current rules should not compromise these principles. Any changes in the current legislative provisions must not be undertaken before the impact of the long-term consequences for the Government, the Canadian people and the Public Service itself has been thoroughly explored.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to engage in this debate and to put some thoughts on the record as to where I might stand with respect to the motion of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy), to have the matter of political rights for public servants referred to the Miscellaneous Estimates Committee. I am one who has always supported the view that parliamentary committees should be in a position to examine important issues such as political rights for public servants. However, I believe in this particular instance, given the process in which we are involved at the present time with the public servants, given the progress which the particular issue has made over the course of the past few

April 15, 1985
Public Service
years, and given the way it was highlighted during the last election, it makes sense at the present time to continue to have it as an active matter of discussion between the Government and the Public Service. That is, of course, the case at this time.
There is no question that it must be a great disappointment to the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) that during his long years in the House, most of the time during which he was a member of the governing party, there was absolutely no progress made on this important issue by the Liberal Government. That is actually very, very sad. From that standpoint, 1 join with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre, in complimenting him for bringing the issue to the fore. I am sure that because of the very fact that our Party is obviously much more concerned about the political rights of public servants than the Liberal Party was over the past years, we will see considerable progress made.
I would not for a minute, though, want the New Democratic Party to think-and 1 interject a personal note here-that we are looking at this from any concern as to who will benefit from the efforts of the public servants when the time comes that they are given greater political rights as public servants. I can tell the member of the New Democratic Party that when that happens they are going to come to our Party in droves, because they like winners and not losers, and 1 include my friend, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in that comment. Our printing presses are operating at the present time printing membership cards. Obviously, they saw the light on September 4 and they will see the light even more clearly when they participate in an active political party which is going somewhere.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Down.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Down from 53 per cent to 56 per cent. I remind the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier that "down" is the way the New Democratic Party went. He seems to be in sort of the same position.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised during the election campaign that he would expand political rights for public servants. He is a man of his word, as everyone knows, and I can assure Hon. Members of the Opposition Parties that this is a matter which is up for current discussion.
There is no question but that we understand the possible ramifications of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms coming in on April 17. The Hon. Member's particular lawsuit is before the courts. I do happen to agree with the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre when he suggests that it was not sub judice for this particular forum, that is, the House of Commons, because it is not a matter of discussing the issue of public servants' rights. The issues, as the Hon. Member quite rightly said, is whether or not it was something which could be sent to a parliamentary committee for discussion.
If I may call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker, I would be prepared to continue on and enlighten my colleagues in the other Party at an appropriate time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Private Members' Hour has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, in raising the question of acid rain in March, with the then upcoming conference in Quebec City, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) gave me a quite explicit and articulate demonstration of his capacity for public relations and empty promises, as well as an attempt to rewrite Canadian history in the field of acid rain. The commitment made at the time was that Canada would be strong and active on the national and international scene in defence of Canada's acid rain concerns and our desire to progressively cut acid rain in order to protect our lakes, forests, agriculture, our health, and industry in general. Therefore, the initiative taken last week by the eastern Canadian premiers and the governors of the New England States is to be commended. Actually it should be expanded to include western Canadian premiers and the governors of the U.S. west coast States.
However, what I find distressing, in light of the rhetoric of the Prime Minister last March, is who was not there in Quebec City. It turns out that the Minister of the Environment (Mrs. Blais-Grenier) was not there. Not only was she not there, but also the acid rain envoy, former Premier Bill Davis, was not there. Their absence, of course, created some concern as to how serious Canada is on this issue; if it does not find the time to send its spokesperson on the environment and the new Canadian envoy on acid rain to watch the proceedings and take up the issues as they are raised during that kind of event.
I refer specifically to that old red herring raised by Governor Sununu of New Hampshire. He is famous for saying that Canadians on a per capita basis produce more acid rain than the Americans do. He then leaves the impression that it is a one-sided type of responsibility which rests entirely on our shoulders. Of course, the truth is far from that.
April 15, 1985

Of course, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) was there to defend the Canadian position, and 1 commend him. But the Minister of the Environment was not there and, because of her knowledge of the subject and the input she would have been able to make, she could have taken on Governor Sununu and told him, look, my friend, this is not the politics of per capita, this the politics of who is downwind to whom and who is producing more substance upwind from the other.
The facts are that while Canada produces some 4.6 million tonnes of sulphur dioxide a year, the U.S. produces almost six times as much or 26 million tonnes a year and we are downwind to them. That is an argument that Mr. Sununu did not hear in New Hampshire. He should have heard it from the Minister of the Environment. Instead, he went home with a notion that he had somehow scored some points.
He also did not hear that in Canada we at least have a reduction program in place which provides for cuts of 25 per cent in our sulphur dioxide emissions between 1980 and 1990. The U.S. does not have such a program in place. Furthermore, we have a very important political commitment of an additional 25 per cent cut in SOI 2 emissions by 1994, so that the total cut will be 50 per cent. Again, Mr. Sununu goes home after no one was there to give him this kind of message on behalf of the federal Government.
One could continue on this theme but it would be at the risk of giving Governor Sununu too much importance. However, it is important that we do not leave it up to Americans like Professor Eville Gorham, Professor of Ecology at the University of Minnesota, to come to Canada's defence. He is reported in The Citizen as saying at the end of the day that Governor Sununu's statement was quite unfriendly and unwarranted. That is a fact.
I will conclude because I also would like to know what the Government is planning to do in the next few months, during the period leading to the Helsinki Agreement when a protocol will be signed by the EEC nations, Canada, the Nordic nations and most of the Western and Eastern European nations, committing themselves to a cut of a minimum of 30 per cent by 1993. I submit that this is the time for Canada to become very active on the international scene and to put pressure on our friends south of the border.


Suzanne Blais-Grenier: Mr. Speaker, first of all, I would like to clarify something the Liberal environment critic said. We were in fact very well represented in Quebec City. Several officials of my Department attended the meeting organized by the Quebec Government and the Northeastern American states. In addition, my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser), who is a former Minister of the Environment, and therefore
Adjournment Debate
quite familiar with this issue, was well able to put forward the Canadian position, which he did with great distinction.
Naturally, I was not in Quebec City, Mr. Speaker, as this meeting had first been scheduled for the month of March but that date was later changed to April by the Quebec Government and I had already planned discussions at that time with my OECD counterparts in Paris and in Stockholm, where I met with many ministers and looked at how Sweden protects its environment. As Hon. Members are aware, that country was the first to create a Department of the Environment and it was at the invitation of the Swedish Government that I visited there. I was not on holidays, as it was maliciously suggested.
What surprises me, Mr. Speaker, is that the environment critic finds all his information in the newspapers, and often not in the best ones. If there were a newspaper strike tomorrow, I believe he would be unable to ask any questions in the House. 1 would really feel quite sorry for him.
Mr. Speaker, today I would like to tell you what our Government has done about acid rain. Contrary to what the environment critic suggested, the federal Government has made a lot of progress in its fight against acid rain. We have implemented a program to reduce emissions from Canadian sources of acid rain and guaranteed financial support to the foundries which are unable to pay for anti-pollution devices themselves. We have guaranteed financial assistance for research, monitoring programs and the development of new clean-up technologies. We have announced very strict emission standards for automobiles and light trucks.
In summary, Mr. Speaker, we have a most comprehensive policy to fight acid rain at the present time, and I believe that this Government, which has succeeded in implementing this policy and concerted approach within six months of its coming to power, should be commended and not constantly criticized by my hon. colleague, the former Minister of the Environment, who would like us to believe that the previous Government did much in the environmental field, even though it did nothing: the only comprehensive policy to have ever been implemented in Canada is basically the one developed by this Government.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE-INCLUSION OF SEVERANCE PAY IN INCOME CALCULATION. (B) EFFECT ON LAID-OFF WORKERS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, on March 22, 26, again on April 1, and earlier in the Standing Committee on Employment and Immigration, I tried to put questions to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) with respect to her proposal to include severance pay as income under the Unemployment Insurance Act. This would mean that those people who were given severance pay when they were dismissed from their jobs would have to use that severance pay to
[Stage Direction]
April 15, 1985
Adjournment Debate
cover the basic necessities of life because unemployment insurance would be delayed.
What does this mean? It means that a lot of people who would otherwise roll over that severance pay into a pension plan, who would use that severance pay to move to another place in Canada where there were better employment opportunities, who would use that severance pay to set themselves up in a business and to re-establish themselves in employment, would not be able to do it any longer because they would have to use that money for the basic needs of life.
1 asked the Minister of Employment and Immigration whether she had made any impact studies before introducing these matters. 1 got no answer. I asked her to delay the implementation of the program which was to go in effect on April 1 so she could consult and do impact studies. Again she refused. As a matter of fact the only answer I got was that she did in fact have consultations. She wondered why I took so long in putting questions to her about this subject, that 1 only started in March. I might say that I was in touch with her office much sooner by telephone and by letter but I only started raising the subject in March in committee, that is correct.
The Minister put those questions to me. I must ask her whether she gives the same answer to all those people who are writing letters to us. Did she say that to the people who raised this issue at her own economic summit called by the Conservative Government when two-thirds of the people at that summit signed a petition asking for a delay? Did she insult them as well and ask why they were only raising the matter at that time? The Toronto Star only raised it in an editorial on April 13.
I have example after example here of people who raised this matter only in the month of March and later even the Government. 1 have a memo leaked to me by an official in the Department of Fisheries and Oceans. This is a memo from one of the directors of staff relations to all regional personnel managers. He said that several queries concerning the treatment of severance pay for unemployment insurance benefits have prompted the following explanation of the proposed changes that will "probably" be implemented March 31, 1985. Although we have not received official notification of the changes, we have contacted CEIC representatives and obtained the following information". That memo was dated March 12, 1985. In that department they still had not received any information.
Then there is the bulletin of the Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada-this is in the middle of March. It states that it regrets having to provide only an unofficial interpretation of these important changes. Along with other public service unions, the Professional Institute has requested a delay in the implementation of the changes to allow further studies. To date, however, it had not received a reply to that request or an official interpretation from Treasury Board.
All kinds of people were confused by these announcements, and rightly so. The Minister said these were announced on November 8. All we had announced on November 8 by the
Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) was a short paragraph on page 13 of his speech which said:
In order to make the (U.I.C.) program more effective and less costly, a number of adminsitrativc changes related to the determination of eligibility for benefits will be made.
In the Blue Book tabled by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) it states simply, "separation payments-employment and immigration-$60 million-separation payments are not considered to be earned income when eligibility for unemployment insurance is determined". That is all. It is obvious that it took a lot of people a lot of time to find out what are the implications of this decision to make severance pay income for unemployment insurance purposes. People only began to see the implications after the Christmas recess, and they then started to write us letters. Because of that, when we saw what the implications were, we started to escalate our questions to the Minister asking for a delay. What was originally only a very sketchy program became a very complicated one.
SIS)
The Minister accused me of loafing around, not doing my job earlier, or not putting questions to her in December. It is interesting to note that it was only on March 29 that the Canadian Employment and Immigration Commission announced approval of regulatory changes in the treatment of severance payments for unemployment insurance. The regulations were only adopted in late March. Then on December 21, the only other notice we had following the November 8 statement, the day on which we adjourned for Christmas, the Minister issued a press release saying that the implementation date for the treatment of severance payments would be March 31, 1985.
How much consultation did she do in the period from November 8 to December 21 on this important issue? The Parliamentary Secretary is here. He is an honest man. I know he will table for us today all groups, unions and employee groups that were consulted on this matter. I hope they were not just ones the Minister hand-picked. 1 hope she did a very thorough consultative job in the six weeks to which I referred. I should like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us who in fact the Minister consulted with on the implementation of this program. Let us have the names of the people and the organizations.
The Minister has already admitted that there were no impact studies. She said that the Minister of Finance should have done impact studies. The Minister of Finance said that they should have been done by the Minister of Employment. However, none were done. This is a very serious program which touches a lot of people. I would like the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us how many people it touches. Once more will he advise the Minister to delay this very harsh and very inequitable program?
[ Translation]
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, my col-
April 15, 1985

league from Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) just said that I am an honest man, but perhaps he will be disappointed because honesty has nothing to do with reading off a long list of names of people who were consulted. Another thing about which 1 am pleased is that my colleague has withdrawn his remarks concerning everything he had seen about this important change. Quite true, it was in Mr. Wilson's statement and speech, for the Hon. Member admitted later that, on December 21, the Minister had issued a press release on the changes and that many articles have been published since then. As to the organizations that were consulted, it would be difficult for me to mention them all because there were quite a few consultations.
As announced by the Minister, it was decided that the new rules woirld take effect on March 31. The Act has been amended, unemployment benefits will be delayed or reduced in accordance with benefits paid when employment ends. These benefits include severance pay, earned paid leave, bonuses, gratuities, salary paid in lieu of advance notice, vacation leave and retroactive pay. The purpose of these important changes is to make sure that all employment income is treated the same way under the Unemployment Insurance Plan. They will eliminate compensations from two sources while maintaining all the benefits of the program, namely, the replacement of lost income while avoiding double payments.
On the other hand, to ensure fairness between the old legislation and the new one, a whole series of programs have been announced to allow people who had negotiated agreements in good faith following collective bargainings or a plant closing, because the problem had come to light between November 8 and December 21 as a result of consultations or questions within our caucus and from both sides of the House. The interim measures announced on December 21 will apply from March 31, 1985, and in the case of retirees, from January 1, 1986.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think that anything can be added to what I have just said.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE-PREMIER'S TRIAL-PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF MARIJUANA FIND. (B) DATE INQUIRY
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 I asked the Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) when he first advised the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that marijuana was allegedly found in the luggage of Premier Hatfield. I had asked the question on a number of other occasions. I was not given an answer by the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) or the Solicitor General. I put the question to the Solicitor General on March 4. Rather than the Solicitor General standing up to answer the question, the Minister of Justice stood up. It was somewhat strange that the Minister of Justice should stand to defend the Solicitor General when only a week and a half before he indicated that had he been in Opposition he would have asked for the resignation of the Solicitor General for his deplorable and disgraceful secret
Adjournment Debate
meeting with Premier Hatfield at the Chateau Laurier on October 7. 1 asked when the Prime Minister was first advised. The Minister of Justice stood up and indicated that the Prime Minister was told the day before charges were laid. The charges were laid on October 26. The Minister of Justice told this House that the Prime Minister first became aware of the fact that marijuana was found in Premeir Hatfield's luggage on October 25. That is utter nonsense. I hope that was not a deliberate attempt to mislead the House, but in fact it was a deliberate misstatement of fact. I would like to state why.
The marijuana was found on September 25, 1984. The Solicitor General indicated that he was first made aware on September 26 that the marijuana was found. He indicated that the Commissioner of the RCMP advised him of that fact.
On October 20, 1984 the Fredericton Gleaner ran a major story, indicating that a senior New Brunswick politician was being investigated for a particular drug offence. At that point in time it was not known who this senior New Brunswick politician was. That was October 20. On October 22, Premier Hatfield held a press conference to indicate that it was he who was under investigation. He also declared his innocence in the matter. It was national news from coast to coast. It was reported in every newspaper in this country. On every radio station and television station that marijuana was found in Premier Hatfield's luggage. That was on October 22. We have the Minister of Justice telling us in this House and the Canadian people that the Prime Minister was not aware of the fact that marijuana was found until October 25, the day before charges were laid.
One can see how ludicrous and misleading that statement was. By making that statement, the Minister of Justice was suggesting that the Prime Minister was closeted somewhere for three days, without access to newspapers, television or radio, that he was totally unaware of what was going on in this country. 1 indicated that it was utter nonsense. I hope that the Parliamentary Secretary will stand in the House today to apologize to this House and the Canadian people with respect to when the Prime Minister was first made aware that marijuana was found.
It is curious why the Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Solicitor General refused to be forthcoming with respect to this incident. We in the Liberal Party, the Official Opposition, have been concerned from the very start that there has been a very basic breach of that fundamental principle of our criminal justice system, that all persons be treated equally before the law. This Government is involved in stonewalling. It refuses to be forthright and refuses to give us answers to the very necessary questions that are being asked as a result of the so-called MacKay-Hatfield affair. One can only conclude that the Government, the Prime Minister, the Solicitor General and the Minister of Justice have something to hide.
We in the Opposition have consistently asked for an independent judicial inquiry into the whole matter to determine how extensive the political interference was. We know

April IS, 1985
Adjournment Debate
for a fact that the Solicitor General, on his own admission, met secretly with Premier Hatfield on October 7 at the Chateau Laurier to further discuss the case. The mere fact that he met with Premier Hatfield would suggest extremely poor judgment, not only on the part of the Solicitor General but also on the part of Premier Hatfield for asking for that particular meeting.
The point we in opposition have been trying to make is that it is basic and fundamental that all persons be treated equally before the law. It was clear to us that Premier Hatfield was given that audience with the Solicitor General because he was a Premier of a province. Had it been Joe Blow from Kokomo, or a poor teenager from the other side of the tracks in York South-Weston, he would not have been given an audience with the Solicitor General of Canada.
Members of the legal community are unanimous with respect to the propriety of the Solicitor General meeting secretly with Premier Hatfield. They say it was wrong, that it is not the role of the Solicitor General to personally involve himself in a criminal investigation. Members of the media are almost unanimous on the matter. They are unanimous in the belief that the Solicitor General exercised poor judgment. Some have gone so far as to call for his resignation. The Solicitor General has refused to resign. He is continually clinging to power.
At this point, we are waiting for the internal RCMP report which was promised us weeks and weeks ago. We are hoping that it will come forward, and will give us the answers to those very basic questions for which we and the Canadian people have been waiting.


Mr. Chris Speyer (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, on March 4 the Hon. Member asked the question which is the subject-matter of his comments today. At that time, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said the following:
The reason 1 am rising to reply, Mr. Speaker, is that I informed the Prime Minister the day before the charges were laid that charges were to be laid against Premier Hatfield.
Since that time, to the best of my recollection, the Minister of Justice has appeared before the committee on the Estimates. The Solicitor General (Mr. MacKay) has appeared twice, but in both cases, the hearings were terminated because of a vote in the House, although there was a brief opportunity for questioning. I know that the Solicitor General will be appearing on Estimates within the next week. The Hon. Member who has every right to pose whatever questions he sees fit with respect to this matter will have an opportunity to ask these questions of the Solicitor General. Indeed, he has such an opportunity every day in Question Period.
I do not intend to give hearsay upon hearsay today. All I can say is what I know the Minister of Justice has said, that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was advised that charges were going to be laid against the Premier, and that that advice was given the day before charges were in fact laid.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.29 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, April 16, 1985