1985-09-23

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, September 13, consideration of the motions of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, and Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have this opportunity this morning to say a few words in connection with Bill C-67 and Bill C-68. Bill C-67 is an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, and Bill C-68 is an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code. These Bills contain a number of technical amendments, but their main thrust as far as Canadians are concerned has to do with what could be called the legalization of a procedure which has come to be known as gating. When inmates receive mandatory release after serving only two-thirds of their sentence, in the past there has been a requirement that they be automatically released. Because of difficulties with people who have been automatically released, there has been an attempt in recent years to try to prevent this release by the system of gating or rearresting them as soon as they walk out of prison. Of course the courts have found that this is not a legal practice. Bill C-67 has been introduced to ensure that we do not have to release prisoners automatically when it is inappropriate.
Of course, the explanation for that can be found in Bill C-67. These amendments would clarify the nature of the remission of a sentence and its impact on the sentence. It would allow the National Parole Board to order continued detention in a community based residential facility of certain inmates following a review by the board of those identified under stated criteria and referred to the National Parole Board by the Canadian penitentiaries service. The long and the short of it is that there would no longer be mandatory release in such a situation. The National Parole Board would have the discretion not to release people automatically.
The same applies in Bill C-68. Its amendments would provide for the termination of full parole and release on mandatory supervision. Both these Bills are extremely important in the area of sentencing and parole, two matters which Canadians view as very serious.
During the past election campaign we found that the whole issue of law and order was a major one on the minds of Canadians right across the country. To a large extent it was manifest in the call by many people for the return of the death penalty. What really became the characteristic of the issue was the whole question of whether we should have a return of the death penalty, whether we should have a free vote, whether we should have some form of referendum or what we should have concerning the death penalty. However, I believe that there is a wider issue than just the death penalty. It is the whole question of law and order itself or the whole question of tightening up the legal system-sentencing, parole and mandatory release provisions-in order to ensure that we protect ordinary Canadian citizens to the fullest extent. The Opposition and many organizations in Canada have pointed out that they feel this will have a negative effect on what Canadians should expect from their criminal system or from their prison system. Previous speakers have indicated that they feel there will be a rise in crime if these Bills go through, but that is definitely at odds with what we have seen happening in the last few years.
The concern demonstrated during the election campaign was just an example of the concern of all Canadians resulting from a series of situations which seem to have occurred, if not daily, almost weekly and have been reported in the press with a great deal of publicity. Of course it raises concern in the hearts and minds of all of us. I should like to refer to a recent concern which may not relate specifically to this issue but relates to the whole area of parole and releasing people from prison before the sentence which has been handed out by the judge has been completed. This case resulted from an occurrence in Metropolitan Toronto last month which was reported widely. That was the case of a man who picked up three teenage girls, forced them at gunpoint to strip, tied them up with their own clothing, raped them repeatedly, forced them into other sexual acts and then left them tied up in a field. This man had met them at a hamburger shop and had asked them for a ride to the railway station. Naively, they agreed to his request and took him there. The result of that were the acts that I have just read from one of the local Toronto newspapers of last month.
[DOT] (mo)
The case did not stop there, however. It was discovered that this individual had been released on a day pass from prison but

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
had in fact been out for quite a few days. There had been a series of rapes in different parts of Metropolitan Toronto, followed by these particular incidents, and after the police emergency task force had surrounded him and apprehended this individual in a cemetery, I believe, it was determined that he was, in all likelihood, the one who had committed this series of crimes.
It seems to me that this sort of thing illustrates only too well the concern that the people of my riding have and the concern that Canadians have relating in general to the whole subject of criminal law, sentencing, parole, and mandatory release.
These two Bills, Bill C-67 and Bill C-68, are a small first step toward tightening up our whole legal system to ensure that all of us can feel safe in our homes and safe on our streets. We have a great and wonderful Charter of Rights in this country and it guarantees a good many freedoms: freedom of speech, freedom of assembly, freedom from discrimination and freedom to be treated equally. One thing that is not mentioned in the Charter of Rights is the freedom to walk down the street at night without fear. Hopefully this Bill will be the first step to bringing about that feeling of freedom on the part of all Canadians, that freedom to walk down the street at night without fear. In that respect I hope it will receive the unanimous support of all Members of this House.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to have an opportunity to participate briefly in this debate. As a former Solicitor General I can be forgiven for reminding the House that the legislation before us now, which is legislation to constrain mandatory supervision, was in almost every particular the same as legislation which I had introduced and which I had hoped would go through the House before the last election.
We find ourselves in somewhat the same position today as we were at that time, that is that the Conservative Party and my own Party, the Liberal Party, are in agreement that mandatory supervision ought to be constrained further, while the NDP is raising objections to that.
Before the last election the objections of the NDP were fatal because we needed unanimous consent to get the legislation through before the end of the parliamentary session. This time the objections of the NDP are not going to defeat the Bill because it can still be referred to committee and we have lots of time to look at it. I do not want to indicate today to government Members that we will not have amendments to this legislation. It is not exactly the same as our previously proposed legislation but its objective is the same. I want members of the Government Party to know that we approach this issue with the same concern that they have, namely, to find out how we can constrain mandatory supervision further to make sure that inmates who we know are dangerous can be prevented from being released from prison any sooner than the court sentence imposed upon them specifies.
While I indicate a need to review mandatory supervision and tighten it up, I am also glad that the Government Party has not gone so far as to cancel mandatory supervision completely. I know that there are occasional public outcries for mandatory supervision to be completely cancelled and for inmates to stay in prison as long as the warrants which impose their sentences lasts since the public interest would be served best by keeping them behind bars as long as possible. I wanted to speak in today's debate because I do not agree with that position. I feel that mandatory supervision is useful for most inmates and I thought, in support of this initiative of the Government, that 1 ought to indicate why I think so.
A great many people believe that when a court imposes a sentence, somehow or other the machinery of parole and mandatory supervision work against the sentence of the court. That of course is not true. When a judge imposes a sentence, he is fully aware that there is a parole period and a period of mandatory supervision provided in the law and that if he wants the inmate to spend a certain amount of time behind bars before he gets out on parole, the court imposes an appropriate sentence. In no sense of the word do parole and mandatory supervision undermine what a court has in mind for the inmate.
That is quite different from the situation in the United States. Many Canadians, when reading of the American situation, assume that it is the same in Canada and that somehow the Parole Board has the function of equalizing sentences or working against the sentence imposed by the court. That is not the case. The Parole Board is very limited in what it can do and the judge knows, when the sentence is imposed, what kind of an impact the Parole Board and the law of mandatory supervision will have on the sentence that he imposes. He takes that into account when the sentence is imposed.
The Parole Board can take a look at the inmate during the middle third of his sentence to decide if the inmate has benefited to the maximum from being behind bars, if his rehabilitation will be benefited by putting him out on the street under supervision and if there is a satisfactory assurance that the public at large will not be at risk if he is put out of parole at that point. However, the Parole Board's jurisdiction under our law has not applied in the final third of an inmate's sentence.
Let us say that the Parole Board does not trust an inmate and feels that he should stay behind bars and not be put on parole. Our law presently provides that at the end of the second third of his sentence, provided he has behaved in prison, he can be released, to spend the last third of his sentence on the street, and the Parole Board has no authority to stop this. During the Trudeau years, the former Government introduced some constraint on the law that had existed before. Before we did that, an inmate who served two-thirds of his time behind bars and behaved well would get out at that time. Although he was still under warrant, there was no supervision or accounting of him at all. It was a system that
September 23, 1985

had existed for over 100 years and it was known by the cons and the public as time off for good behaviour.
In 1970, the present concept of mandatory supervision was introduced. That meant that if the inmate behaved well, he could be released but he would have to report to a parole officer and terms and conditions could be imposed upon him. In 1970, the Government was responding to the idea that it is in the public interest in almost every case to allow the inmate to spend some time on the street under supervision before the end of his warrant. That is a very difficult policy to defend when someone emerges who has been victimized by an inmate who is out on the street during the last third of his sentence. Members of Parliament raise this issue in the House every day. What business to we have to allow someone to be out on the street when their sentence is not over, even under supervision, when they can create more harm? Why do we not keep them behind bars until the last minute?
The answer to that question, of course, is that at the last minute the offender will have to be released. Mandatory supervision only applies to inmates who will be released eventually; it does not apply to lifers or people who are serving indefinite sentences. So the criminal justice system has a difficult choice to make. Should we keep an offender behind bars for as long as possible and then release him to be completely free like anyone else in society? Or, should we control his re-entry into society, imposing a period of time in which he, and society, can help in his readjustment to life on the street again? The fact that we have conditional release, mandatory supervision and parole is an indication that in our criminal justice system we tend to believe that an inmate has a better chance of going straight, and society has a better chance of being protected, if there is that period before the warrant expires when the inmate is on the street but under supervision.
I had the opportunity, and I hope the present Solicitor General will take the opportunity, to look into the way in which mandatory supervision operates. What happens is that the offender is called in to a parole officer's office, sometimes as often as once a week, and it can even be more often than that. In some cases, he is asked to empty his pockets onto the table. He is asked questions such as: "What lock does this key fit? Where does this money come from? Whose phone number is this? Where are you living now? Where are you working? Are you staying away from alcohol? Are you staying away from your old friends who got you into trouble before you were convicted?" To me, this is a very valuable process. I am glad the Government did not succumb to the temptation of completely cancelling mandatory supervision because, as regrettable as it sometimes is, there are inmates, even with that type of supervision, who commit crimes. In the overwhelming majority of cases I believe, as does the Liberal caucus, that it is better to supervise the inmate's re-entry into society than to leave him behind bars, cold turkey, until the last day when he has to be released, when he cannot be told where to live and to stay away from alcohol, and so on. He cannot be told to find a job, nor can he be forced to report. He is completely free, like
Criminal Code Amendments
anyone else. The valuable opportunity to control him has been lost during the period of time in which he is most vulnerable. The most vulnerable period is when an inmate is released after a period of long confinement and has to adjust to making a living and having the same free choices that all other Canadians have.
While I say that, I still think there are some offenders who are exceptional. Because there are some who will, predictably, commit crimes again as soon as they can, there needed to be some machinery in place for taking mandatory supervision away. The legislation before us provides that machinery, which is why I am in favour of it.
There are some classes of offenders who are very good inmates, for example, pyromaniacs, inmates who are convicted for lighting fires, or sex offenders. These are classes of inmates who tend to be well behaved while they are in prison. In the case of sex offenders, they are often segregated from other inmates who would, possibly, injure them or kill them if they could get their hands on them. So they tend to be model prisoners. However, when the time comes for their release, it is possible that they can re-offend. This legislation provides the machinery to permit the Parole Board to review cases as they come up for mandatory supervision. I hope that it will use the machinery exceptionally. I also hope that it will recognize that it is beneficial for offenders, and society in pursuit of his reform, to put him on the street under control. But for those where it is predictable and almost certain that they will reoffend, this machinery is welcome. This machinery will be there.
I hope in looking at it together in committee that perhaps we will find ways to improve the legislation. Basically, mandatory supervision will be constrained but it will be preserved.
I would like to speak to another matter which is touched on in this legislation.

I am referring to the matter of increasing the number of members on the National Parole Board. According to the proposed legislation, the Government intends to increase the number of members from 26 to 36, which means an increase of 10. I, for one, am in favour of increasing the number of members, because the present workload constitutes a heavy burden on the shoulders of the Board, and since we are giving them more work through this legislation, it is only fair that we should increase the number of members on the Board.
The National Parole Board's workload has also increased as a result of cases under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The present procedure is more time-consuming and involves far more work because of the various stages in the procedure and the opportunities afforded inmates to present their point of view. I realize that, and I am happy to see that the number of members on the Board has been increased to deal with these needs.

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments

i have learned in recent days that the Government is far behind in filling the existing vacancies on the National Parole Board. I was in western Canada last week and learned that there are some spots on the National Parole Board which have been vacant for over a year. I want to urge the Government to take steps to fill these vacancies or to renew the terms of office of the present serving members. The Government is indicating in this legislation that it needs more members on the National Parole Board. In that case, why has it not acted to fill the vacancies which have existed on the National Parole Board for over a year? One reason may be the new patronage provisions in the conflict of interest guidelines which were introduced by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). The National Parole Board was one of the commissions to which a relative of a serving Minister, that is, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark)-the sister or sister-in-law-was appointed as a member of the National Parole Board during the course of the past year. If the Government had in mind to appoint other relatives, it has been prevented from doing sc by the new conflict of interest guidelines.
The Government has brought in new conflict of interest guidelines. It is now impossible for the Government to make an appointment like the appointment of the sister or sister-inlaw of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. What I would like to know is why that person is allowed to keep her job after the conflict of guidelines are changed to prevent that type of appointment. The Government is saying it is wrong for us to appoint our close relatives to jobs like this. Why is it allowed to continue to keep someone on the National Parole Board who it would not be allowed to appoint under the current conflict of interest guidelines? To me it is a question of whether the Government is really committed to having tough conflict of interest guidelines and to seeing them enforced.
I very much favour the increase in the size of the National Parole Board. It has a lot more work to do these days not only because of the Bill which is presently before the House but because of the impact of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms on the hearings of inmates' parole cases and on the appeals from the hearings of inmates' parole cases. Without agreeing, therefore, in advance-and I am looking forward to the committee hearings-to the whole machinery which has been introduced, which is a little different from the machinery I introduced when I was Solicitor General, I am in favour of this type of constraint on mandatory supervision. We look forward to seeing how it is going to work and to an improved system of criminal justice.


Mr. Dan McKenzie (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Veterans Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-67 and Bill C-68 have been grouped together for debate. They will be referred to a legislative committee at the same time.
Bill C-67 is An Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act. These amendments will give the National Parole Board the authority to deny potentially dangerous and
violent inmates release on parole or on mandatory supervision. The Bill will make changes to the correctional program and conditional release, known as mandatory supervision. It will tighten this program for penitentiary inmates who are believed dangerous and could potentially commit another crime.
Let me give some examples of what is happening as a result of individuals being released when they should have remained in prison. In Brandon last year, a man twice convicted for rape was released from a psychiatric centre because it was illegal to gate or rearrest prisoners on mandatory supervision. Within five months this man stabbed one woman and shot another woman and her two children during a bloody rampage in Brandon, Manitoba. One can see that it is extremely important to tighten the parole procedures. As a result of the crime on the streets today we have now reached a point in Canada where women and children cannot go out on the streets.
I will give further examples of what has happened in Manitoba because that is primarily where some of the most bizarre cases have taken place. Parents will not be able to let their children out of their sight for a moment, even to allow them to take apartment elevators by themselves. There is too much risk in allowing their children to play on the streets alone. For example, a 12-year old girl was forced into a car on a Winnipeg street. She was found later, bound hand and foot, and left in a railway boxcar. Fortunately, this time the girl was unharmed when she was found by a passer-by walking her dog. She was not gagged by the person who abducted her and her screams alerted that passer-by. However, in another case in Winnipeg last year, a girl was bound hand and foot and, after bieng sexually assaulted, was left in a shed were she froze to death.
Winnipeg's tenth murder victim of 1985 was an 83-year old man who was assaulted and stabbed 16 times in his home. His body was found a week later. Two people are under arrest for that crime. Recently, a man out on a day pass picked up three teenage girls and forced them at gun point to remove their clothes. He tied them up and raped them repeatedly and left them bound in a field. Fortunately, due to good police work, this individual was picked up later.
It is reported in a Toronto newspaper today that a man is charged with beating a 15-year old girl. This man, who fell 18 feet while trying to jump from a downtown roof top to a tree, has been charged in the beating early yesterday of a 15-year old girl. The girl is in satisfactory condition in the Hospital for Sick Children. If 15 and 16 year olds cannot go out on the street, certainly we cannot allow our younger boys and girls on the street unattended.
The latest and most bizarre case in Winnipeg, which has extremely disturbed the people of Manitoba as I am sure it did all Canadians, concerns a three year old girl who was lured from her home with a stuffed toy. She died of massive head injuries after being sexually assaulted in Winnipeg. A 17-year old has been charged with the crime. The girl was found in a garage a few hours after the murder, clutching a toy that did not even belong to her. It is believed that her head had been bashed in with a brick.
September 23, 1985

The people of the neighbourhood where this most terrible crime occurred are now organizing neighbourhood patrols in the hope of preventing future tragedies. Some will be walking while others will drive throughout the area on the look out for trouble. They want their streets to be safe for women and children, as do all Members of the House.
Today I will suggest that the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) arrange an immediate meeting with the chiefs of police associations and other police organizations. I believe that we can learn more from the police about how to deal with these brutal crimes of child abduction, rape and murder. I do not know what the answer is, but I do not believe that more legislation will necessarily stop such crimes. I am sure that we can learn much from our police across the country about how to prevent these atrocities from continuing.
I will also suggest to the Solicitor General that he conduct a meeting with the provincial Solicitors General to deal with these heinous crimes that are reaching serious proportions.
Let me give another example of how these fiends work. On the previous evening to this three year old girl being sexually assaulted and murdered, the youth accused of this brutal crime is said to have been causing a disturbance in the halls of the apartment building where this victim lived. Neighbours said that a young girl was manhandled in the halls by the accused. We simply cannot let our children play in apartment blocks, especially high rises.
Another recent case in Toronto involves an eight year old girl who was abducted. She was going down the elevator to meet a friend to go swimming. We have never seen or heard of her since. We hope and pray that Nicole will be found safe and sound. It is just further evidence to show that we cannot let our children go out alone. In the case of the three year old girl who was sexually assaulted and murdered in Winnipeg, the Winnipeg police stated that it is one of the worst crimes they have ever seen. It has absolutely stunned the Winnipeg police force. They are to be congratulated for their excellent police work because they found the culprit within nine hours.
In Winnipeg, a steady stream of people dropped by the apartment building today before the funeral of the three year old girl. To date, over $2,000 has been collected, including the donation of a $400 headstone from a Transcona firm. People have been driving from as far as Kenora and Portage La Prairie to express their condolences.
I would like the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) to make a commitment that he will take positive action in dealing with safety on the streets, especially as it concerns children. All of us have children or grandchildren and are deeply concerned because any one of them could be the next victim.
This crime was particularly tragic because the father of this three year old was in Alberta and heard of the murder over the radio. One can only imagine his shock.
I want to emphasize that these crimes are a national issue and something which we can no longer condone. We must take action at the federal level. We must introduce legislation, whether it is provincial or federal legislation, that will help the
Criminal Code Amendments
police in any way. I hope my friend and colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General, the Hon. Member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), will relay my plea and concerns to the Solicitor General. I am sure that Members want positive action to stop these heinous crimes and make the streets safe once again for women, children and all Canadians.


Mr. Cassidy:: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to say whether he believes that keeping an inmate convicted of a violent crime in prison for the entirety of his term, with no chance of release for good behaviour or for mandatory supervision because a judgment is made that the prisoner might commit an offence again, will mean that, at the end of his or her term, he will be more or less likely to commit further crimes than a prisoner who has passed through a period of parole or mandatory supervision, thus having had a chance to integrate with society?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to expand on the powers of the Parole Board. Decisions will have to be made in discussions with prison officials as to who should be transferred or released. That decision is not for a Member of Parliament to make. We will be picking people with experience and good judgment. I suggest that the Solicitor General meet with the different police organizations for discussion because the police are more familiar with criminals than we are. The police can certainly advise us whether somebody should be released or transferred. They know more about these things than anybody else.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member knows, prisoners whose eligibility for mandatory supervision is put into question by the proposals in Bill C-67 will have served substantial lengths of time, perhaps 5, 10 or 15 years. People change over time. The judgment as to whether a prisoner can benefit from mandatory supervision or should be denied it would presumably be based on a prisoner's behaviour while a prisoner.
A prisoner is not accepted for mandatory supervision if that prisoner has not exhibited good behaviour. The Member knows that.
The Bill presupposes that it is possible to judge whether or not a prisoner who has demonstrated good behaviour is likely or not to commit a violent crime if permitted to exit prison on mandatory supervision. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), has indicated quite strongly that, based on his knowledge of the corrections field, there is no scientific or established means by which that kind of prediction can take place.
The Hon. Member opposite says he believes that that is the case because he is supporting the Bill. What is the evidence? On what basis does the Hon. Member believe the prediction about the propensity to commit violent crime again based on good behaviour?

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, if everybody behaved themselves, no one would be in prison in the first place. This is a very difficult problem, and we cannot continue with the same procedure. That is the reason for this Bill. The final authority will be with the people on the Parole Board.
I am concerned about people on the outside, not about people on the inside. Individuals are being released from prison, the Brandon case was an example. There was a prisoner who should never have been released at all. He murdered three people in a shoot-out with police. We have to do something to protect society. There is probably no foolproof legislation that will solve all the problems, but this Bill is certainly a step in the right direction. I am more interested in making the streets safe. That is my top priority. It is not just considering people in jail.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Debate. The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I rise to speak on this Bill and, as Hon. Members may know, I speak in part with great sadness because a death occurred this summer in the Kirkpatrick House in my riding of Ottawa Centre. Kirkpatrick House is a community residential centre operated by the John Howard Society of Ottawa. It was housing a number of prisoners on parole or on mandatory supervision. An inexperienced 21 year-old girl named Celia Ruygrok who had worked for the society on a part-time basis for only a few weeks was murdered. She was left alone after midnight not knowing that the prisoners, the parolees, in the building were for the most part those with violent criminal records.
Along with my provincial colleague, Evelyn Gigantes and Miss Ruygrok's family, I will be meeting with the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) this afternoon. We will be making some positive suggestions which, at the very least both the family and I hope might ensure that this situation does not occur again. We hope we can improve the way in which we deliver services, halfway houses or residential services, for convicted prisoners returning into the community.
I would say that the kinds of comments made by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) and other Hon. Members of this House do concern me. They seem to be trying to convey to the public that we are in the midst of a massive crime wave as a result of being too soft on prisoners.
There are areas of the criminal justice system about which 1 have some real concern. I am afraid that Bill C-67 and Bill C-68 indicate that the ministry has bought this thinking hook, line and sinker. It is the kind of line taken by the chiefs of police in particular, a group of people who, in my opinion, improperly inject themselves into politics by the way in which they comment on matters that should rightfully be political. They are there to administer the law not to whip up public storms of public protest. In doing so it seems to me that Hon. Members, such as the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine, mislead the public because the public is led to believe that if you simply increase sentences and have more maximum security prisons it will remove dangers on the street, or that
the crime rate is such that people cannot afford to go out on the street at all.
Recent statistics issued by Statistics Canada indicate that the crime rate in 1984 is down from 1983. The crime rate has rested. It has been static for several years but is now declining. The same thing is happening in the United States. One reason is very simple. People between the ages of 16 and 23 form a smaller proportion of our population than they did a few years ago. This is the age group with the highest proportion of criminal activity. As people grow older, to some extent there is a diminishing of criminal activity. I find it remarkable, given the current economic conditions, that the crime rate has decreased rather than increased.
We are talking about serious problems with Bill C-67 and C-68. We are not talking about a rampant and sudden sharp increase in the crime rate. While public sentiment and the comments of the police have been directed to the question of punishment, we have had very little discussion of rehabilitation. I would say to Hon. Member opposite that it will be at our peril that we concentrate on the question of punishment and nothing else. My questions to the Hon. Member who just spoke were directed to the kinds of things that are raised, in my mind, by this Bill. If we keep violent offenders in prison for the entirety of their sentences in maximum security institutions, like the one to be built in the riding of the Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), then let them out on the street having had no contact with society for periods of up to 20 years, the minimum sentence now provided in cases of manslaughter and murder, how can we realistically believe that individuals after 10 or 20 years in jail can successfully and quickly adapt to society? Or will they be as violent as before and likely simply to go on?
There is a crime problem within our prisons, Mr. Speaker, as you know. Prisoners learn about halfway through their sentence whether they are to be denied the chance of mandatory supervision. What incentive will there be for them to offer any kind of good behaviour over the course of the remainder of their sentence, which could be another five or ten years? What if a prisoner is released on mandatory supervision and then reincarcerated because violated some condition? The condition could be as simple as having a drink. Perhaps, instead of moving to Mississauga as required, he moved to Hamilton because a girlfriend, who had been true to him while he had been in jail, moved to Hamilton, or something like that. Minor violations like that could lead to the prisoner being reincarcerated with no further chance of getting out until the end of his sentence. Prisoners with no hope of getting out before the end of their sentence, it seems to me, are prisoners without any commitment to good behaviour. There is no rational reason at all why they should indulge in good behaviour over the course of their sentence. That is why my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), told the House earlier of his fears that this Bill, rather than improving the situation, could lead to greater violence within prisons. You would then have a larger number of prisoners emerging at the end of their
September 23, 1985

sentences bitter, alienated from society, not knowing what is happening, and under no obligation to maintain touch with a residential centre, a parole officer, or anyone else when they get out. We all know that if you give someone a cheap suit and a few hundred dollars at the most when they come out, having had very little contact with the community or their family, probably having lost contact with anyone with whom they had an affectionate relationship because of the time they had been locked up, as well as having been surrounded by prisoners and talking about things you learn in prison for maybe up to 10 or 20 years, the chances of that inmate going back to a life of crime are extraordinarily and tragically high. That is one reason we have said that we intend to oppose this Bill.
I now want to talk about some of the specific problems we became aware of in Ottawa-Carleton as a result of the death of Celia Ruygrok. The facts surrounding that tragic death tell us that there are very serious weaknesses in the current system of mandatory supervision and parole, much less rehabilitation. Much to my amazement I have yet to discover whether the house in question, run by the John Howard Society, was intended to be an unstructured or a structured program. I think it is clear it was not meant to be a specialized program. Even if it was to be a structured program, under the standards laid down by Corrections Canada little or nothing was really required in the way of interaction between staff and parolees apart from the fact that there would be a staff person on duty at all times of the day and night. The staff was instructed to lend a sympathetic ear and direct prisoners to resources available in the community. The standards put down by Corrections Canada indicate that if there is to be a monthly meeting or regular meetings with the residents, they should be told about it. But it is not a requirement in a structured program that there be intense work with each prisoner in order to work out a plan of action for re-establishing themselves in the community. In the case of Kirkpatrick House, something as simple as whether or not the house would deal with prisoners who went out and got drunk had not been worked out. The people in Corrections Canada had an understanding of the policy in that particular home different from that of the staff who were there.
Although Corrections Canada was responsible for administering the contract, although parole officers were there- seldom, I think, but at least once every couple of weeks-it appears that no one raised any alarm bells over the fact that the full-time professionally qualified staff, who were adequately paid, I presume, were only there during the week. They worked around the clock from Monday to Friday but on the weekends, part-time staff, and in the case of Celia Ruygrok and perhaps others, inexperienced and underqualified parttime staff, were on their own. Even those residents who were working were likely to be free on the weekends. Those who were taking training programs at community college or manpower training were likely to be free on the weekends. Everyone has the habit of relaxing a bit on the weekends and if it is your habit to go and have a drink or two on a Saturday night and you finally get out of prison where you could not do that, I
Criminal Code Amendments
would think it is a natural tendency for prisoners to want to do it even if the conditions of their parole do not permit it. So here you have inexperienced staff left on their own, part-timers, a duty officer available at the end of the phone but basically saying: "Listen, don't call me unless you have to", and a tragedy occurs.
This particular house did not have any training for its part-time staff. They worked one shift under supervision and then they were on their own. Communications with the parttime staff were negligible. The director of the house was not aware that most of the residents had violent criminal records. In theory the staff should have had access to the dossier on each prisoner but the dossier was in the office of Corrections Canada somewhere in downtown Ottawa. Therefore, in practical terms, they were not accessible to the full-time staff, and even less accessible to the part-time staff. Had this home been located in Quebec City, Moose Jaw or Vancouver, I would assume access to the records of the prisoners would even be less than it was in theory at this home. Part-timers were not involved in staff meetings, from what I could establish. Records of meetings with the prisoners were not kept. It was all very informal.
Those things, Mr. Speaker, speak to weaknesses in the program of the house. Communications were obviously inadequate and there are certainly statements in the audit, which was done after the death, which indicate that the director and the John Howard Society seemed to lack interest in the operation of this home even though it was a $260,000 contract with Corrections Canada, a very major contract. In addition, the audit of the home in November, 1984, indicated:
Since the evaluation completed in June 1984, CSC has continued to express concerns about the level and quality of service delivery provided by the CRC under the structured program agreement. No additional staff have been hired as anticipated, and the CRC program content continued to be seen as limited. Most recently at a JHS Board of Directors meeting 84-11-21, the concerns of CSC and NPB in this regard were expressed. The Agency indicated a commitment to respond to the problem by hiring an additional staff person ... A structured program will be developed and implemented with the assistance of additional staff resources, and by consultation with the CSC Ottawa area office.
That evaluation came out 7 to 8 months before the murder took place. What happened in the intervening time? It is hard to see what happened. Yet Corrections Canada was within a mile of this particular halfway house. Now 1 ask myself, if Corrections Canada, given the proximity of this particular house, was unable to get them to clean up their act and this death occurred, and if, as the report stated, common sense alone would have said you should not have left this young woman there on her own, inexperienced as she was, in the middle of the night, quite apart from any other factors about what should or should not have been done, then what about the halfway houses and community residential centres which are located at much greater distance and which, therefore, do not have the benefit of easy and quick communication with Corrections Canada staff?
In addition to that, this report was prepared on behalf of the Parole Board and Corrections Canada. It went quite thoroughly into a number of matters. I have only had an expurgated version because of the Freedom of Information Act. Much of

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
it is blacked out, and much of that pertains to the particular circumstances surrounding this death.
It is the systemic problems which particularly concern me. I think this is relevant to Bill C-67 because community residential centres are the kinds of places to which prisoners are sent under mandatory supervision. Of the seven full-time and the one part-time officers in the Ottawa area, the most experienced had all of 13 months of experience. It appears from the report that she was expected to stand in for the area manager when the area manager was absent on holiday or for some other reason. In other words, inexperienced staff was being used to investigate the possible suspension of supervision or suspension of parole of prisoners. Also the report indicated that they tended to be too soft and rather forgiving to prisoners who went out on benders or formed liaisons with young women and so on. I cannot judge all this partly because a lot of the material has been expurgated. Nonetheless, since parole officers are an essential part of the justice system for prisoners who are placed in the halfway position of being out of prison and on their way to re-establishing themselves into society, or so we hope, we would have thought that Corrections Canada and the National Parole Board would have been more mindful of that weakness. If that weakness can occur in the nation's capital, it can occur systemically in any other part of the country. That raises real questions in my mind. We have parole officers who are underqualified and inexperienced. We have Corrections Canada which is incapable, even in Ottawa, it seems, of enforcing action when it had really deep and longstanding concerns, not just temporary ones, about a particular halfway house.
These are the kinds of things which lead me to say that we should be looking at the nature of the rehabilitation services which we offer to see if there is some way to improve them, rather than adopt the approach in this particular Bill which is be more vindictive.
The average cost of having a prisoner in penitentiary is estimated to be $40,000 per annum. Presumably the cost for prisoners who have committed violent offences and are in maximum security institutions is a good deal higher. If we include the capital cost of facilities which are now being built over some period of amortization or depreciation, the cost would be higher still. We are talking about $60,000 to $80,000 per year for prisoners in high security institutions. The effect of the Bill could well be that we will increase substantially the demand for maximum institutions because those prisoners will be kept in such institutions for longer periods of time. Let us compare that with the cost of keeping a prisoner in the community. A prisoner on parole who is not in a halfway house can cost as little as $3,000 or $4,000 per annum at current levels of parole supervision. A prisoner in a halfway house such as Kirkpatrick House can cost $40 per day or about $13,000 or $14,000 per year. In other words, the disparity is such that surely we should be looking at better means of rehabilitation. Surely we should be putting more resources into
what those prisoners are doing when they are out in the community.
1 see that my time is up. I hope one of my colleagues will ask me a question or two about this particular case. However, perhaps one thing can be drawn from the case of Celia Ruygrok. Charges have been laid. We do not know who was responsible in terms of the courts and so on, but let us seek to ensure that the security of staff is adequately protected and that we do not have single staffing at night in places where there are many violent offenders. We should try, in a positive way, to put into force the guidelines which have now been drafted by the Canadian Criminal Justice Association, guidelines which would seek to ensure that halfway house programs are working in a positive way in an attempt to try to help offenders establish themselves in the community rather than being dumping grounds for prisoners for a few months or a year or two between the time they are let out of prison on a conditional basis and the time that their term is actually up. Unfortunately, the dumping ground philosophy has been too prevalent. Whether it is a dumping ground in the community or a dumping ground back in prison, which it seems to me is the intent of Bill C-67 and Bill C-68, it is wrong. We have to be positive and treat the whole matter as an integrated criminal justice system, as criminal lawyers said in their testimony on the previous Bill a year or so ago. We cannot fiddle with just one part of the entire system, as is being proposed here, and hope to have positive results.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to hear that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) is looking further into and meeting with the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) on the Kirkpatrick House murder. Frankly I was surprised to hear him and his NDP provincial colleague criticize the John Howard Society so quickly, before getting completely to the bottom of the facts. My own feeling is that there is a lot more to find out about the case. The Hon. Member should not have rushed capturing headlines with his criticism of the way the house was run. Let us get to the bottom of it. I wish he had done that before making a condemnation of the John Howard Society.
The tenor of his remarks was to urge for a more controlled criminal justice system. His colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), when he spoke on these Bills the last time they were called as House business, said that the type of additional constraints on mandatory supervision that we wanted to see would lead to more crime. I ask him and his colleague to reflect on that proposition. Does it not really depend on the competence of the National Parole Board? Of course I am urging that we have a competent parole board, but I think these additional constraints which are being imposed upon mandatory supervision will reduce the amount of crime, not increase it. It is exactly the same argument as the one made before the last election when the NDP prevented us from getting this type of legislation at that time. For goodness' sake, we know that we are dealing with tough, hardened offenders, the most difficult risks in the whole system. Let us give the National Parole Board the teeth to keep the ones who are
September 23, 1985

dangerous behind bars longer. That is what we are asking for in this legislation. I urge the NDP to look at the reality of the situation and agree that if the parole board does its job properly, this type of legislation will result in a lower crime rate, not a higher one.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I have several points in response to the Hon. Member's intervention. With respect to Kirkpatrick House, my provincial colleague, Evelyn Gigantes, spent a great deal of time in July meeting with residents, staff and the bereaved family learning what had happened. Her comments were extremely responsible ones and were fully borne out in the findings of the report, which only became public or accessible to us a week or so ago. What she has said, as I have said, is that there were profound weaknesses in the operation of the particular house. There were profound weaknesses in a systemic fashion. This means that this could have happened anywhere in Canada in terms of the way the Parole Board, parole officers and Corrections Canada worked.
In response to my hon. friend, the former Solicitor General, he conveniently ignored the fact that his Government, with one brief interruption, had 20 years in which to bring in these improvements. It chose to do so only at the last minute. If that Bill were not passed, surely it relates to a large degree to the fact it took so long for the former Government to choose to bring forward these particular reforms.
The present Government, as was the case with the former one, seems to feel that it would be possible for the Parole Board to reach a conclusion about the propensity to violence of prisoners and to distinguish between two prisoners who committed the same offence and whose records, while in penitentiary, have in fact been the same, since one is not considered for mandatory release unless one has a record of good behaviour. For the life of me, I do not know how that can be done. However, I know that if a prisoner is released under the mandatory release program and someone only sees the prisoner once every couple of weeks and there are no alarm systems if there are problems-and problems have been alleged in the case of some people who were in this particular house-there is a real imbalance. Rather than allowing the Parole Board to lock up people and throw away the key until the term is over, it seems to me that we should be looking at what has happened in the community.
Perhaps the Hon. Member is suggesting that the way to prevent future violent crime is to lock such people up for life. Regrettably that has somewhat been the policy of the Canadian criminal justice system. I am sure that would work, but the expense and the effect in terms of human rights and that kind of thing would be intolerable. We already have a higher rate of incarceration than almost any country in the western world and I would not like to see that go on.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: A supplementary question?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: The Hon. Member is relying on a real chestnut in argument. I will not defend or contradict what he said about
Criminal Code Amendments
my beliefs as I expressed them in my own speech. The New Democrats have a very contradictory position. They are saying, don't give the Parole Board the authority to hold inmates back on mandatory supervision because how can the Parole Board predict whether they are going to commit additional crimes or not? If that argument is true, how can they agree with the idea of parole at all because the whole idea of parole at the end of the first third of an inmate's sentence is to try to predict what an inmate will do during the parole period?
If the arguments of the Members of the NDP are right, that the Parole Board cannot predict who is going to be violent in the last third of their sentence, then how can they support parole, as I know they do, in the middle third of their sentence when the issue is very much the same: What is this inmate likely to do if we give him the chance to rehabilitate himself on the street?
I would urge that Members be more sensible and to recognize that prediction is not perfect. One cannot predict with perfect accuracy how an inmate is going to behave when he is let out on the street. But in a lot of cases it can be predicted, so let us give the Parole Board at least the tools to make that prediction in cases where it is possible. Let us hope that the Government will be more sensible when appointing people to the Parole Board, and not include just relatives of Ministers and Party hacks but people who will be able to do a competent clinical job of assessing how an inmate is likely to behave. In that way the best will be done for the rehabilitation of inmates and for the protection of our society from repeat offenders.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would be tempted to respond on the question of patronage and the record of the former Government. However, I would like to respond seriously to the serious points made by the former Solicitor General.
If, in fact, prisoners learn that the Parole Board which has denied them parole has basically an unmitigated right to decide whether or not mandatory release should be denied at the end of two-thirds of their sentence, then what incentive is there for good behaviour on the part of those prisoners, once they decide they have been fingered by the board and therefore will not get any remission of sentence at all? That is my first question.
My second question is this. We are told here, in the case in Ottawa, that the Liberal parole officers were too soft, and that may well be the case. If, on the other hand, a parole officer is told that if the mandatory remission is revoked and the prisoner is sent back that prisoner is then locked up for another four or five years until his sentence is completely over, what is that going to do in terms of the parole officer's decision in making the judgment call about whether or not to revoke?
There again it may in fact be that what is needed is that the prisoner needs to be locked up for another six months but then given another chance. But there is no second chance in Bill C-67. Once revoked, you are back for five years in the case of a relatively long sentence, and I find that to be a sledgehammer approach which, it seems to me, gives very few options in terms of what one needs to try to do in rehabilitation.

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments


Mr. Keeper:: I have a question, Mr. Speaker, for my colleague. He was saying in his address that prisoners are often just dumped in the community without any adequate supports and, by way of contrast, that we spend a great deal of money and resources on prisoners when they are incarcerated. I wonder if he could elaborate a bit on what he sees as the needs in the community if we are to have prisoners in the community?


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, that is a matter which the new Minister, who does not come with any of the baggage of the previous Government or of being a Minister previously, has to seek to resolve.
It is clear from what I am learning, and I confess I am learning in this area, that the parole service needs to be adequately staffed, that we need to do more than is being done now in terms of finding employment opportunities for former inmates, that we need to ensure that community resources are available so that a prisoner who is determined to try to go straight does not get sucked back into the kind of environment or the kind of life that he or she had before.
I mentioned as well, and the Hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam mentioned it also, that men or women who are imprisoned in the prime of their life, in their twenties most often, and are imprisoned for ten or 15 years under circumstances where they are not working, find it very hard to come out and take a job in a factory at $4 or $5 or $6 an hour, and to be at an enormous disadvantage because of the fact that society continues to exact a cost from such people, even if they have paid their debt to society.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby-Coquitlam suggested quite strongly that prisoners should be required, wherever possible, to work while they are in penitentiary and, for that matter, while they are in provincial institutions as well. They should be required to work because that is a way of cutting some of the costs and because in performing work they can qualify themselves to be more capable of surviving in society when they come out and maybe be able to do better. They can also demonstrate to the Parole Board or other authorities their capacity for rehabilitation and betterment other than the fact that they did not knife a fellow prisoner or mouth the prison guards in the time that they were sitting idle over years of enforced imprisonment and unemployment.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few comments in this very important debate which affects the entire future of corrections in Canada. We know that this debate is not only taking place in the House of Commons but also in the streets of our communities, and often in a very emotional manner. People have good reason to be emotional about this issue. As an example from my riding which I am sure many Members will remember, four years ago a 15-year-old girl was brutally murdered by Paul Kocurek who was a known sex offender who
was out on mandatory supervision. He had been released barely six weeks earlier.
Quite rightly, the people of my community got very angry and very upset. They demanded changes. They formed an organization called "Citizens United for Safety and Justice" which was organized by parents and neighbours of the murdered girl. They have been persistent advocates of change in the law regarding mandatory supervision.
The details which came out in the trial of Paul Kocurek raised some very disturbing questions about the whole way in which mandatory supervision has been handled in the past. I think they have to be looked at in this debate.
Generally speaking, I agree with my colleagues who have pointed out that there are no adequate methods of predicting future violence on the part of a criminal who is being released but it is important to note that in the case of Paul Kocurek psychiatric reports indicated that if he did not receive proper treatment he was likely to kill someone. He was subject to fantasies of a sado-masochistic nature; he liked to choke women during sexual intercourse; he had a very disturbed personality and background. He had a history of molesting young children and in 1979, following the unlawful confinement of three young girls at which time he impersonated a police officer and attempted to handcuff them, he was given a two-year suspended sentence.
While on suspended sentence, one month later he was arrested for indecent assault on a four-year-old. As a result of that he was given a two-year sentence.
Under mandatory supervision, Kocurek was legally entitled to be released after serving two-thirds of his two-year sentence. It is interesting to note that two days before he was eligible for mandatory supervision release on June 20, 1981, he informed his parole officer that he was seriously considering waiving his right to mandatory supervision release in order to get further treatment at the regional psychiatric centre. In other words, he himself knew that he was a disturbed and unhealthy human being. His parole officer and the centre staff urged him to do this, but at the last moment he changed his mind and went through with the mandatory release program.
The conditions for his release included, among others, regular visits to the local mental health unit. However, he did not show up for his very first appointment. When he failed to show up for that appointment, nothing was done about it. No contacts were made with him. The parole supervisor was not notified and there was no real concern that this very disturbed human being who was at large in the community and had been told as a condition of his release that he should report to the mental health unit had not done so.
During the time that Kocurek was at large, he had in his possession a starter pistol and a pair of handcuffs. As I mentioned earlier, the handcuffs were part of the equipment that he had used earlier in the unlawful confinement of three young girls. He used these handcuffs and the starter pistol at the time of the assault which occurred on August 2. Six weeks
September 23, 1985

after his release on mandatory supervision, he was involved in this brutal sexual assault and murder.
This entire situation raised a series of questions which I put before the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) at the time. I still do not think that we received adequate answers of these questions. Why was an adequate treatment program not provided for Kocurek when he was in prison and there had been psychiatric warnings that he would kill if he were not treated? Why, given his history of sexual offences against young women and the psychiatric prognosis that he was liable to continue, was his initial sentence so short? The answer to that, of course, lies with the provincial court system. Why, when he was released, was he not placed under a stricter form of supervision? If we are to have mandatory supervision, let us make sure that it deals adequately with the situation of the people who are being released. Why, when he failed to comply with the terms of his supervision, was he not reported and apprehended?
The fact is that while the program under which Paul Kocurek was released is called "mandatory supervisions", there was no really effective supervision at all. How do we deal with this? Perhaps the easiest answer is to make a scapegoat of the parole service. However, I do not think that is an adequate approach.
In March 1981, an in-house study of the conditional release program indicated that parole supervision staff morale was low. Among others, two reasons given for that was first, quantity control, and, second, minimum standards. Quantity control is bureaucratese for the fact that parole officers have caseloads which are too large. There are not enough staff members to do a decent job.
In introducing this Bill, the Minister has pointed out that it costs some $40,000 per year to keep an inmate in prison and only $4,000 per year to supervise that inmate on the street. I would like to suggest that we beef up our parole services so that we spend a little more than $4,000 per year. It could be money well spent if it resulted in a more effective parole system and one that was not demoralized because it was not able to do its important job.
The in-house study also noted the need for more intensive supervision, particularly for criminals who had a history of violence. That, of course, is precisely what was lacking in the case of Paul Kocurek. In his case, the tragic failure of supervision led to the brutal murder of a young girl. Kocurek is now serving 25 years in prison with no possibility of release.
Quite rightly, Canadians want some protection from this kind of action. The Solicitor General in introducing Bill C-67, claims that this Bill which introduces changes to mandatory supervision will provide that security. I would like to raise a question with all Members of the House and with the Canadian public. Suppose Bill C-67 had been in effect in 1981. What difference would it have made in this particular case to which I referred this morning?
If Bill C-67 had been in place, Paul Kocurek would not have been released in June 1981 but he would have been released in the early spring of 1982. Unless the regional psychiatric centre
Criminal Code Amendments
was able to work an eight-month miracle with him, Paul Kocurek would have been just as disturbed, just as dangerous and just as much a potential killer in the spring of 1982 as he was when he was released in June 1981. The Corrections Department would not even have had the option of imposing on him some kind of supervision. The tragedy is that when there was that option in June 1981, it was not exercised in an effective way. Bill C-67 would simply have delayed that release by a few months and then removed the possibility for any kind of effective supervision. I do not think that that answers the very real concerns of people in the Cowichan Valley and across Canada about violent offenders and the possibility of repeat offences.
At the time of the case to which I referred, the Attorney General of British Columbia pointed out an anomaly in our law. He indicated that a person found not guilty by reason of insanity could be kept locked up until considered cured, but sexual perverts who are also potential killers must be released when their time is up. Bill C-67 does not address that issue. It is obviously an issue that must be addressed and it will require a good deal of attention from the Government at some point. I would suggest that when the Government deals with it, it does so in an open manner that will involve a wide cross section of the Canadian public including organizations like Citizens United for Safety and Justice as well as prisoners' rights groups and civil liberties associations.
This is a debate which deals with the meeting place between the public's right to security and the entire question of civil liberties. I would like to see the Government bring this debate before the House. However, I do not think that Bill C-67 addresses the basic question of protecting the public from violent offenders. It merely does a con job on the issue.
Not only does Bill C-67 not provide the kind of security we need but it will have serious negative effects. First, it has been pointed out that it can lead to even more serious overcrowding in our prisons. The prisons are already full to the bursting point. There is double-bunking in some prisons and there are inadequate facilities for vocational training. There is a crowding of all the facilities. We should recognize that overcrowding leads to increased tension and increased violence among prisoners and that it also leads to increased tension and violence between prisoners and custodial staff. At best, our prisons are dehumanizing institutions and overcrowding will make it worse. It will cut back on every possibility of rehabilitation. It is interesting to note that the present Minister of State for Immigration (Mr. McLean), when he sat on this side of the House, raised several questions about the rehabilitative function of our prisons. He suggested that that function was being dropped and urged that it be put back into the centre of the philosophy of the correctional system. He urged the correctional system to give more priority to the educational system within our prisons. The previous administration in the last Parliament cut back on higher education programs for inmates. When those programs were restored it required that the inmates should have to pay. In this way it meant cut-backs in terms of enrolment. It is important to note that for many
6850

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
inmates taking part in these educational programs it was really something of an habilitating-not a rehabilitating-program. Most inmates had not had that type of opportunity before. If we are to lock people up in institutions it is desirable, if at all possible, that on their release they be better human beings as opposed to worse. Overcrowding eliminates that possibility, which will be one side effect of Bill C-67.
Bill C-67 proposes the removal of the leverage which prison authorities have over prisoners in terms of good behaviour. There will be no more good behaviour incentive. It is for that reason that Canadian prison wardens have opposed this proposal.
One detail of concern in Bill C-67 suggests that prisoners who have been convicted of certain crimes will have only one shot at the mandatory release program. The point of view is that a person with a history of violence who is released and gets into trouble with the law should not be back out on the street again. I agree, if we are talking about a violation in terms of another violent crime. However, if the released prisoner is involved in some type of technical violation of his release conditions of a fairly minor nature, I am not sure it makes good sense to say that he will never have another opportunity to become involved in the mandatory release program. Tehnical violations should not mean complete forfeiture of all future rights to mandatory release.
In conclusion, I wish to stress that Bill C-67 is not the answer to the concern Canadians have with respect to security. It does not involve the type of security against violent repeat offences by people who have been imprisoned for committing violent crimes. What it means is that at the end of their sentence prisoners who have been convicted of violent crimes, and those who continue to have a tendency to violence, will be released without any possibility of supervision or follow up. I urge the Government to take a second look at the Bill and to bring in a program which will deal with the needs of Canadians with respect to security. I hope the Government will recognize that by simply tightening up mandatory supervision it has not provided the answer.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? The Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy).


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I would like the Hon. Member to elaborate on one area of concern to me. I am speaking of technical or minor breaches of mandatory supervision conditions which can, in fact, lead to a situation in which a convict is forced to go back to prison under the proposed terms of Bill C-67 and then lose all remission and have no means of getting out again for a lengthy period of time. As I understand it, if one-third of an inmate's sentence has been remitted, that could involve three or four years of additional imprisonment for something as simple as having a drink when the inmate finally meets up with his lady whom he has not seen for seven or eight years. When a released inmate sees an old friend whom he has not seen in a long time or, possibly, misses a bus and arrives
after the curfew at the place in which he is supposed to be staying, he can be sent back to prison. Is it correct that the penalty as a result of these misdemeanors, as modest as they are, could be several years of re-imprisonment because of a violation of the conditions of mandatory supervision? How can the Government, or anyone, justify that type of sledgehammer approach? What will parole officers do when faced with minor, technical breaches of conditions when they know that the revocation of mandatory supervision will have the effect of re-imprisonment for three or four years?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, the question obviously points to the great difficulties which anyone who has done time in a penitentiary will have to face in readjusting to public life. It is not an easy transition to make. We have heard of some Members of Parliament who face a difficult time of readjustment when they have to get back into ordinary life. How much more difficult is it for someone coming out of prison where they have been denied their freedom and any possibility of developing their lives and when their contact with other human beings has been circumscribed? How much more difficult is it for inmates who have had limited contact with their families under nerve-racking conditions? The mandatory supervision period is supposed to make the transition time possible with some type of of supervision. Inevitably, there will be some minor infractions. It is important, when those infractions are committed, that the person involved should be called to account. However, I do not think the way to call him to account is to revoke all future possibility of mandatory release. That seems to me to be completely counter-productive. If someone knows that as a result of having one beer, when his program says he should not drink, that he will face an extra four or five years in prison, he will really become much more desperate about the situation than otherwise. As the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) pointed out, this will mean that parole officers will have to be that much more hesitant about reporting these minor, technical violations.
It is important to remember that inmates already feel a great deal of frustration with respect to the question of mandatory supervision and the type of requirements that are often placed upon them. They sometimes feel they are being hassled for very minor sorts of matters. In addition to be being hassled, they will face an extra four months, two years or even four years of additional time in prison. That will not be conducive to a more rehabilitative atmosphere within our prisons.


Michael Morris Cassidy: I have another question. I must confess that I have learned something about this area over the summer because of the incident in Ottawa to which I referred and as a consequence of looking at this Bill. As I understand it, this Bill is in fact going to create two classes of prisoners. One class will be those who are convicted of a violent crime, which is in the Schedule-there is a long list of about 15 or 16 crimes deemed to be violent-and the other class will be prisoners who have committed some other offence.
September 23, 1985

Let us take two prisoners who are under mandatory supervision and who have three or four years of potential time still outstanding if they are sent back. One prisoner commits a technical offence, just as in the example cited by my friend, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), and settles in London rather than in Brampton, or vice versa. He did that without any desire to absent himself but it was just a place where he was more comfortable. The system would not respond to that. The prisoner with the violent record commits a technical offence. The prisoner with the non-violent record commits a violent offence. He takes a gun and holds up a service station. As I understand it, they both lose mandatory supervision. They both go back. The prisoner who commits the technical offence, who has a violent record, loses any chance of coming out of prison again until his time has been served. The prisoner who committed the violent offence, who, I would have thought, was more of a danger to society, can automatically be given a chance to earn remission all over again.
I wonder if my hon. friend can tell me under what circumstances that disparity is justifiable? I suppose neither he nor I know why the Government has left that provision in. But how on earth, if at all, can that kind of thing be justifiable, and if it is not, why don't we get rid of it?


James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, not only is that kind of anomaly not justifiable, but it is going to add to the sense of bitterness and frustration on the part of those people who might have their right to mandatory supervision release revoked for some minor technicality. If that sort of thing happened to me, I feel I would become a very bitter kind of human being. I do not believe that thinking Canadians really want our penitentiaries to create more bitterness in these prisoners than they already have, but that is going to be the effect of this kind of regulation.
It means that when the prisoner's release does come, when he has served his full time, he is going to be released as someone who has just one more chip on his shoulder and who has less of a possibility of effective integration into wider society.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-67 and Bill C-68, which are Acts to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act and other Acts consequential to those amendments.
This seems to be an occasion, Mr. Speaker, when we collectively, as the representatives of the people, react to something from the community which needs some discussion and insight. What is happening is that the Government is making amendments which are not necessarily well thought out and are not necessarily to the benefit of the correctional system in Canada and, I suppose, in the long term, are not necessarily to the benefit of the Canadian people.
It seems to me, as well as to many of my constituents, that these amendments are reactions to publicity and to the media
Criminal Code Amendments
coverage of situations which have happened across Canada. Bad as those situations are, they may not be the effective result of the legislation presently in place or even the result of legislation which was in place before 1970. In fact, many of my constituents look back at 1970 and suggest that perhaps we should have looked at some of the good things in that legislation and kept them rather than abandoned them.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, I come from the community of Prince Albert. We have a maximum security penitentiary as well as a minimum penitentiary. Therefore, many of my constituents are very closely involved with the penitentiary system. They are involved not only because of their proximity but because many members of their family are closely involved with the penitentiary service. Consequently, over the years, communities like Prince Albert have developed an attitude towards the pentitentiary service and towards the inmates of those penitentiaries which gives them, I feel, a better insight into the needs of the service than those of us have who live a little further away. I think it is worth-while, therefore, to take a look at the effects of this Bill and what might be possible under legislation which was more comprehensive and dealt more closely with the problems of the correctional services. When I say the "problems of the correctional services", 1 do not mean only the problems of the inmates, I refer to the problems of the penitentiary itself, the guards and so on.
There are also the problems of the Parole Board and of the parole services, those thousands of people who work daily with the prisoners after they are released from the institution. I am also talking about the problems of the community. So that when we examine a Bill such as the one which is before us today, we should not look at just one part of it, saying, "We will solve the problem of mandatory supervision and once that is solved, everything will be okay". It just does not work that way.
With respect to Bill S-32, a Senate Bill, Cole and Manson pointed out the danger of tinkering with one element of an integrated system of corrections. In their view, this simply creates new tensions and unforeseen problems elsewhere in the system. Cole and Manson suggest that any response to violent offenders and repeat offenders must be comprehensive and not piecemeal. A full and open inquiry into the various aspects of corrections law is the approach they favour.
The arguments presented by Cole and Manson on Bill S-32 can be used on Bill C-67 because these amendments do not deal comprehensively with all the problems. Basically what these Bills do is amend the Penitentiary Act to close the revolving doors. I believe every one here recognizes that there are some inmates who should not be let out. The penitentiary service itself recognizes that fact. They should not be let out if they are not well behaved within. The problem seems to have been that if they are well behaved and there is no reason to keep them in, it is required that they be let out after two-thirds of their sentence has been completed. Our position is not that we should stop this procedure entirely, but that we alter the process somewhat and make sure it works better than it has in the past. Instead of stopping a fellow at the gate and sending

September 23, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
him back because we think there is a danger that he will commit a violent crime, we should establish a correctional service which predicts this a little more correctly and does something about it.
If you look at the history of the Prime Albert institution, Mr. Speaker, you will find it has done very well in involving the parole service, the John Howard Society and surrounding communities in helping inmates prepare themselves for release. That should be included as part of the solution. Any Bills which aim at restricting the use of mandatory supervision, if you are not going to do anything else, are probably acceptable. But there is no reason to restrict the use of mandatory supervision, and you could increase its effectiveness by putting into place services which are aimed at rehabilitation rather than incarceration.
What would be the effect of these Bills if they are passed exactly the way they are? Again I refer to the Prince Albert institution. Right now it has close to 500 inmates, but it is considered to be full when it has 375 inmates. If they fill every cell in the institution they can push it up to about 425. That is stretching it but they can do it. However, at the moment, with approximately 500 inmates, over 120 of them are double-bunked. Those of you who have been interested or paid attention to the effect of double-bunking over the last few years will recognize that that adds to the potential for problems in an institution. If we pass Bills such as these two, we are going to increase the number of inmates in those institutions. That adds to the frustration and volatility in the institution. It increases the possibility of violence. That, of course, affects every person in the place, and not only inmates. It affects every individual who works in the prison. If you speak to people who work with the inmates on a daily basis, you will find that tension can increase greatly over very small incidents. Therefore, double-bunking has a direct effect on the tensions within an institution, tensions which might eventually lead to riots and violence.
What effect do these two Bills have on the Parole Board? The Bills do not give to the Attorney General or the courts the right to gate prisoners. That is given to the Parole Board. The prison service can refer to the Parole Board those cases which they think need to be reviewed, cases of mandatory supervision which are coming up.
That will have the effect of considerably increasing the workload for the Parole Board. If you speak to members of the board, you will find they sometimes feel they are not spending enough time on individual cases and they are forced to make decisions before they are ready to do so. They often require psychiatric or pshychological reports on inmates before making a decision, and then the correctional people in the institutions quite often come to the conclusion that the reason for requesting psychological reports on inmates is to give them a little more time to talk to the inmate to make sure he is ready for parole. If they have to start doing this on mandatory supervision cases as well, their workload is going to be
increased tremendously. That means we have to increase the number of people on the board and increase the amount of services. In some ways that makes sense because if the money we spend on keeping a man in prison was instead spent in areas such as mandatory supervision, then the return would probably be much greater than it is now.
We have been told many times, I am sure, that mandatory supervision is not as effective as parole. But we have to recognize that under those circumstances the cream, if you want to put it that way, has already been skimmed off and given parole and the mandatory supervision inmates are the ones who have been rejected for parole. So you have already started with, and I hesitate to use the term, a lower quality of inmate than you had before. So the amount of time the Parole Board must spend or should spend on mandatory supervision should be a great deal more than is presently spent on parole, and the members of the board think they are not spending enough time even now. So the effect on the Parole Board will be much more work, a requirement for much more staff, and possibly much greater insight into the effective use of mandatory supervision. This has a good side and a bad side. The good side is that if the services are provided, they will do better work. The bad side is that if they are not provided, they will not be able to spend enough time on each case.


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


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I was dismayed to learn that Mr. Fernand Faucher, Chairman of the National Advisory Council on Fitness and Amateur Sport, has tendered his resignation.
In a letter to fellow board members, Mr. Faucher declared:
The lack of interest on the part of the Minister and of the Branch people regarding the activities of the Council prompted this reaction.
I view Mr. Faucher's resignation as an extremely serious and most unfortunate setback in the area of fitness and amateur sport. It is abundantly clear that the Minister has been and continues to treat this Council solely as window dressing and has been guided only by his political and bureaucratic masters.
September 23, 1985

The Council was formed as a private sector group to advise the Minister on a variety of issues affecting fitness and amateur sport. However, it should be noted that the Council has met only once with the Minister since the new administration took office just over a year ago.
I urge the Minister to show that he truly cares about and values the role of the Council, by attempting to convince Mr. Faucher to remain as Chairman, and to re-establish a genuine two-way working relationship with the National Advisory Council. Anything short of this would be an abdication of his ministerial responsibilities.



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, the 3 per cent deindexation of the family allowance is the first step in the Conservative Government's budget strategy to slash $600 million from support to Canadian families by 1990. The Minister responsible for the well-being of Canadian families, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp), informed the House last week that this money was required for a more important purpose, namely, that of deficit reduction.
Last year, however, the Leader of the Government was telling us that family allowances were of a sacred nature. Today, with one in six Canadian families living in poverty, affecting one in five Canadian children, and 42 per cent of Canadian families headed by single parents living below the poverty line, one must ask how the Government can take this action. How can it be said that child allowances must be cut back when amounts such as a billion dollars are still being handed out to a bank?
The Government is sending a clear message by the reductions in family allowance to the people of Canada that, as far as it is concerned, child rearing, parenting, and the development and growth of families are of less concern this year than they were last year, and will be of even less importance by 1990.
The priorities of the Tory Government desperately need to be re-examined.



NORTHWEST TERRITORIES


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, two days from now representatives of all Inuit communities will be meeting in Coppermine to discuss the issue of division as it affects the Northwest Territories. Last spring it was reported by pro-western news reports that the Inuit had scuttled the agreement on an east-west boundary, where the Inuvialuit of the western Arctic would end up in the western territory without their consent. The fact of the matter is that the
proposed western territory contains the present capital of the territories, Yellowknife, which understandably does not relish losing its status. In effect they said: "If you Inuit in the east wish to have a Government which understands and respects your needs, your languages and your culture, you must give us your oil rich western portion of Nunatsiaq in order for us to agree to division".
Since that time, the Inuvialuit of the western Arctic indicated in no uncertain terms their desire to be part of an Arctic territory.
All of us can be self-righteous in denouncing the minority Government of South Africa. Yet, when it comes to our own northern Canadian backyard, we are reluctant to give our own native people-the Inuit who are struggling to retain their own identity against the overwhelming odds of southern cultural inundation-their own territory.
We do not wish to impose upon Canadians and the Government of Canada another Indian problem to plague them over the coming decades. We demand the right to make our own mistakes and to be responsible for our own future within accepted Canadian political systems.


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



CAPITAL PUNISHMENT


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, there is a strong desire by Canadians that this Parliament deal with the issue of capital punishment immediately. Be it a free vote in the House of Commons or even a national referendum, I believe it is important that effective action be taken on this most important issue.
Our Government needs to strengthen the deterrent for murder and other such abhorrent crimes. Over the last year we have witnessed many senseless killings of police officers across Canada. This should underline the need to reappraise our efforts to protect police officers, prison guards, and the Canadian public.
Since the abolition of the death penalty in 1976, more than 50 Private Members Bills have been introduced recommending the reinstatement of capital punishment. In polls taken since 1978, Canadians overwhelmingly have opted for the reinstatement of capital punishment.
One of the arguments that has been presented opposing such legislation focuses on the fact that normal House business would be suspended for an unacceptable period during the debate on this issue. I believe the House should unanimously move to debate this issue during extended hours so as not to disrupt normal House hours. Mr. Speaker, this important issue needs to be dealt with now.

September 23, 1985



CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, this week Canada will lose a truly excellent CBC radio program. It is a program of particular interest to those of us who are concerned about Indian and native affairs and of significance to all Canadians who care about their country and its people. The final edition of "Our Native Land" will be aired this coming Saturday.
When I first learned last January of CBC's intention to cut the program, I rose in the House to oppose it. Colleagues from all three political Parties responded positively to this representation. My office was later flooded with letters of support for "Our Native Land", and this support came from right across the country. However, CBC remained unmoved and unresponsive.
Afer 21 years of informative and entertaining reporting, this Saturday marks the final show of "Our Native Land". CBC has failed to carry out its mandate to reflect the culture of the people of Canada. It has ignored the wishes of Canadians who want to have this program continued.
I salute the program and its staff. They have served us well. They will be sorely missed.



HOUSING


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, all Canadians have the right to live in decent, affordable housing, and society, and Government especially, has a responsibility to make that possible. That is not happening in Canada. In many areas of our country there is a crisis situation in housing in terms of availability and affordability.
Just today a coalition of social agencies in the Halifax-Dart-mouth area declared a state of emergency in housing in their region. In their statement they point out that the vacancy rate has been below 1 per cent consistently since 1981. Ordinary three-bedroom apartments in Halifax are so expensive that it would require a family income of over $26,000 just to be able to afford the rent.
At the same time the federal Government's funding programs for co-operative and non-profit housing programs are being systematically reduced. This is a completely unacceptable situation.
The coalition demands that the leaders of Halifax-Dart-mouth municipalities declare that a housing emergency exists for many people within their area of responsibility and that this declaration be acted upon by a commitment to start planning immediately for the construction of 1,000 social housing units within the shortest possible time.
My Party and I want to add our voices to these demands by demanding further that the federal Government take immediate action to address this crisis situation, not just in Halifax but right across the country, with the resources and the seriousness which a crisis warrants. Justice and social responsibility demand it.



THE ARTS


Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on September 8 of this year, Franco-Ontarians from the Orleans area, which is in my riding, saw their dream come true: the opening of the Orleans Cultural Centre, a project of the Franco-Ontarian "participaction" project.
This is another victory for Francophone volunteers in the area and also for all Franco-Ontarians to whom this outstanding example will be an inspiration. I also would like to point out that the federal Government contributed $800,000, or more than 70 per cent of the total construction costs.
In the fall of 1984, I had the honour of turning the first sod, and I have watched the project progress until the official opening. It is a source of great pride to me that the Centre was built in my riding, and I trust it will be used to capacity by all the people of Orleans.
Congratulations to everyone and three cheers for the Orleans Cultural Centre!



YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, last month an Ottawa judge, following hard on the heels of a similar decision in Sudbury, ruled that because the word "imprisonment" is not mentioned in the Young Offenders Act, juveniles, who run away from a group home or residence to which they have been committed, cannot be charged with escaping lawful custody.
Last week, noting a growing public dissatisfaction, the provincial Attorneys General meeting in Regina urged the Government to amend the Young Offenders Act.
These are but the most recent in a long list of specific problems and general concerns that have been raised by the Attorneys General, the Deputy Attorneys General, the Chiefs of Police of Canada, the public, and Members of Parliament.
I urge the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), who is in the Chamber at the moment, to speed up his review and introduce a Bill to amend the Young Offenders Act and to correct these problems without delay.
September 23, 1985



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, the Conservatives are in trouble. In typical fashion the Tories, whose popularity is waning, have taken a page from the Richard Nixon survival book and are attempting to intimidate and even discredit opposition Members of Parliament who disagree, or may disagree, with the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) view on free trade. Not only does the document in question attack opposition Members, but it makes a complete mockery of any of the consultation process which the Government says it practises.
The document is contemptuous of the very people that the Government purports to represent. The first sign of Tories in trouble, Mr. Speaker, is when they attempt to axe the Opposition. I cannot wait for their next difficulty; then we will see the Tories bury the hatchet in each other, the way they usually do. By the way, I suggest the Conservatives hire communications people who can spell.



NUCLEAR ARMAMENTS


Mr. Reg Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I believe this House should be fully conscious of the notable contribution that Canada has made to stabilizing the world through the success of the Non-Proliferation Treaty Conference. Five years ago it was not possible for that conference to issue a common statement.
Through the consensus achieved under the influence of Canadian diplomacy allied with other like-minded states, such a statement was published last week. It is the first common word to come out of this conference supporting a treaty with 129 signatory nations. Much of the credit goes to Ambassador Roche, the team of dedicated professional diplomats who worked with him, and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) who gave his support. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, as a person attached to the delegation who spent a week attending the conference, I was very proud to see the way in which the noble traditions of Canadian diplomacy are being carried on and making a significant contribution to world peace.



FINANCE

[Stage Direction]
Oral Questions
a pension fund's holding can be invested outside Canada. The Minister of Finance has proposed that this be increased to about 30 per cent, which represents an outflow of some $30 billion in Canadian funds for investment abroad.
The Minister has stated that this is intended to create jobs in Canada by enticing pension funds to invest money in Canadian small business. The logic of this argument escapes me, and it raises a number of additional concerns with respect to the security of those pension funds once they leave Canada.
The Minister has not indicated how those funds will be insured in the case of bad investments. Neither has he indicated how those investments will be supervised and regulated.
There is growing concern among Canadians that the Government is allowing the boys on Bay Street to play fast and loose with Canadians' hard-earned money. The Minister should go back to the drawing board before he proceeds with this budget measure, which has clearly not been well thought out. If $30 billion leaves the country for foreign investment, Mr. Speaker, while the Canadian economy requires that money for development here to provide Canadian jobs, the Minister of Finance should be ashamed of himself for his proposal.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, it has just been brought to my attention that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans has submitted his resignation to the Prime Minister. While we may all agree that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did the honourable thing by resigning from Cabinet-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


George Roland Henderson: -I have a question for the Prime Minister. Is he now admitting that there was political interference in this issue? If so, why did he adamantly deny it all last week?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I think that the honourable conduct of the former Minister of Fisheries is appropriate and adequate explanation. There has been an exchange of correspondence between the former Minister and myself, which has been distributed to Hon. Members. I hope it will be received shortly by my hon. friend and I hope that provides the necessary explanation.


INVESTMENT OF PENSION FUNDS IN FOREIGN MARKETS
[Stage Direction]
.	,	PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Mr. Neil Young (Beaches):: Mr. Speaker, in his Budget of
last May the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) proposed that Mr. George Henderson (Egmont): All last week, Mr. Prime the rules for investng pension funds in foreign markets be	Minister, we heard contradictory statements from you, Sir,
dramatically changed. At the present time only 10 per cent of	and your Minister of Fisheries-

September 23, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


George Roland Henderson: -concerning who actually ordered the tuna off the shelves and when the Prime Minister first learned of this tuna story.
Is this resignation an attempt by you, Sir, Mr. Prime Minister, to use the Minister of Fisheries-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: I will invite the Member to rephrase his question, perhaps through the Chair. We are developing a habit that I need to stop. I think the Member understands.


George Roland Henderson: I will direct my question through you, Sir.


An Hon. Member:: Be a gentleman.


George Roland Henderson: In the Prime Minister's attempt to use the Minister of Fisheries as a scapegoat, is the Prime Minister attempting to use the Minister of Fisheries as his scapegoat for his own negligence?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deans:: How can he answer instead of the person asked?


Erik Nielsen: -on behalf of the Government, and as Deputy Prime Minister, I can tell the Hon. Member and the House that the Government was seized of this matter last Wednesday and acted at once to address it.


Ian Deans: This is offensive.


Mr. Riis:: What is wrong with the Prime Minister?


Erik Nielsen: The Minister of Fisheries has acted in accordance with the most honourable traditions of this House.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Prime Minister is a big boy.


Ian Deans: This is offensive.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Gauthier:: Is the Prime Minister resigning too?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Erik Nielsen: I was going to say, Mr. Speaker, if opposition Members have the slightest appreciation of the function of Government, they would realize that the Deputy Prime Minister, acting on his responsibilities from time to time on instructions of the Prime Minister, acts in matters-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: He answers the questions while the Prime Minister is sitting there.


Erik Nielsen: I have told Hon. Members that I acted on those instructions on behalf of the Government, and the Government acted immediately as a result of the inquiries that I conducted on his instructions.


Ian Deans: That is unbelievable.


FINANCE
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. As brave and serious the resignation of the former Minister, I think all Canadians are also deeply concerned about decisions taken this weekend by the Finance officials and Ministers of five other countries which go to the very fundamental ability of our country to be competitive internationally and to run a proper economy.
In light of the so-called relationship and the tremendous importance of our trading relationship with the United States, can the Prime Minister tell us were we, in any way, informed by the United States Government about its intentions to hold these meetings and to make these decisions that go to the very heart of our trading relationship?
Will the Minister of Finance or some other official of the Government be in immediate touch with the Government in Washington to find out what impact it will have upon Canada?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member-


Nelson Andrew Riis: Here goes another billion.


An Hon. Member:: Billion dollar Barbara.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -should know that the meetings which took place this weekend of the Group of Five are part of a regular series of meetings which normally take place before the International Monetary Fund meets as it is doing early next month in Seoul. The fact that this meeting has achieved a somewhat higher profile does not in any way indicate that our relationship with the United States has deteriorated; in fact it has been enhanced.
[DOT] (U20)


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, in the last few weeks we have seen that this Minister is capable of turning logic on its head. How can she explain the fact that a major decision to devalue the American dollar, which affects every one of our industries and regions, was taken without any consultation with this country, without information being given to us and without any invitation to participate? She says that that is an enhanced relationship. Would she please explain that to the Canadian people?
September 23, 1985


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing new in this process. The Minister of Finance was in Washington very recently. He spoke with the Chief of Staff of the President; he spoke with Mr. Baker, and he spoke with Mr. Volcker. The concerns which were raised in the G-5 meeting yesterday have been part of our ongoing discussions with the United States for some time. The fact that Mr. Baker indicated that protectionism is a problem is one of the reasons that this Government has been very actively securing our access to the United States.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE-REQUEST FOR PARLIAMENTARY DEBATE
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, obviously we cannot get much sense out of the Minister. Perhaps I could direct my supplementary question to the Prime Minister. When we consider the importance of the devaluation of the American dollar to our trading position, would the Prime Minister now agree that he should hold off on taking any major trade initiative with the United States until we have an opportunity to assess the impact of this action upon our trading position? Does he not also agree that it is time for a major parliamentary debate on what that trading initiative should be?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think we have invited parliamentary debate and parliamentary opinion. We have taken the initiative of striking a parliamentary committee, of which I believe the Hon. Member is a member. It toured the country. We invited criticism, expressions of concern and constructive advice with regard to how we secure better access to our major markets. I think everything we have done is consistent with this degree of openness and searching for advice, counsel and criticism, because all of the country must be involved in this process.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Last Friday the Prime Minister indicated that as soon as he heard of the tuna scandal he acted immediately and removed the product from the shelves. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans absolutely contradicted the Prime Minister within two hours on Friday. Would the Prime Minister indicate or admit to the House that he fired the Minister of Fisheries because he challenged his veracity and his integrity, not because of the serious, major error which the Minister of Fisheries made?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, in response to the last part of my hon. friend's observation, in conversation with me this weekend the Minister of Fisheries, given the reasons which he explains in his correspondence, offered his resignation as Minister, and I accepted it today.
Oral Questions
With regard to the first part of the qustion, what 1 believe the Deputy Prime Minister was attempting to answer, 1 think quite fairly, to my hon. friend was that when it came to my attention last Wednesday morning-and 1 was chairing caucus-I asked the Deputy Prime Minister to begin immediately a series of meetings with the Minister of Fisheries and his officials to ensure that the matter was properly and effectively handled. The Minister of Fisheries met with the Deputy Prime Minister beginning in caucus itself. I think that should satisfy any concerns my hon. friend has.


PRIME MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE OF MATTER
Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's office was warned on July 28. It was warned again on August 13, DND was involved in removing tuna, at the Minister's awareness. The labs of the Minister of National Health and Welfare were involved in checking the product weeks ago. Can the Prime Minister say, truthfully, that he knew nothing about this before the date upon which he acted on it? If that is the case, what is going on inside the Government when a serious error such as this can escape the attention of the Prime Minister, when his office has been warned twice and at least two of his Ministers have been involved in the same problem?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I can tell my hon. friend that 1 was first alerted to this on the Tuesday night with a call with regard to a news item which appeared that evening. I read it for the first time on Wednesday morning in the press. I immediately instructed the Deputy Prime Minister, given the schedule I had, to begin a series of meetings with the Minister and appropriate officials so that the matter would be resolved. It is a fact, I am now informed, that an official from the Fisheries Department consulted with an official from my office in July with regard to an item which might appear on a television network. It apparently did not appear, and it was never brought to my attention.


FINANCE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Minister of State for Finance has just said that prior to the meeting on Sunday, which involved the United States and four other countries but not Canada, the major trading partner of the United States, the Minister of Finance met with the Chief of Staff of the President and the Governor of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board to be briefed on the situation. Obviously the Prime Minister and his Government knew about the decision to devalue the American dollar before it happened. Why are the Prime Minister and his Government so supinely accepting a decision which can cause untoled damage to Canadian producers,

September 23, 1985
Oral Questions
manufacturers and workers? Why is he treating this in such an offhand manner?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am very tired of having my remarks in the House misinterpreted by the other side.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: What I indicated was that the issues of concern were issues which had been raised in conversations between the Minister of Finance and U.S. officials with whom he met. The situation with the United States, which has been allowed to deteriorate so long by the Party on the other side, is one that we have made an extraordinary effort to rebuild. It is time that Hon. Members recognize that.


POLICY INQUIRY
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance has just admitted that Canada's interest had been ignored in this situation. Why are the Minister of State for Finance, the Prime Minister and their Government allowing Canada's monetary and trade policy to be made in Washington and not here in Ottawa, and in this Parliament?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is precisely because our Party is taking the initiative around enhancing trade and enhancing our position that the Finance Minister has regular access to people in the United States, something which the Hon. Member's Government never sought.
I can also say that the Minister of Finance has been in touch with Mr. Baker and that the issues raised at the G-5 meeting were totally consistent with the conversations which he had had with him previously.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to see the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans going because he is an honest and honourable Canadian.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: In saying that, I think the wrong man is being asked to walk the plank. My question is directed to the Prime Minister. Outside the House on Friday, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that full details of the Star-Kist tuna scandal were transmitted several weeks ago to the Prime Minister's office. Are you prepared to stand up in the House today and say that that is not true?


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have answered that question completely and fully. The only information that I have or I had was the information which I have just imparted to the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Skeena on a supplementary question through the Chair, please.


MEETING BETWEEN MINISTERS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. Outside the House on Friday as well, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans stated unequivocally that he met with you on the decision to seize that tuna-


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: I just specifically invited the Hon. Member to put a supplementary question through the Chair in parliamentary terms, please.


James Ross Fulton: The meeting took place between the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The decision was made at that meeting by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to seize that product. Is that correct? Is that how those events unfolded?
[DOT] (M30)


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday morning I communicated via my principal secretary with the Deputy Prime Minister, asked him to convene immediately a meeting of the Minister of National Health and Welfare, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, himself, and other appropriate officials in regard to ridding the shelves of that particular product. This was conveyed to the meeting chaired by the Deputy Prime Minister and it was determined that that view would be an appropriate one. It prevailed, on the recommendation of the Minister of Fisheries.


REQUEST FOR ESTABLISHMENT OF PARLIAMENTARY COMMITTEE ON MARKETING OF TAINTED TUNA
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. It is quite obvious that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, because of purely political considerations allowed a certain quantity of tainted tuna to be put on the market, which has now led to a crisis in the industry. My question to the Prime Minister is as follows: In order to restore the credibility of this Government and that of the industry, is the Prime Minister prepared to refer the tainted tuna question to a parliamentary committee, so that an inquiry into this whole issue can be made?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think that the Minister . . . and all the explanations I have
September 23, 1985

given to date, including notes contained in the exchange of correspondence, could also be a subject of any kind of analysis this Parliament would judge appropriate. We have nothing to hide. The matter is open to all Parliamentarians.


FISH INSPECTION SYSTEM-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker,
I have a supplementary for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Could the Prime Minister give the House the assurance that in future, there will be no recurrence of this kind of political interference with our inspection system?


Martin Brian Mulroney: In my opinion, the action taken by the Minister was undoubtedly taken in good faith, in the interests, as he saw them, of the fishermen and jobs as well as of health and security. It was a value judgment he made with respect to a given situation.
He reflected another perception in his decision on Sunday which was transmitted to us today, and he is an honourable man for having done so.


INFORMATION GIVEN TO PRIME MINISTER'S OFFICE
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. There is a clear discrepancy between what the Prime Minister has said and what the former Minister of Fisheries said on Friday as to the extent of the information that was given to the Prime Minister's Office on this tuna fish affair.
The former Minister of Fisheries has indicated that the Prime Minister's Office was fully informed, with full details. The Prime Minister now tells the House that his office was given a phone call some time in July about a television program that might take place. That is very different.
My question to the Prime Minister is this. Will he confirm that officials from the Department of Fisheries informed his office on August 13 about an impending court case on this matter?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I cannot confirm that specific date. I can confirm what I have already said that sometime this summer, I believe it was during the month of July, or I am so informed, an officer or officers from the staff of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans visited with an official from the Prime Minister's Office and conveyed to him a number of facts which I understand dealt with the imminent release of a television program dealing with the issue at hand.
The officer from the Prime Minister's Office apparently waited for this matter to be televised, it did not appear, and apparently concluded that that was that, and no information of any kind was transmitted to me. That is all of the information that I am able to convey to my hon. friend.
Oral Questions


NOTIFICATION OF IMPENDING LEGAL ACTION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, there seems to be a confusion of a number of different events here coming together in the Prime Minister's answer. My understanding is that the Minister of Fisheries took the correct action at that time, July 28, I understand, of informing the Prime Minister what was going on, according to the Minister of Fisheries, in considerable detail.
The question I just asked the Prime Minister was not about the July 28 meeting. It pertains to information that I am told was conveyed on August 13 about impending legal action involving the company producing the tuna fish that the country has heard so much about in recent days.
Can the Prime Minister confirm that officials from the Department of Fisheries informed his office in the middle of August about this situation?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, I cannot confirm, nor can I deny. I thought it was somewhat earlier, in the month of July, that this matter was raised in the manner in which I have described it.
The incident as it is reported to me, was that an event that took place in the winter or the spring that had already transpired was to become the object of a television report during the course of the summer. This was why the officials from the Department of Fisheries attended upon an official of any Department to apprise him of that. They explained apparently in some detail what the television program apparently was going to be about, and that was that. It did not appear and it was not brought to my attention.
Given this other date mentioned by my hon. friend which is subsequent to a date which is already acknowledged by me, I will be happy to look into it and provide him with all the details.


REQUEST FOR DISMISSAL OF OFFICIAL
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering the very serious implications of the fact that the Minister made an earlier decision and sent all this terrible fish out onto the supermarket shelves, given the result that that has led to which is, namely, the resignation of the Prime Minister-


An Hon. Member:: That is who should have resigned.


John Edward Broadbent: -of the Minister of Fisheries, will the Prime Minister not agree that if his office were functioning properly, if he had been informed in the summer by the Minister of Fisheries, if he was informed by the Department of Fisheries some weeks later about legal action, and that if his office, the Prime Minister's Office, did nothing about that in the summer, they were negligent; the Prime Minister was negligent; and he should take corrective action and fire somebody in his office?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there are about three hypothetical dimensions-

September 23, 1985
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Yes, there are, to this question. I repeat for my hon. friend that a decision which was raised in this House by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans in the winter or early spring of the year was brought to the attention of some official of the PMO in July, and you suggest now, perhaps August. It was left that way. It was not brought to my attention. I have told my hon. friend that that is all I know about it. It was not conveyed to me. 1 will, however, be happy to look into the second part of that allegation and report to my hon. friend and the House, but there clearly was nothing improper of any kind at all.


An Hon. Member:: Is Barbara next?


BANKS AND BANKING
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. Will the Minister confirm that neither she nor the Minister of Finance was present at the meetings of March 22 to March 25 when the fate of the Canadian Commercial Bank was being decided?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think that is a matter of public record, that the discussions were carried on by persons other than myself.


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
Aideen Nicholson: Canada was facing its first bank failure in 60 years but two Ministers left the negotiations to officials and did not insist on full information about the bank's financial situation. How can the Minister justify the abdication of responsibility?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, 1 can confirm for the Hon. Member that I have never in my life walked away from my responsibilities, not once.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is perfectly normal-


Mr. Nystrom:: You're next, Barbara.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It is perfectly normal practice for negotiations to be carried on by people who are constantly in touch. The Governor of the Bank of Canada, the Inspector General of Banks and the Deputy Minister of Finance acted perfectly appropriately. My colleague, the Minister of Finance, and I were fully informed and established the policy on which the negotiations were made.


ABSENCE OF CANADIAN REPRESENTATION
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister who will be well aware that the recent decision made over the weekend in the United States will result in enormous job losses for Canadians in all regions of the country. Since the Minister of Finance was in Washington prior to the meeting, knew of the meeting, and certainly would have known of the main item for discussion at the meeting, why did the Prime Minister not intervene and ensure that Canada was represented at that meeting?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, it is very clear that the G-Five meeting is a normal, routine meeting that takes place before the IMF meetings in the fall. Surely the Hon. Member is that well informed.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: The Minister of Finance has been in touch with Washington and has raised Canadian concerns with American officials. Many of those concerns were addressed by the action that was taken over the weekend.


REQUEST THAT PRIME MINISTER INTERVENE
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is again addressed to the Prime Minister. It seems to me that Canada has taken the long-distance feeling on a number of issues, including the 300 American protectionist Bills and most recently this weekend's decision. Why do we not move away from the long-distance feeling with the United States and ask the Prime Minsiter to pick up the telephone, call the President of the United States and start representing the interests of Canadian workers and producers on an issue as important as this one?


Martin Brian Mulroney: 
YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT
Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. He will know that recently an Ottawa judge dismissed a charge of escaping lawful custody against a juvenile who had walked away from detention in a group home. Will the Minister advise the House if he will be introducing, without delay, amendments to the Young Offenders Act to correct this situation and to correct all of the other problems that have been brought to his attention by the Chiefs of Police and the Attorneys General across the country?

September 23, 1985


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, there is still the possibility that that particular decision may be appealed in the courts in which case we should wait until the outcome of the appeal. I have indicated to previous questioners in the House that I remain with an open mind. I am anxious to receive the various points of view of various people including Chiefs of Police, Attorneys General and others.
I have read in the press that the Attorneys General would like to meet with me to have a discussion about the Young Offenders Act. I would be delighted to do so. Additionally, I have indicated that I will be soliciting points of view on this matter in a very broad way and I will be apprising the House of the results.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance who tells us that we are not well informed. As reported at page 3513 of Hansard for March 29, the Minister of State for Finance said:
Mr. Chairman, this situation was caused by an isolated incident. There are no other financial institutions in the country at the moment that are appearing to be insolvent in any way.
How could the Minister make such a statement with another bank so close to disaster?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Because it was true, Mr. Speaker.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans did the honourable thing. We cannot put a dollar sign on his mistake but we know that the dollar sign on her mistake is over $1 billion. Will the Minister of State for Finance do the honourable thing and resign?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Party across the way was in Government for 16 years. It never did one thing to enhance the regulatory climate of our financial institutions. It walked away from its responsibilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Never had a bank failure.


Barbara Jean McDougall: It did absolutely nothing and my responsibility is to clean up the mess that it left us.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions CULTURAL AFFAIRS


CANADA-UNITED STATES TALKS-GOVERNMENT POLICY
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister and concerns cultural integrity. Last week the Prime Minister said in the House that our cultural industries would not be negotiable in any discussions on free trade that might take place. However, in Halifax on Sunday the Minister of Communications said that they might be negotiable and certainly that they would not be exempt. Would the Prime Minister clarify the Government's policy? Are our cultural industries up for grabs or will there be a full exemption from free trade for cultural industries?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the statement alleged by my hon. friend but I think I can be reasonably certain that the Minister of Communications made no such statement because the position of the Government and the position of his Department are the protection of the integrity of our cultural institutions. It might come as some surprise that it was a Progressive Conservative Government which, of all things, founded the CBC. We believe in the protection of the integrity-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: You're now wrecking it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Liberal House Leader says that the CBC is wrecking the Government. On the contrary; we work hand in hand with the CBC at all times. We believe in its integrity and independence.


TIME MAGAZINE-POSSIBLE RE-EMERGENCE OF CANADIAN EDITION
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the cultural integrity of magazine publishing which is of course threatened by the possible re-emergence of the Canadian edition of Time magazine. Will the Prime Minister confirm for Canadians that there will not be a reappearance of the so-called Canadian edition of Time magazine?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member surely must know that, under the circumstances, the provisions of the Income Tax Act preclude any discussion of this particular matter.


SHIPBUILDING
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and is of vital importance to Atlantic Canadians. When does the Minister anticipate recommending and putting in place the ship-

September 23, 1985
Oral Questions
building policies that the Government promised shipyard workers last year?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the Hon. Member, as he knows, the Government now has under review a shipbuilding program that we hope will be helpful. We are having ongoing discussions with certain representatives of the shipbuilding industry both on the labour side and on the management side and I think that the Hon. Member will be most pleased with what we are hoping to be able to work out in the coming weeks.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the Minister knows, the Macdonald Commission Report called for an accelerated pace in the settlement of aboriginal claims. Last July the Minister asked for a full review of the claims policy. Can the Minister now tell the House if he expects that review of the claims policy to be completed on time by the end of November? When he receives the policy will he refer the matter to the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development so that the committee can have its analysis and provide some input to the Minister on this important subject?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the Hon. Member that the task force report should be ready by the end of November. I met with the chairman of the task force last week. He indicated that he is on schedule. Thus, I expect it will be available by November 30.
With respect to its disposition, first, it will be a public report. Personally, I have no difficulty with the matter being discussed by the standing committee. I think the appropriate approach would be for me to invite discussion from the Hon. Member, the New democratic Party and other associated groups who have a concern with it, after it has been made public.


ARCTIC SOVEREIGNTY-OFFSHORE RESOURCES INQUIRY
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, since the review of this claims policy is not yet complete, and in view of the re-awakened concern in Canada with respect to Arctic sovereignty, will the Minister recommend to the group conducting the review that it give serious consideration to including in that review the possibility of the Inuit people of Canada negotiating a right to offshore resources, as well as to land resources?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think that is an excellent idea. At the Inuit Circumpolar Conference in Montreal at the end of last week, I indicated that idea as a part of the terms of reference of the original task force. Thus, there was no difficulty with respect to the task force taking that matter into consideration. I have urged the task force in that respect. I expect its recommendations will contain a consideration of that point.


EXTERNAL AID
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, I would like to direct my question to the Prime Minister.
Last year 500,000 Canadians gave an average of $65 per person for African relief projects. They were encouraged in this respect by the Government matching them dollar for dollar. Considering the desire of Canadians from coast to coast to help in a practical way with the devastation which has taken place in Mexico following two earthquakes, will the Government announce a similar program of aid which would match dollar for dollar the contributions made by individual Canadians?


Hon. Monique Vezina (Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, last week I announced the Government's intentions. This morning, I had a meeting with the Mexican Ambassador, who conveyed us his country's heartfelt thanks because Canada was the first country to take action following the earthquake.
We certainly urge all Canadians to show their generosity, but we think, and I personally think that the proposed matching, dollar for dollar, would not be the right approach, since it is a very special situation and we should preferably think in terms of twinning projects and consider new formulas for assistance.


CANCELLATION OF LOAN BY INTERNATIONAL MONETARY FUND
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, 1 regret the Government's decision. 1 think it important to encourage this type of contribution by matching aid.
My supplementary question is also to the Prime Minister. Has Canada made any representations to the International Monetary Fund to bring about a degree of sanity and compassion to that organization as a result of it cancelling a $450 million loan to Mexico on the very day of the earthquake? If Canada has not made representations, when will it?
September 23, 1985


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we have not made any specific recommendations in regard to the point raised by my hon. friend. However, he may recall that it has been an aim of this Government to obtain better financing for Third World countries. It is a cause which we promoted, with at least some modest success, at Bonn, and one which we will be promoting at the Commonwealth Conference as well. The Minister of Finance will also be discussing the matter in Seoul. We believe that it introduces a new element of fairness into financing for less favoured nations. I appreciate the view expressed by my hon. friend.


MINORITY RIGHTS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: My question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister and concerns a program that is very important to official language minorities.
I am referring to the program to assist court challenges, which, as the House will recall, was set up by the Liberal Government to help certain groups or individuals to defend before the courts their Constitutional rights under sections 133(93) and 23 of the Charter.
The Prime Minister, the Minister of Justice and the Secretary of State have all been asked about this matter during the session, and I personally have asked the following question six times: When is the program going to be extended? The program expired on March 31, 1985. There are groups that are interested in the program. Could the Prime Minister inform the House when some news on the subject will be forthcoming?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there will be an announcement this week on what steps we will be taking with reference to Charter challenges. I believe the Secretary of State has set that up for Wednesday.


GOVERNMENT PROGRAM
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister also tell the House if, on top of constitutional Articles Nos. 93, 133 and 23 of the Charter, Section 15 of the Charter will be covered by the new program?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question, of course, is yes.
Oral Questions


NORTHWEST TERRITORIES
Thomas Suluk: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the former Government of the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, in 1957 or thereabouts, brought a Bill before the House to divide the Northwest Territories, will the Minister inform the House whether or not he has any intention of bringing before Cabinet within the next two years a new Bill to divide the present Northwest Territories into two territories?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, as I think my hon. friend knows, the pace in change and timing of constitutional development in the Northwest Territories is very much in the hands of northerners. Indeed, the process by which we will achieve those goals is through the Constitutional Alliance. It is currently holding both public and community-based discussions. When it has concluded those discussions, I expect it will be able to offer a more specific answer to the Hon. Member's question.


AGRICULTURE
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Prairie farmers, particularly those in southern Saskatchewan, have had a disastrous summer. Drought and grasshoppers have ravaged a large area and, lately, heavy rainfall and cool weather have exacerbated the problem by delaying the harvest and by spoiling hay. The farmers are asking the federal Government for assistance in dealing with this catastrophe.
Will the Minister show the same compassion to these farmers as his Government has shown to the bankers in the billion dollar bail-out? Will the Minister make a commitment today so that these hard pressed farmers will receive the $500 million or more in federal Government assistance which they need to bail themselves out of these problem?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member will know, we were on the scene very rapidly with reference to the crop problems in western Canada. We have made an announcement with respect to providing a commitment of $48 million. That is phase one, which deals with the losses of livestock. Hopefully, within the next week or ten days we will be in a position to come forward with phase two of the program, which will deal with crop losses. I can assure the Hon. Member that the issue he raises will be given every consideration as well.

September 23, 1985
Petitions


AID TO CATTLEMEN
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of Agriculture explain how it is that a week after the Saskatchewan Government announced a $60 per head disaster payment with respect to cattle the federal Government made an announcement with respect to $30 per head? Will the Minister explain why cattlemen will receive only $60 per head instead of the $90 per head which the two Governments promised?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, since the Hon. Member is a resident of the Province of Saskatchewan I think he must recognize the fact that it was a decision-one which I respect-taken by a democratically-elected legislature to announce a program. Of course our difficulty was the fact that we were dealing not only with Saskatchewan but with Alberta, parts of Manitoba, and two different areas of British Columbia. We wanted the time in order that the committee which we have established can go about its work and carry out the consultations which are always required if sensible and effective representations are to be brought about.


FARM CREDIT CORPORATION
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture. Last week he announced he was placing a moratorium on the foreclosures of farms by the Farm Credit Corporation which are running at approximately 14 per week. We have learned today that the American dollar will be devalued which will further depress commodity prices. Would the Minister tell the House when he is going to bring in assistance to farmers in order to arrest the situation of foreclosures on farms? Introducing a moratorium does not really help the farmers. I wonder if the Minister could make that clear.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has posed that question before. It is almost becoming his weekly question. I would again invite the Hon. Member to reflect and to read the record. He will see that we have made a greater contribution to the agri-food industry in the last eight months than his Government did in all of eight years.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: 1 have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Friday, September 20, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINTS OF ORDER


Mr. Speaker:: On Friday, September 20, 1985, the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) on a point of order requested that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) be asked to table documents he used in answer to a question from the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly). I undertook to reserve my ruling until after I had read the "blues". I am now ready to rule.
I fully appreciate the validity of the quotation put forward by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) in making his point, namely, that:
A Minister of the Crown is not at liberty to read or quote from a dispatch or other state paper not before the House, unless he be prepared to lay it upon the Table.
This is, of course, taken from Citation 327(1) of Beau-chesne. I do not believe I need to dwell on reminding the Hon. Member of Citation 327(3) of Beauchesne's which states:
A public document referred to but not cited or quoted by a Minister need not be tabled.
Upon a close reading of Hansard 1 could find no evidence that the Minister had in fact either read from or quoted any document. Therefore, I do not find that he is obligated to table anything at this time.



REQUEST TO TABLE A DOCUMENT

Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might have leave of the House to table a document as requested by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) last Friday entitled Canada-U.S. New Bilateral Trade Initiative Communication Strategy? It was a request by the Prime Minister. I am quite happy to comply.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe the Hon. Member knows full well the rule of the House in Beauchesne which prevents him from tabling a document under any circumstances.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Benjamin:: Append it to Hansard.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I phrased what I just said very carefully because I think the Whip of Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition knows that unanimous consent does not apply in this case.
September 23, 1985



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Robert Pennock: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to present to the House today a petition on behalf of many individuals from my constituency regarding their concern over the possibility of Soviet evidence being obtained and used by the Deschenes Commission of Inquiry. Their concern focuses on the strong possibility that Soviet evidence is likely to be fabricated in order to damage the credibility of many individuals who have been long-time anti-Communists.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is my privilege to present a petition on behalf of a number of western Canadians who are registering their protest to the plans of the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) that workers laid off after March 31, 1985, will have their severance pay deducted from their unemployment insurance benefits and thus effectively eliminate the benefit to the workers of the severance package they receive.


Mr. Edouard Desrosiers (Hochelaga-Maisonneuve):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour of presenting two petitions.
To the House of Commons of Canada, in Parliament assembled.
The undersigned of the first petition request that steps be taken to wipe out drug abuse in the schools in order to protect the future, the health and the well-being of their children.
Wherefor they humbly pray that your Honourable House take the appropriate steps to wipe out drug abuse in the schools.


Édouard Desrosiers: The
undersigned of the second petition are in favour of capital punishment in order to reduce violence in Canada.
The petitioners feel that leaving crimes unpunished is a violation of their rights and freedoms.
They therefore request that your Honourable House reinstate capital punishment, and as in duty bound, your petitioners ever pray.
Government Notices of Motion


Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 am very honoured to present a petition signed by the Leaders of the New Democratic Party from all provinces in Canada, and the federal executive, which opposes deindexation of family allowance and the massive cut-backs to child benefits as an unfair attack on women and families with children, especially single parent mothers. It states that this deindexation will not be offset by changes to the child tax credit and that even the poorest families will be worse off. They are concerned that these cut-backs in child benefits on top of sales tax increases, income tax increases and excise tax increases, are very unfair and, furthermore, that they are entitled to full indexation of family allowances.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
September 19, 1985-The Minister of National Health and Welfare:
That, in relation to Bill C-70, An Act to amend the Family Allowances Act, 1973, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of the second reading stage of the said Bill; and
That Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, 1 just want to indicate to the House that with respect to the transfer order of reference to the Government Orders, discussions have been held and that the motion which the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) indicated will be transferred will be discussed at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.


Mr. Speaker:: We seem to have some confusion. Could I ask the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to repeat what he just said?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I understand that the Minister of National Health and Welfare has transferred this motion for debate and I was indicating to the House that this matter will be brought up for debate at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning, the matter dealing with Bill C-70.


Mr. Speaker:: There was some confusion I wanted cleared up.

September 23, 1985
Government Notices of Motion Mr. Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, did I understand the Parliamentary Secretary to tell us that the Government's motion is transferred to Government Orders as of now, and that it will be taken up at the next sitting of the House? Is that what he just told us?


Mr. Speaker:: There were two Government Notices of Motions standing on the Order Paper which were to be transferred today. I believe the Parliamentary Secretary is in effect introducing a business question by indicating the intention to call that matter tomorrow. I believe that is what happened.


Paul Wyatt Dick: On a point of order, I had risen to let Hon. Members know in the House that this matter of Bill C-70 will be dealt with at eleven o'clock tomorrow morning.
Hon. Members might also like to know that it is the intention of the Government to call the reference dealing with the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank for tomorrow afternoon at three o'clock p.m. or when we get to Orders of the Day.


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Government Notices of Motions:
September 11, 1985-the President of the Privy Council:
That the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs be empowered to consider and report on the events leading up to the decisions announced by the Minister of State (Finance) on September 1, 1985, with respect to the Canadian Commercial Bank and the Northland Bank, and in particular,
1)	the decision to appoint curators to the Northland Bank and to the Canadian Commercial Bank;
2)	the decision to seek parliamentary authority to compensate uninsured depositors for amounts outstanding on September 1, 1985; and
3)	the decision to undertake regulatory reform to strengthen the regulatory powers of federal supervisory authorities; and
That the Committee present its Final report no later than November 30,
1985.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Section (2) of Standing Order 26, this Government Notice of Motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I want to begin my point of order by saying that I find this procedure to be most offensive. If it is the Government's intention to bypass the normal channels and to negotiate satisfactory terms and conditions in advance of the introduction of the motion to concur in the resolution, then we will stop co-operating with this Government on all matters. I want to make it quite clear that if it is the intention of the Government to disrupt the normally orderly practices of the House, then that disruption will continue indefinitely.
It is most unusual, Mr. Speaker, for the Parliamentary Secretary to rise and to indicate Government business. In fact, that is normally the prerogative of the Minister, not the prerogative of a Parliamentary Secretary.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. First, I am not sure what the point of the last comment is. It is certainly the privilege of a Minister, in this case the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn), to ask his Parliamentary Secretary to rise in his place. 1 take it that is what the Parliamentary Secretary was doing. It was precisely because we were confused about which matter the Parliamentary Secretary was referring to that 1 asked for clarity earlier. We got clarity on the National Health and Welfare Bill, but I take it the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary has now indicated something as well with regard to the other order of reference. That is what I was concerned about earlier.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I thought I had been quite clear that one matter was being dealt with at eleven o'clock and one after three. I should point out that I understood some discussions had been taking place.


Ian Deans: None.


Paul Wyatt Dick: But I will tell the Hon. Member that we intend to co-operate. We are giving notice almost 24 hours in advance which is more than members of the NDP did last week when they wasted a whole day by bringing in something for reference without telling anyone else. They did not co-operate one bit.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: You can applaud, Jake, but you will get nothing through from now until Christmas.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -I think that the NDP-


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Ian Deans: I will stand up and say it again.


Paul Wyatt Dick: -has wrecked this House-


Mr. Speaker:: I invite the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to resume his seat.


Ian Deans: I am telling you right now you will get nothing through until Christmas.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I want that on the record.


Mr. Speaker:: Order!


Paul Wyatt Dick: You are irresponsible, Deans.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I did check the lunar calendar.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: And?


Mr. Speaker:: I was wrong. The full moon was not last week, it is this coming Saturday and I can see what is happening.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
September 23, 1985


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of a notice under Standing Order 31 from the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent).


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, you will recall that last Friday I brought to the attention of the House my intention to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 31. During the proceedings on Friday you indicated your view that the subject matter, namely the crisis faced by the Northland Bank and the implications should it go belly-up, to put it bluntly, for the banking sector in general was, to use your words, a genuine emergency. You indicated at that time that you were not prepared to accept the motion, but clearly the logic of your argument was that if we did not soon have that subject before the House for debate, you would be prepared to recognize that emergency in the form of a debate. Therefore, I gave notice earlier today of my intention to move the same motion and if you make the appropriate ruling in that context, I would be very happy indeed to do so.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for Oshawa. He did indeed give me the appropriate notice and I did indeed make such a comment on Friday, and I intended it deliberately. I think the Hon. Member will know that it was precisely for the reasons for my reservations regarding the question of urgency that I was particularly interested in hearing the comments, and clarifying what they were, that were made by the Parliamentary Secretary. Given the Government's intention to call that matter for debate tomorrow at three o'clock, apparently, 1 take it all Hon. Members will have an opportunity to put on the record-[DOT]


Ian Deans: There will be no debate.


Mr. Speaker:: -their views, I suggest to the Hon. Member that, yes, I continue to hold the same views which I held on Friday with regard to the emergency provision of Standing Order 31. However, it is my view today, given what I heard three minutes ago-


Ian Deans: Which we heard for the first time.
Criminal Code Amendments


Mr. Speaker:: -that there is not now sufficient need to vary the proceedings for today in order to allow a debate under Standing Order 31.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motions of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, and Bill C-68, and Act to amend the Parole Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes I have left I would like to indicate part of the reason we are not supporting these two Bills. Just before lunch I was making the point that the Parole Board is going to have a difficult time handling the increased load resulting from passage of these two Bills. Having spoken to inmates in the penitentiary in my home constituency, I can say that they feel very strongly that the things being put forward in these Bills will increase the frustration and the reaction to that frustration in the institution. As well, it will affect the surrounding community, in this case Prince Albert. Consequently, we should take into account the fact that if these Bills are passed we may be causing an increase in tension and possible violence in the institution.
Officials have told me that inmates who would probably be able to use mandatory supervision have refused to do so because they do not feel that the kind of services they get when they are out on mandatory supervision are adequate. They would rather put in the extra three or four years than go out under circumstances which do not contribute to their return to the community and to society. Many communities are quite willing to work with inmates if the services were available to help integrate them into the community. Therefore, our main point is to question whether it is better to spend $40,000 to keep one inmate in an institution or to spend it on services in the surrounding communities in order to help integrate these people back into society. We should increase the scope of these Bills so that we can provide the services needed to make mandatory supervision work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions or comments? Debate?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

September 23, 1985
Customs Tariff


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Althouse:: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motions agreed to, Bills C-67 and C-68 read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Translation)

Hon. Jake Epp (for the Minister of Finance) moved: that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be now read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Mr. Claude Lanthier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour today of presenting before the House Bill C-71, whose purpose is to implement the amendments to the Customs Tariff as they appear in the Ways and Means Motion to amend the Customs Tariff tabled on May 23 of this year as part of the Budget Papers.
We believe that before outlining the main points of this legislation, it would be useful to review some aspects of the present state of international exchanges that guided some of the Government's decisions when preparing the tariff measures included in last May's Budget.
The marked protectionist trend typical of international exchanges today demands our serious attention, since protectionism is a direct threat to the trading system and to the general prospects for Canada's economic growth.
Canada is tremendously dependent on international markets because of the limited size of our domestic market. In fact, exports represent about 30 per cent of our gross national product. It is therefore vital that Canada see to it that the invasive protectionism practised by our neighbours is countered both by our country and other countries.
The Canadian Government has made a commitment towards maintaining a very open system of multilateral exchanges. Thus, we are supporting the official launching of a new series of multilateral trade negotiations in the near future, and we have defended this initiative, both at the meeting of Ministers of the Organization of Economic Co-operation and Development and at the Bonn summit. According to Canada, it is the best way to defeat the present protectionist trend and to ensure that international exchanges, which are so important to the growth of our Canadian economy, will continue to make a positive contribution to the daily well-being of Canadians.
Furthermore, we are also involved in seeking more secure trading relations with our principal trading partner, the United States of America. At the Quebec summit, our valiant Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States (Mr. Reagan) decided, among other trading initiatives, to put an end to protectionism in the exchange of goods and services between our two countries. The Budget Papers explain how Canada followed up on this commitment. The Government has refrained from making a number of increases in most favoured nation tariff rates which it had been asked to implement.
Granted, these decisions may have disappointed some sectors of our economy which find it difficult to compete abroad if they cannot benefit from the umbrella of additional tariff protection, but our Government is convinced that it must be prepared to act according to its deepest convictions, in other words, that a more open system of multilateral exchanges and more secure trading relations with the United States are indispensable in the long term to sustained economic growth in Canada. It is of course unjustifiable to take protectionist measures, especially the kind that might have harmed other Canadian manufacturers.
We also want to deal with the provisions of Bill C-71 concerning the amendments we want to make to the Customs Tariff, for those amendments are in response to a wide variety of situations. As a result we will implement a series of measures designed to benefit specific sectors of the Canadian economy; they will also enable Canada to meet certain international commitments and, in some cases, rationalize the administration of the Customs Tariff.
To implement some of the recommendations made by the federal task force on Canada's car and car parts industries, and within the context of recent developments in the car industry and of representations made to our Government, Bill C-71 provides that, as of May 24 last, car parts from developing countries are allowed into this country at two-thirds the most-favoured-nation tariff. Cars and other vehicles from those underprivileged countries will continue to come in duty free until January 1, 1987, when they will be subject to 6 per cent of the general preferential tariff.
In that respect, we should remember that the manufacturer of the famous Pony, Hyundai of Korea which has been quite successful on the Canadian market in general, and particularly in Quebec, is about to adopt an investment and purchase policy likely to boost the Canadian car industry. In our opinion, it is important to encourage Koreans in that sector. We hope that foreign manufacturers and governments will keep such decisions in mind, as well as those which will eventually be made by Canada.
In addition, the proposed Bill contains three provisions to implement the recommendations of Tariff Board reference item 162 related to specific points concerning spun yarns and worsted and carded wool fabrics. Specific measures will be
September 23, 1985

taken to avoid a future weakening of the tariff protection applicable to some light wool fabrics, and reductions in customs duties on unprocessed wool and worsted wool fabrics for dyeing and finishing. Measures have already been taken to maintain five tempory tariff items concerning wool fabrics used for men's clothing.
With Bill C-71, the Government will complete the implementation of recommendations made by the Tariff Board in phase I of its report entitled "Tariff items applicable to goods made or not made in Canada". The impact of those amendments is wide ranging. Three Tariff Board examples derive from the agreement between Canada and the United States with respect to the Tokyo Round multilateral trade negotiations. Last December Parliament authorized the repeal of the requirement whereby imported goods must be of a category or type made or not made in Canada so they may be admitted at specified rates, in the case of 19 tariff items. Bill C-71 contains similar provisions concerning other items referred to in phase I of the report.
Several amendments result from representations made by the private sector. Most of them reduce customs duties on various items not made in Canada. Others reinstate the tariff protection which had been removed after decisions related to the classification of goods had been appealed. The effect of these changes is quite varied. Three examples should give Hon. Members and idea of the benefits which would result from the proposed changes.
First, aluminium construction drop-centre livestock trailers will be imported duty free, thereby reducing the road transportation costs for cattle raisers and trucking companies.
Second, all workers who have to use safety helmets, goggles and face shields for welders will know that the costs of these important pieces of safety equipment will remain the lowest possible, thanks to the duty free import of all these safety items.
Third, all those who wish to see their kids play football with the proper equipment will be delighted to learn that football helmets, face masks and shoulder pads will be imported duty free.
In order to rationalize the administration of the tariff by the Department of National Revenue, especially in the case of travellers, Canadian tourists-and this is very important- may from now on import duty free up to $100 in foreign goods as often as they wish during the year, providing they have been out of Canada for at least 48 hours. At present, they may do so just once every quarter. This is a step toward a kind of rational and reasonable form of free trade.
In another area, the Deputy Minister of National Revenue may now prescribe or eliminate seasonal tariffs on some horticultural implements the production of which is only occasional in Canada. Thus, Canadian farmers will not only have the required protection at the appropriate time, but consumers
Customs Tariff
will also be able to purchase imported products at the lowest possible cost when they are no longer available from Canadian producers, which is once again quite reasonable.
Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that Bill C-71 contains a number of tariff measures of major importance to certain sectors of the Canadian economy as a whole, and in some cases, to certain individuals in particular.
Bill C-71 is also part of the international agreements made by Canada and it follows up a number of specific commitments we have contracted internationally.
This brief summary of the provisions of this Bill should provide enough information on the reasons why Bill C-71 must be considered and approved rapidly by all Members of the House of Commons who are concerned about the well-being of our fellow citizens and all Canadian consumers. We are willing to answer any relevant questions.


Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, initially we did not anticipate a prolonged debate on Bill C-71 and we felt that most questions could be raised in the legislative committee. However, after seeing the information which was revealed this weekend in an article in The Citizen, indicating that 1,152 jobs were to be cut from the Customs Department, we want to scrutinize this Bill and similar pieces of legislation proposed by the Government. The proposed cut-backs to the Customs jobs are unwarranted. We support the allegations made by the union that the cut-backs would result in a growth of illicit drugs and pornography entering into the country. We seriously question whether Customs will be able to do its job in an adequate manner if such a severe cut is made to the number of employees in that Department. The person-years for Excise, Customs and corporate administration amount to some 10,148. If it is slashed by 1,152 jobs, it is a dramatic cut. 1 wonder whether that reduced number of employees within the Department will be able to carry out its important mandate. I also wonder about the economics of the Government.
With the new system which is being proposed by the Department, packages would be sent to importers and an honours system would be introduced wherein it would depend upon importers to pay whatever duties are owing. It does not take much logic to recognize that a fair number of people will just forget to pay the customs duties which are owing. Will the Government introduce a new tax collection system or customs collection system? The economics just does not make sense. I would suggest that a Customs officer collects more than his salary in duties and therefore revenues to the federal Government. To cut the number of Customs officers would mean that we would have less service and that we would have more illicit drugs and pornographic material entering the country without being detected. Also it will mean a reduction in services to the public, whether it be in Customs offices along the border or within cities. Definitely it will mean hardship to many employees within the Department. The announcement talked

September 23, 1985
Customs Tariff
about phasing out these positions and transferring people, meaning that a fair amount of hardship will be incurred by these employees.
Bill C-71 deals with tariffs. I think we will deal with many individual points when the Bill is before the legislative committee. However, over all, one wonders why the Government is proceeding with changes in tariffs when it is about to embark upon large scale discussions with the United States about some type of free trade agreement with that country. It is really patchwork legislation. We wonder how timely it is if there are to be major changes down the road. As a Government, it has not totally thought through what course of action it will follow in terms of the development of Canadian industry or how tariffs and excises influence the growth and maintenance of industries within Canada.
There is no doubt that the tariff regime is a way in which Governments affect economic growth and development. We all recognize the fine line which has to be walked. We want to protect Canadian industry and see it flourish. We want it at least to have a good crack at the domestic market. We also want to make certain that large foreign multinational corporations cannot move in and capture the Canadian market, thereby destroying our domestic producers. We also recognize that tariffs can have a negative effect upon the economic development of a country. Behind tariffs, inefficient industries can maintain their protective position and refuse to be innovative and to carry on scientific research. They can essentially become inefficient producers protected from foreign competition by a tariff wall. In the long run, such tariffs do a disservice to Canadian industry and of course to Canadian consumers.
Also we must recognize that tariffs do not have an equal effect across the country. Many of us in western Canada have historically complained that that part of the confederation bargain which worked against the West was that normally we paid higher prices for goods and services manufactured in eastern Canada and protected by tariffs. However, the goods and services which we produce, that is raw material and agricultural products, do not receive such protection. On the one hand we pay for increased costs. On the other hand, we do not receive any protection for economic activity in western Canada. When the Government enters the road of free trade surely one of the aspects it has to keep in mind is how well all regions of this country will benefit from whatever deal the Government makes.
We have seen even in very recent times that where there was an assumption that some understanding of free trade existed, in the lumber industry, in agricultural products, in the fishing industry, that in fact what we assumed to be the case has been threatened or, in some instances, our agreement has not held up at all. I think of the prok producers of my district who have experienced great difficulties because of the obstacles placed in the United States with respect to their products. We are all concerned in this House about what will happen to the lumber
industry. We are aware that there are various protectionist measures being introduced in the United States Congress that would severely limit access to Canadian lumber. We know that given the parliamentary system in the United States, regardless of what agreements might have existed between Canada and the U.S. as far as lumber is concerned, that all of that can be upset like an applecart if some of these Bills presently before the U.S. Congress pass.
We wonder, Mr. Speaker, what type of negotiations the Government is ready to enter into in the United States and what we are doing. Are we making the Canadian industry and our jobs at home vulnerable to international competition, mainly from the United States? We recognize that no country can exist in isolation and that international trade is essential for Canada, and, I would say, for all of the industrial countries. As I mentioned before, it is a fine line. There must be some sensitivity to each sector of the economy. We must know what we want before we get into negotiations. We have to know what our strengths and our weaknesses are so that in the end we come up with a package that is balanced, that does not put an onerous charge on the consumers and yet protects the basic structure of the economy.
It requires knowledge, wisdom and foresight. It requires some competence as well. I am afraid, Mr. Speaker, that the present Government so far has not exhibited any of those essential traits. If one looks at how it handled the CCB one realizes that it mismanaged and in the end lost $1 billion. If one looks at the tuna affair and various other major blunders one becomes concerned whether this Government knows what it will be doing when it is prepared to negotiate a treaty with the United States. I am greatly concerned that the people opposite will be very easily hoodwinked into a deal which will be good for our neighbours but not good for the family at home. I have some genuine doubts as to their competence in handling this matter.
One of the specifics that we are somewhat concerned with in this Bill is the Government's decision not to apply a 25 per cent tariff to large fishing vessels. I recognize that the Government is concerned about the fishing industry and it does not want to see Canadian fishermen pay extra charges for foreign fishing vessels. Surely, recognizing as well the fact that our fishing fleet needs some drastic improvements, and it has been estimated that approximately $3.7 billion in fishing vessel construction is going to be needed, are we prepared to see that $3.7 billion of construction flow out of this country? Is it not possible to capture that $3.7 billion of construction to give jobs to Canadians with perhaps Government assistance and involvement as well so that the fishermen do not have to pay so much extra for their fishing vessels and yet at the same time that money stay in Canada where it will help to pay wages, help to support the small contractors, and generate income which in turn the Government collects taxes on and thereby increases its revenue?
A certain amount of economic planning is required to do that. The unfortunate part is that we have a Government that does not believe that Governments should be involved in
September 23, 1985

economic planning, nor that Governments should participate in joint ventures. It feels that the market should take care of all that and it is quite willing to throw the boat building industry in Canada to the winds, to write it off. I find that unacceptable.
We note as well that the Government is not prepared to provide extra protection to the clothing industry, particularly that part dealing with woollen garments. Again, I question the wisdom of the Government. The garment industry has been an important industry in this country and has created and maintained incomes for many, many men and women over the years. The ability of a country to clothe itself is surely as important as the ability of a country to house itself and to feed itself. Therefore it is important that we maintain a viable garment industry in this country.
It would seem to be essential that if you asked the garment industry in this country to compete on the world markets, so to speak, to compete for the Canadian market on the same terms as foreign garment industries, that some extra assistance be provided to the Canadian garment industry. Are we expecting the Canadian garment industry to be able to compete on the same level as the garment industry from Taiwan, Hong Kong, Singapore, et cetera? Are we asking those companies to compete with other companies that pay starvation wages? Are we then saying to our garment industry that if it wants to survive it had better start paying starvation wages to its workers, too? That surely does not make sense to anybody in this House. We have better wages in Canada than, let us say, Korea, Taiwan, Hong Kong or Singapore. That means that our wage earners are in a better situation to pay the price, to buy those goods and services that they need. To withdraw the protection from our garment industry resulting in increased unemployment in this country at this particular time does not make much sense.
Over all, what is required is a thought-out policy and direction. It is required that the Government accept its responsibility. We need to have a Government that is willing to accept its responsibility as an economic leader and not to allow a laissez-faire attitude to prevail. We need to have a Government that is committed to an economic strategy. We need to have a Government that is willing to take some economic leadership by putting together a package that allows for the best conditions for our workers and our consumers.
We require a balanced approach and above all we require leadership on the part of the Government. Unfortunately, our Conservative friends do not believe in Government leadership. Therefore, they are not very good at putting together an economic strategy that will protect Canadian workers and consumers. I am afraid that with these folks across the way in Government, we are going to end up with Canadian consumers and workers being the losers and the multinational corporations the winners. The prize is the Canadian economy, our resources and our markets.
Customs Tariff
We will look at Bill C-71 more closely in committee. We hope that the Government at that time will be willing to answer our questions and our concerns.


George Baker: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few words to say on the introduction of this Bill. As the Parliamentary Secretary said when it was introduced, it covers items that were non-Budgetary and is more or less a clearing up of certain regulations and tariffs within the Department. When reading the items contained within the Bill, one wonders whether or not the Government is actually concerned about some of the items that are to be changed.
Two things come to mind when discussing with an ordinary person the customs tariffs and any changes that are made to that Department or its regulations. The first thing that comes to mind, as the Hon. Member pointed out a few moments ago, is the pending layoffs in the Department.
It is the policy of the Government of Canada not to fill jobs that become vacant and to cut down as much as possible in every single Government Department. I wonder how the regulations in the Customs Act will be enforced when the numbers of employees in that Department will be cut down to such an exaggerately small number.
The second thing that comes to mind is this: it is all well and good to amend the customs tariff and to bring in a Bill that reorganizes all of the regulations relating to the Customs Department by consolidating and amending it to meet present Government policy. This is done to facilitate the movement of goods and services between countries. When looking at some of the items listed in this Bill, one begins to realize that the Government has one attitude toward the movement of goods and services and other countries like the United States have a completely different attitude.
Supposing that there is not to be any tariff put on the importation of diesel boat engines or, as the Hon. Member pointed out, there is not to be a tariff on boats coming into this country, something which seriously affects the boatbuilding industry in Canada. The fact is that while the Government is doing these things, no reciprocal action is being taken by the Government of the United States or by any other Government.
What has the American Government done? It has slapped a tariff on saltfish, a tariff that affects the Prime Minister's riding, my riding and the ridings of all Atlantic Members. Then, through the Department of Commerce, the United States Government changed tariffs on raspberries, hogs, lumber and now fresh fish. In reply, the Government of Canada has indicated that there should be no tariffs on certain items coming into Canada that relate to the fishing industry. Clearly that does not make any sense at all.
Granted, the fishing industry is without a Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, but even if the Minister was still there, the fishing industry in Canada would still have some of the most serious problems of any industry in Canada, and certainly the problems facing it are greater than ever before. Provincial Governments and this Government always rationalized this by saying that a finished product cannot be produced by the

September 23, 1985
Customs Tariff
fishing industry because of countervailing tariffs from another country. That was always the rationale that has been given and is still being given. We can see how stupid that particular claim is.
In dealing with this particular Bill, the Government of Canada must realize two things. First, it must realize that it cannot lay off its employees and hope to have a good job done in the Customs Department. The President of the Trasury Board (Mr. de Cotret), in passing down his orders to the individual Ministers, should realize that there are certain Government Departments that cannot function under such drastic reductions in staff. This particular Department is one of them.
The second thing the Government ought to realize is that in the area of tariffs, it takes two to tango. We cannot have one country, the United States, imposing such drastic tariffs while the Government of Canada is facilitating matters, clearing up the backlog and giving preferential treatment to this, that and the other thing through legislation.
With those two observations, I would say that we are looking forward to dissecting this Bill in committee so that we may try to figure out just what is included in it. We have to be very careful with this Government. We do not know what is in the Bill. We have to examine this Bill with a fine-tooth comb because the Government has the reputation of pushing things through under our noses without us really knowing what we are doing. We have to take the Minister's word for things. It took us one day to bail out the CCB through a Bill presented to the House. The Minister made statements with respect to what was in the Bill. She said such things as: "Everything is okay. This bank is not bankrupt. This is the only financial institution in Canada in trouble." The Minister also made statements such as: "We really do not want to do away with the regional bank. We do not want other banks to take over the regional bank. We have made that decision. We want a regional bank to remain in existence. We do not want other banks to take it over."
We listened to all of this language from the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall). We listened to all the facts and figures which she gave. However, Hon. Members will notice that she could not tell us how many creditors there were. She could not tell us how many depositors there were. Yet, we went with the judgment of the Government. We did not want to be seen to be holding up a legitimate measure for the people of western Canada, as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) put it. We took the Minister at her word, as we do with the Minister who has presented the Bill before us. However, we will be giving a second thought before taking any cabinet Minister in this Government at his word with respect to what is in a Bill. In other words, it is as the critic for the New Democratic Party pointed out. We are anxious to get the matter into committee in order to examine it just to see what is exactly there. It is only now, after we have seen the record of the Government, that all the people of Canada know that they
have to be very careful with respect to what the Government is doing because it is not what it says it is doing. The people of Canada know what was in the disastrous Budget. One budget night the provisions looked great; but they certainly do not look all that great now.
Those are my words of caution to the Minister who is responsible for the customs tariff. I wish to remind him that he cannot run a department without any employees. I also wish to remind him that we will be watching the situation very closely. We will not allow the Government of Canada to make that number of lay-offs in such a vital service as this one is.
I also wish to point out to the Government that the people of Canada will not take what is happening with tariffs as it relates to our products in this country. They are not going to take it much longer. There is a crisis in the lumber industry, the fishing industry and in several other industries in the country which directly relate to tariffs. However, it relates to tariffs imposed by another country on our primary producers.
With those words, Mr. Speaker, I will yield the floor to someone else who wishes to comment on the Bill.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed a pleasure to have an opportunity to rise and speak on Bill C-71, which is a most important piece of legislation in a variety of ways. I think the importance of the legislation we are debating is not necessarily with the Bill before us since the Minister has said: "Listen. There are some technical materials here with which we have to deal". Indeed, he is correct. He wants us to spend a fair bit of time discussing whether or not hand-rolled cigars with bands and ribbons on them should receive a $1.45 preferential tariff or a $3 one under a general tariff item. We have pages and pages of important material here before us. We are being asked to consider whether or not mine roof supports should fall under a free tariff item. There is much concern expressed with respect to hearing aids and the fact that we need to place tariffs on them. This is also true with respect to batteries, appliances, and so on for hearing aids. I suppose the Government feels we should not have a 12 per cent tariff, or a general tariff of at least 30 per cent but, perhaps, that those preferential areas should be only 8 per cent. The documentation goes on and on. Perhaps the items should be tariff-free.
It is interesting to note what this Government considers to be important. Here we are today, as the Hon. Member who spoke before me pointed out, with the forest industry literally on the edge of crisis. The United States, the major importer of our goods, is about to impose a quota, which will be passed by at least a two-thirds majority in Congress. This will mean that possibly a third of the sawmills in the country will have to close down. I see the Minister of State for Forestry (Mr. Merrithew) is in the House. We appreciate that fact. I know how concerned he must be with respect to this issue and the implications it will have on the industry. The process is beginning to move through Congress now. We are talking about one-half or one-third of Canada's major industry. Are we debating that subject in the House of Commons? Is that matter being referred to committee for ongoing discussions?
September 23, 1985

No. We are spending a great deal of time debating whether or not we should have a 12 per cent or an 8 per cent tariff on hearing aids.
This debate is taking place while we face a crisis in the fishing industry, one looming in agriculture, some serious concerns with respect to mining and while a major emergency meeting was held over the weekend in Washington of Finance Ministers from the major western countries, including Japan. That meeting was called in order to reach agreement with the United States concerning devaluation of the American currency. However, Canada was not invited to the meeting, even though we are the country which will be most adversely affected by the decisions made there. It is really a slap in the face to this Government. It is like saying: "We are going to carry on these discussions over the weekend and there is no need to invite our little country cousin up in Canada to attend." What that says is that our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is considered to be the equivalent of a State Governor. State Governors are not invited to meetings of Ministers of Finance. Thus, Canada is not invited to participate in such an event. After all, it will only profoundly influence every region of the country. It will result in significant job reduction and place a number of jobs at risk, or at least have that potential.
What does the Government say in response? The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) stood in her place and said that it is of no consequence. She said that we are down there having discussions and, presumably, we have faith in Mr. Reagan. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Lanthier), and I recognize him as an honourable parliamentarian, has said that this is a technical Bill with which we have to deal. Indeed, he is correct, it is a technical Bill. We wish to go through it clause by clause to determine whether or not the changes contained therein reflect the new trade policy of the Government. After all, Canada is a major trading partner in the world. Our livelihood depends upon the openness of our markets for others to accept our goods and services. We are a country taking massive steps day by day to expand our trading possibilities and opportunities. Now, the Government has come in and said: "Listen, we have a great idea. Let us cut back on all our customs officers. Let us cut back by more than 10 per cent all those people who deal with trade." I ask Hon. Members to think of that for just one second. There is some logic which begins to escape one.
We are a major trading partner and we want to expand and facilitate further trade. Yet, we are cutting back significantly with respect to the number of customs officers. Those are the people who are in the front lines. They are in the trenches with respect to the interface of trade with other countries. As representatives of the Customs offices of this country have indicated, what this means is that there will be an increase in contraband and smuggled materials coming into the country. There will be an increase in drugs and pornographic material coming into the country. However, the Government says: "Oh shucks, we have got a way to deal with that. We are going to have an honour system. We will just send the packages to
Customs Tariff
people and then they will pay the duty which is due on them." If you were a criminal, Mr. Speaker, and you were importing contraband, illegal bullion or pornographic materials and someone said: "Weare now going to ask you folks to acton the honour system.", boy, that would be the best news that you would have heard for a long time. Yet, that is what the Government says we will do. We will act just as book clubs act. The book clubs send out their books and if the person who receives them likes them then he sends the price of the books back to the book club. This is a book club approach to smuggling and the importation of questionable materials.
As a Member of Parliament from western Canada, specifically from the Province of British Columbia, we in that province are looking forward to a national event next year which will bring in literally hundreds of thousands-no, millions-of visitors to western Canada. It is called Expo 86.
Expo 86 is a transportation exhibition. It is a world fair. Its intention is to introduce Canada to the world with one spin-off being enhanced trade. We know that so many more people will be visiting, yet we are going to deal with this by cutting back on customs positions at our borders and in our Customs offices across the country. I have met with a number of Customs officers in western Canada over the last few days. They were concerned when they learned they were going to receive major job position cut-backs. Their reaction was one of alarm. These people are proud of the jobs they do and the services they offer, for example, at the interior Customs ports where tourists and goods arrive for distribution to central British Columbia and other parts of western Canada. These people want to do a good job, Mr. Speaker, but they simply do not have adequate manpower to do what should be done in an attempt to increase the number of visitors to Canada and the number of imports and exports. They do not have enough person power to do the job. When they learned that they were now going to have further cut-backs it really frustrated these public servants because now, more than ever, they will be unable to do the kind of job they wish.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) indicated, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about tariffs in this House, we are really talking about the regional development of Canada and how the tariff system either aids or abets that development. There is a perception, particularly in the western regions of Canada that customs and tariffs and so on are by and large designed to protect central Canadian industry and that as a result of those protective walls around the central Canadian industry, goods are priced more expensively than they ought to be. Those areas of the far east, west and north of Canada which are resource exporters have as the very basis of their economic development the fact of free trade. When one considers that one of the areas in which we have free trade today is the softwoods industry, and when we see what is happening in terms of the non-tariff barriers which are being erected in the United States, and now the threat of a quota being placed on our wood exports to the United States, we realize just how serious this whole matter can be. I really have

September 23, 1985
Customs Tariff
to ask the question whether or not today's discussion ought to be taking place at this time. Even though it is a technical Bill, changing the tariffs as they are applied to a variety of commodities, is this a time for discussion when we consider that we lack an over-all comprehensive trade policy? When we lack an over-all trade policy, one asks what the context is in which we are making these changes.
When we get into committee, we will ask why we want to place a tariff on hand-rolled cigars. The question itself might sound trite but there are hundreds of questions like this. Presumably, in a comprehensive trade package, we are trying to protect something in Canada. Perhaps there is a hand-rolled cigar industry in Canada we are trying to protect, but I am not aware of one. If there is such a fledgling industry which needs some protection in its early days, let us find out about it.
When we look through the list, Mr. Speaker, we find pages and pages of items such as mining equipment and agricultural equipment tariff free. The recommendation is that we should import all of the mining processing equipment Canada needs. On a global scale, Canada is a major mining country. Is it in our interests to continue to import all of the machinery and equipment used in mining? Should we not be an exporter of much of this equipment and machinery?


Simon Leendert de Jong: Hear, hear!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Of course, we should, Mr. Speaker. Perhaps, then, if there is a case to be made in terms of an over-all comprehensive industrial strategy, with a complementary customs and trade strategy, it might make sense to have a tariff on some mining equipment sectors. However, these things are difficult to evaluate, Mr. Speaker; rolled cigars, hearing aids, knives, filters, and so on, without any context on which to base this evaluation.
We are less than enthusiastic about simply accepting this Bill as a technical Bill and falling all over ourselves to pass it. We want to get it into committee. We want to take it item by item. I have no hesitation in believing that the Hon. Member means what he says when he says this is a technical Bill, but we hear this from Minister after Minister. The then Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said a few days ago, "Don't worry, I've checked it. I've eaten the tuna. There is nothing to worry about. I've overruled all of the scientists who evaluated it. Have faith in me". Then the Minister of State for Finance says, "Don't worry about the meetings which took place in Washington on the weekend. They are just going to devalue the American currency relative to ours which will result in a possible loss of hundreds of thousands of jobs. But don't worry. Have faith. We know what we are doing". We were told to have faith when the Polar Sea invaded our territorial waters and the Americans forgot to ask our permission. We were told that would be sorted out. There is too much "loosey goosey" going on.
We are able to find $ 1 billion-which, described in another way, is a thousand million dollars-to bail out a couple of banks, without debating the merits of that decision. Over a weekend the Government committed itself and the taxpayers
of Canada to a thousand million dollars. If we look at this Bill in that context, we feel strongly that we want to debate these minor areas, even though when we consider the kinds of topics and issues before this country today, when we consider the kinds of issues which Parliament should be discussing, we really wonder about the wisdom of spending hours and hours deciding whether hearing aids should be duty free or receive an 8 per cent tariff.
I say, Mr. Speaker, that we should get this into committee as soon as we can and deal with it very carefully in order to ensure that the Government is not pulling a fast one on us, as we have seen too many times before. We should get on, Mr. Speaker, with addressing some of the real important issues facing the people of this country.


Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I am wondering if my colleague is aware that one of the items which will now be duty free are manure spreaders, not the ones which are hand-pushed but ones, I would suppose, more mechanized. I wonder if the Hon. Member has any idea why the Government wants cheaper manure spreaders in this country? Does the Hon. Member believe that some of the political mistakes of this Government have to be spread around so, therefore, cheaper manure spreaders are now being called for?


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I must admit I have not had an opportunity to delve into the manure spreader category of the Bill but the point he makes is an important one. There are sectors of our economy where we should be giving every bit of encouragement for their development. In a country where agriculture plays such an important role in providing foodstuffs for the hungry people, to develop a sound agriculture machine industry is something we could be proud of over the years. Some of the greatest technological innovations in agriculture machinery have been developed right here in Canada. For obvious reasons, Mr. Speaker, it is an area where we should excel. It is an area where we should be on the cutting edge of technological change, whether manure spreaders, combines or whatever. Perhaps some assistance in developing new parts of that industry for a few years in terms of a tariff imposed by the Government makes good sense. Again, it would only make good sense in the context of an over-all export policy. We are, of course, lacking that at the moment. In fact, we have always lacked that. This sort of simplistic mind set of free trade with the U.S. which some people have been voicing is certainly not the way to develop a comprehensive trade policy which would benefit Canadians.
My colleague from Regina raises a good point and points out even more the need for a logical, comprehensive and thoughtful approach to the development of a sound tariff and customs policy.


Mr. Taylor:: Mr. Speaker, the last question and answer are what brought me to my feet. For many years the chassis of fertilizing machines and other equipment which aided the production of food came into the country tariff-free. In the last
September 23, 1985

year of the Liberal regime, a tax was placed on the chassis of a fertilizing machine. Someone in that Department came to the conclusion that the chassis of a fertilizer was the same as a chassis of a truck. The chassis for the fertilizer I am thinking about is made specifically for fertilizing fields. In no way can it be used for a truck. Yet that tax was added and thereby increased the cost of production of food. I firmly believe that we should make sure that machinery coming into this country, including manure spreaders, which assists in the production of foods should come in duty-free. We should not be adding costs to the production of food. That is a very sound principle and I hope it permeates this legislation.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, the point my hon. friend raises is an interesting one. I know he is only too well aware of the technological advances Canada has provided to the world agricultural community over the years. This is a very important aspect of the economy of the riding he represents and he is well aware of the development of agricultural equipment over the years.
My concern, and I am sure that he shares it, is that too many of the discussions we have in this House regarding agriculture or our general tariff policy, by definition implies a comprehensive understanding of what we are trying to achieve over the long term. That requires an understanding between the major players of Government, industry, labour and others. We have to understand what we are trying to accomplish together. Our customs and excise programs should reflect that over-all strategy or game plan. However, over the years there has not been a long-term view taken. For years and years I blamed the then Liberal Government for not taking the time to develop a consensus so we could understand the direction we were moving in, in whatever area. Therefore I must reflect with some sorrow on a similar feeling today. So much faith in the "market-place" implies by definition a short-term view of economic development as well as societal development. The concern I want to share with the Hon. Member is that of this rather blind acceptance of the "market system" as the motivating and most important force. One of the reasons not only social democratic countries but countries like Japan are successful while we seem to flounder around rather like a rudderless ship in a sea without any long-term comprehensive program to help guide us is because they have long-term economic development planning.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my colleague has made a study of this matter. He reported to caucus on this matter two years ago, if I recall correctly. I am particularly concerned about one matter which has an immediate effect in British Columbia and which will have certain repercussions if it is passed without adequate consideration. I am referring to Schedule 1, and in particular Tariff Item 41014-1. He knows, as do I, that this particular item is of grave concern in much of his riding, and certainly to the north in Revelstoke and areas-


Nelson Andrew Riis: East and north.
Customs Tariff


Ian Deans: -to the east and north. I would very much appreciate if he could perhaps give us some insight regarding whether or not any negotiations or discussions took place prior to the introduction of this legislation with those people in that area of British Columbia who will be most affected.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, indeed, as my colleague indicated, we took some time over this issue in caucus about 18 months or two years ago. This item was the focus of our attention. To my knowledge no comprehensive discussion has taken place regarding the implications of this decision. In more common parlance, my hon. friend was referring equipment used in coalmining. We have developed some sophisticated technology over the years and we are presently world leaders in some of the more critical cutting devices used at the coal face. Here again we are suggesting that tariffs not be applied to not only coal-cutting machines but loading machines, draglines, power shovels, hydraulic excavating backhoes, front end loaders, front wheel graders and the like. This goes back to the original point that both my colleague from Regina and I were making, that if Canada is going to develop a manufacturing sector which relfects its strengths and resource advantage areas, coal-mining is certainly one of those. This is particularly true when you consider the high grade coal which so much of western Canada is blessed with and what that means in combating acid rain. The sulphur content of that coal is relatively low compared to most global coal deposits. We were concerned about Schedule 1, Tariff Item 41014-1 as being another example of the lack of thought the Government has given to providing duty-free importation of this equipment which has become so valuable in the development of a Canadian resource.
An equal concern arises when we come to deal with popguns and .22 rifles and so on, and the differentiation-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I regret that the period for questions and comments is now over. Resuming debate.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I was a little worried that I might not get an opportunity to speak this afternoon, and I am certainly pleased to do so. If I may, I want to go back to the comment I made and the question I asked of my colleague because I think it exemplifies or highlights, if you will, the problem in dealing with legislation of this type. It is of course very complex. Its implications are frequently not felt until long after it has been put in place. The other night, just before I dropped off to sleep, I was looking through the Bill to determine just exactly where the Government was moving to reduce tariffs. If you had the opportunity to read the Bill, Mr. Speaker, I know you will want to express some concerns and I will therefore take this opportunity to express them on your behalf.
For example, for those of my colleagues who have not yet read the Bill, look at tariff Item 41002-1. I cannot think of a nation that should have more interest and concern in protect-

September 23, 1985
Customs Tariff
ing its own base in this area than Canada. Let me put it in another context. For years there has been an ongoing argument, a debate might be a better way to put it, about the necessity for Canada to build up its manufacturing sector as it relates to raw materials.
I think you will recall, Mr. Speaker, certainly in the 18 years I have been in politics and probably extending far beyond that, there has hardly been a year when the whole question of the inadequacy of that sector has not been raised in the House of Commons. It is mind-boggling to think that a country with such vast mineral resources would not yet have been able to develop a substantial, not only domestic oriented but internationally oriented, manufacturing sector directly related to that valuable asset. There are very few Members in the House, the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) being one who would remember the Legislative Assembly of Ontario and the numbers of times the question was raised concerning the need to enhance the manufacturing sector relative to the natural resource potential of Ontario, and I think it fair to say of Canada.
It has been a disappointment that there has not been the kind of emphasis placed on the development of that sector that many of us felt there ought to have been. Even at this late date, I think we had anticipated, as a result of this Government's statements of the election just recently passed, that its intention was to develop an industrial strategy in Canada. This would allow for those smaller operations that currently exist to expand to become world class, and in those areas we did not now have a presence, we would encourage development. We had anticipated that moves to eliminate tariffs in those areas, in particular, might have been delayed. We might have awaited the outcome of whatever Government policy was forthcoming before the Government moved to eliminate the tariff protection. I do not think anyone will disagree that in some fledgling western operations, and the Hon. Member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) will know this, there is indeed the necessity to provide a certain amount of limited protection for a short period to allow for the growth that is so necessary to take place. My colleague from Bow River, if he has been following this, would certainly applaud that thought.
The interesting thing about this Bill, and I know when the Member studied it he probably came to the same conclusions I did, is that it is most unusual to find ourselves in a situation where the tariff in many areas, not all, is to be eliminated entirely-and I am the first to admis the tariff in place was small-it happens to fall within areas directly related to the resource sector. Whether that resource sector be, as my friend and colleague from Bow River indicated, the agricultural sector, whether in discussions with my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) it be in the coal mining sector or in tariff item 41002, 41026 or 42762 which affects mineral resources, and to some extent perhaps even the oil industry, the moves being taken by the Government can do nothing but reduce the possibilities for the development of that industry base within our own country.
I defy anyone in the House of Commons, or for that matter anyone outside, to suggest that the analysis I have put on those tariff reductions is other than factual.
Having said that, it therefore makes it awfully difficult to deal properly with what we are faced. How do we answer the questions from so many of our constituents who ask us how they are supposed to begin the process of developing a small but viable industry or maintaining a small but viable industry if they are to be put in a position of where what little bit of protection they had in the formative stages has been removed? That gets to the nub of the question. My friend from Brampton-Georgetown shakes his head and waves his hand. Unfortunately, the television cameras do not pick it up. The facts are there. Whether my colleague agrees or not, the question of whether we should be dealing with 44100-1 is a separate and identifiably different question. What worries me is that we have lumped imo this one Bill to change the customs tariff a whole series of questions that relate not only to the appropriateness of having or not having tariffs for their own sake, but relate to questions of how one develops an industrial base when you are open to the opportunities for a much larger and sophisticated base to overtake you in the process. That is a very serious question I think the Government has failed to answer. It is the kind of question that is being addressed at this very point in time in the United States Congress on other somewhat related though identical issues.
Let me illustrate with an example. Over the course of last weekend I spent probably 14 hours travelling with Congressmen from various parts of the United States discussing problems in the steel industry. Certain truths came home to me as 1 listened to them describe their dilemma. Without exception, Democrats, Republicans, new Congress people and old, not particularly of one group, not homogeneous in every sense of the word, had one thing in common, the problems confronting them within the steel industry.


Mr. McDermid:: In their constituencies.


Ian Deans: In their constituencies but they represent, and I say to my colleague from Brampton who smiles, 204 Congressmen, if I recall, a substantial block of votes within that Congress. They were talking about the need within their own areas to protect their industry base. While on the one hand, let me say it, they admitted their President was speaking about free trade, on the other hand they were arguing forcibly that that was not in their best interests. I raised this matter to make the point that we are moving to eliminate tariffs or reduce them dramatically in certain vulnerable areas which have not yet reached a scale sufficient to allow them to be competitive in a very tough world market. At the same time the United States, which happens to be the country with which we do most of our trade, is moving to put in place tariff or non-tariff barriers on the sale of our products within its jurisdiction. What is the point in us eliminating the small tariff barriers now in place in those particular areas when the United States is moving with some haste to do the exact opposite in an attempt to protect the modernization of its steel mills? Perhaps
September 23, 1985

the Hon. Member should read the Bill. Much of what is in it deals with the component parts necessary for the modernization of industry. At this moment the United States, as I said, is moving with a great deal of haste to try to put barriers in place which will enable it to improve the efficiency of its industry base. It will not be buying from us the products which we are currently in the process of manufacturing.


John Horton McDermid: Do you support it?


Ian Deans: Do I support what?


John Horton McDermid: That with which we are dealing.


Ian Deans: Of course not. The Government seems to be rushing headlong into an embrace with the administration of the United States to establish something called "free trade" which will inevitably destroy the industrial base in Canada. At the same time that administration is moving to protect its industrial base. It is about time that some members of the Tory caucus started to face reality. We cannot afford to alter the basic structure until we see what kind of retaliatory action the Government of the United States intends to implement with regard to protecting its industrial base. If any Members of the House doubt for one moment that in the major industrial areas of the United States there is some question about the imposition of quotas or other non-tariff barriers which will take the place of tariffs already in place, I urge them to go to Washington and sit down with their counterparts in the Congress to hear what they are saying.


John Horton McDermid: We know what they are saying.


Ian Deans: 1 hear my colleague. If that is so, I anticipate that he will be on his feet momentarily to make a somewhat similar statement to the one I have made. This is not the time to eliminate tariffs. We should not have been sucked in in the negotiations. We should not have moved without careful consideration of the impact. Unfortunately that has been the case. That is what I am trying to get through to this motley crew of Conservative back-benchers, most of whom are not listening.


John Horton McDermid: One of them has more quality than the whole NDP.


Ian Deans: I suppose the Hon. Member is speaking about himself.


John Horton McDermid: No, I am not. I am speaking about a colleague to my left.


Ian Deans: 1 would certainly hope so. We are opposing it as it now stands because of the tremendous uncertainty in terms of what will happen within the next 10 months to a year and a half. In less than a year, or perhaps in less than six months, we will see a move on the part of the United States Congress which will detrimentally impact upon our lumber industry. We will see a move which detrimentally impacts upon our steel industry. We will see moves by the U.S. Congress which will
Customs Tariff
have a detrimental effect on our farming industry in a variety of ways. While this is happening, we are moving to make it easier for them to infiltrate our markets even further. If that is not naive, I ask the Hon. Member for Bow River what is naive? If that is not backward policy, what is? Perhaps someone in the House could explain to me why we ought to be taking these steps right now. I am not only referring to these steps, as they are only a drop in the bucket compared with what is about to be begun at the negotiating table by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), his Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) and the administration of the United States. A sell-out is taking place, and the Government, in an almost obscene way, seems to think that if we sell everything out somehow we will be better off. I fail to understand the rationale. I fail to understand what caused the Government to come to the decisions it has reached. I do not understand why we would be moving to reduce tariffs in advance of any discussions about fair trading arrangements. I do not understand why we would not have held off on making any further compromise efforts until we saw clearly from the United States what its over-all negotiating posture was to be.
As I have said, over the last weekend and going back over many years, as we sit down to discuss the impact of the actions they are about to undertake, we cannot help but draw the conclusion that a nation of this size, entering into a negotiating process of that type, must have available to it every method and means to protect itself in advance. We must have everything to use in the protection process to ensure that we are not steamrolled along the way as a result of its negotiating posture and overwhelming economic strength.
I am not making a definite statement about whether or not it might be possible to work something out in certain sectors. 1 frankly do not know the answer to that, and I am willing to admit it. I do not know if there is a way to work out some sectoral agreements, but I do not think we can go to the bargaining table with all the strength we need if, in advance of the process beginning, we have already moved to eliminate much of the somewhat small but nevertheless important tariff protection which currently exists. That is what the argument is in a nutshell. If we are to negotiate over the next two years, and if in the process of that negotiation we are to attempt to work out some agreements with the United States, there has to be some give and take. If we have already given everything before we sit down, then all that will be left will be the "take". From the meetings I have had over last weekend and stretching back as far as three years ago, I want to tell the House that the U.S. is bound and determined that whatever taking is to be done will be done by that country and not by us.
I say to my colleagues, those who care to listen, that we ought not to pass this piece of legislation at the moment. We need to have in our hands at least some means of putting before them possible retaliation-and I do not like that use of the word; it is not even the correct word-or some means of easing the pain, if in the event they do that which I understand they are about to do, that is, protect their own at the expense of ours. It is not being anti-American to suggest that what

September 23, 1985
Customs Tariff
they do, they do in their best interest. They do not consider us for one solitary second in the process they go through. There is no one in the Congress of the United States who stands up and argues on behalf of Canada in the negotiation process. Therefore, before we give away that little protection we have left, I suggest that we wait until after the negotiation process has begun. We should wait until after we see what it is they are after. Then we should start to talk about how to bring down tariffs, if need be and if it is mutually advantageous, to a level which will cause them to be no longer a barrier.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 46, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Publishing Industry (a) Prentice-Hall Company takeover (b) Government policy; the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)-Trust Companies-Pioneer Trust (a) Plight of uninsured depositors (b) Uninsured income averaging certificates; the Hon. Member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. O'Neil)-Regional Industrial Expansion- Employment opportunities in Cape Breton.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Epp (Provencher) (for the Minister of Finance) that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether it was my introductory speech or the vindictive spirit we were threatened with this afternoon by the Leader of the "small" opposition, but I believe he neither read the Bill nor listened to our comments.
I would like to say first of all, that all the changes in this legislation were made in direct consultation with industry. Second, many of these changes were the result of a decision of
the Tariff Board, a Government agency set up in co-operation with the private sector, and whose operations are entirely independent. I therefore fail to understand the Hon. Member's remarks. Third, I would like to draw the attention of the House to the fact that, to my great surprise, there were many references taking the U.S. Government as an example. It was truly a revelation, coming from the New Democratic Party, to be told today that we should take the U.S. Government's protectionism as an example. Since when has the U.S. Government been an example for the New Democratic Party?
So this afternoon, I had two revelations. First of all, they completely ignored the intent of the Act, which was to enshrine changes already in effect and which had already been approved in consultation with the private sector, and second, we have the New Democratic Party taking the Americans as an example of how to run a country. Let me tell you, Sir, that this is a surprise to me.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the reply. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary cannot possibly use that as an argument.

It is not accurate, first of all, to say that that is what I said. I did not. I said we ought not to move until after we know quite clearly what the new U.S. posture is going to be. That is quite different from saying that we should emulate or imitate them.
I said we had to know what they were going to do. It was a difficulty perhaps in the way I expressed it and I want to make clear to the Parliamentary Secretary that that is what it was.
Beyond that, I think the Hon. Member knows full well that I did read the Bill. That is what caused me to rise. If I had not read the Bill I would not rise. I never speak about things that I do not know anything about.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: To infer that such is the case is to do a disservice to the House of Commons. I never questioned his method or motive. I do not doubt but that he is a lackey for the Government and I acknowledge that. I, on the other hand, am an independent spirit in this regard and I want to express the concerns that I personally feel, concerns I am sure that if he were not so closely tied to the Minister's coattails he would want to express, too.


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, this afternoon nobody is watching me. Both my Ministers are absent, so I am quite free to speak and that is indeed the spirit in which I have spoken. [English]
But I must add though, if I want to make myself clear-


Ian Deans: Once in a while.


Claude Lanthier: I do not think that we ought to realy on our translators, but should tell them the misunderstanding that exists between the Leader of the small Opposition and myself
September 23, 1985

is not a matter of translation. It is a matter of basis. I understood by the way he referred to the United States a lot of time that he admired them. Of course as a responsible Government we are not going to enter a fight of protectionism against a big country. We are interested in their big market and maybe the United States is interested in showing the whole world a good example, how it can be a good neighbour, in order to exercise free trade that it wants to establish with other countries. I do not think it is a matter of protectionism, as referred to by the Leader of the small Opposition, I think that these people use it as an example and I think I understand them well.


Ian Deans: As the House Leader for the real Opposition as opposed to the small Opposition-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Deans: I am not exactly sure whether that reference was a put down or a misunderstanding. However, I accept it in the good humour that always exists in the House of Commons. It was intended to be humorous. Let me suggest, however, to the Hon. Member in all fairness, and I respect him, he knows that-we have been together outside of this place-I think he misunderstands what I am saying. It is not a matter of admiration for the U.S., neither is it support for its policy. It is an understanding of it and to understand what it is doing is to understand that what this Bill does is take away what limited protection we have in certain areas.
It does not interest me whether on an individual basis each of those companies that are presently involved in business in Canada can see certain minor advantages to the steps that are being recommended. That is not important because there is a much larger question looming on the horizon. In fact, it is not even on the horizon any more, it is much closer than that. That much larger question touches on the negotiations that will be started within the next short while with the U.S. over the question of free trade sectoral or otherwise. I am saying quite clearly my understanding of what the U.S. is now doing, and I think that my understanding is accurate. I believe that as a result of long and difficult meetings held over an extended period of time, I have some sense of where Congress is going and 1 might say to the Hon. Member that he is not going in the same direction as is the President and the administration. Don't ever get the wrong impression in that regard. Congress is moving in an almost diametrically opposite direction to the administration and the President of the United States at the moment in a variety of different trade areas. The interesting thing about it is that their only concern for Canada is to try to keep us from selling into their markets the things that we make more cheaply than them.
We have to keep that in mind when we are discussing this. It will detrimentally impact in every industrial part of this country, and I do not want the Hon. Member to misunderstand for one moment what I am saying. There is absolutely no doubt that whatever small protection we now have we should maintain until we see what their posture is going to be at the negotiating table. That is the argument. That is why we do not
Public Service Employment Act
proceed until after we get a clear picture of where they are going. That is what I said at the beginning, that is what I said halfway through, that is what I said at the end, that is what I answered in the first question, that is what I answer now. This is not the time to do this.
If there is a time, and I am not sure there is but I am prepared to concede that there may be further debate necessary to determine that, but if there is a time it must surely come after we can see clearly whether the administration in the United States led by the President or whether the Congress of the United States led by the Congress will be the victors.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It being 5 o'clock, the House will now proceed with the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT SUGGESTED AMENDMENT RESPECTING GREATER PARTICIPATION IN POLITICAL PROCESS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: that, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Public Service Employment Act and other related statutes in consequence thereof, in order to permit greater participation in the political process by federal public servants than is now allowed under the aforementioned statutes.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the House is of course well acquainted with the subject of this motion, because we have discussed this topic a number of times. If I am not mistaken, we have had three similar motions before the House during the current session. I remember taking part in a debate on the subject not long ago, while my colleague, the Hon. Member for Glengar-ry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) and the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) have also proposed motions similar to the one before the House today.
I must admit that considering the repeated consideration of this topic in previous Parliaments, I am somewhat reluctant to rise again in the House to raise this very important issue, namely that of letting federal public servants know what their rights are in terms of participation in the political process.
Mr. Speaker, in drafting this motion I was mindful of a number of promises made by the Government during the last election campaign, promises which were also made by my own

September 23, 1985
Public Service Employment Act
party during the campaign, namely, that the issue being an important one public servants ought to know what their rights are in the political process. To make this possible, we suggested that a parliamentary committee be asked to consider the issue of participation in the political process by public servants.
It seems to me that nothing has changed much in Parliament over the years. I remember that in 1972, when I was elected as a Member, the matter was already being discussed and continued to be in the years that followed. We talked about it when the late Walter Baker was the Member for Nepean-Carleton. He too presented bills, as I did, but the matter kept being postponed, because people said it was an issue of interest only to Members for Ottawa and the area, including of course Hull and Gatineau, Glengarry-Prescott, Lanark and the general area.
Mr. Speaker, we are talking about a fundamental principle. The Charter of Rights and Freedoms gives every Canadian the right of association, and freedom of speech, opinion and expression.
Section 2 of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms of the Canadian Constitution is clear, where it says:
2.	Everyone has the following fundamental freedoms:
(a)	freedom of conscience and religion;
(b)	freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of
the press and other media of communication;
(c)	freedom of peaceful assembly; and
(d)	freedom of association.
Public employees ask themselves these questions: What are we allowed to do, as federal civil servants? What are we allowed to do during an election campaign? What can we do without jeopardizing our career and our role as public employees? Those questions have been asked many times, but Government authorities have yet to respond.
In 1979, as a result of certain initiatives taken by the previous Government and the work done by a parliamentary committee which had made an in-depth study of the whole question, it was recommended that a committee of experts in this field be appointed to consider the whole issue of the merit principle and related matters. We all recall the famous "Report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and the Merit Principle". The report contains a rather direct recommendation concerning participation in the political process. Mr. Speaker, here is a quotation from page 171:
Simply because political participation is a right of citizens, we believe-
We, the commissioners-
-that this should be the principle that applies to public servants, only limited in the exceptional cases where an indication of partisan political interests would compromise the reputation of the public service for impartiality or would damage the individual's effectiveness as a public servant.
That is clear.
The commissioners went on to say that public employees ought to be divided into three groups.
The first group is the professional group whose duties in every job are of a rather delicate nature since it acts as adviser to the Government; therefore any partisan or political participation is excluded.
The second group is the professional group whose duties may be of a professional nature such as medicine, veterinary medicine. What difference does it make whether the gentleman or the lady happens to be a veterinarian or a physician if he or she does not give political advice to the Government? 1 simply cannot see how they can be told: Well, because you are a physician, a veterinarian or an engineer, you are excluded from participation in the democratic political process.
And the third group is the professional group whose duties are of an administrative nature, administrative support or maintenance, for example. All those people, most of them in support jobs, all those people-some 80,000-odd, Mr. Speaker-ought to be free of any restriction and free to act on the political scene if they so desire.
Mr. Speaker, the problem stems from the interpretation of Public Service Employment Act Section 32 which is rather restrictive for all federal employees, whatever their classification, and prevents them from enjoying political rights as do all other Canadians.
We all know about the regular announcements and statements made by the Public Service Commission of Canada when there is an election. A few months before an election is called, the commissioners deliver what is called their message, the message from the commissioners of the Public Service Commission of Canada to all federal employees. The message goes like this: Beware, friends, you must not participate in the political process; given your duties, you might be caught flagrante delicto and be called upon to answer for your actions and your words to the commission, thereby jeopardizing your career as public employees.
Mr. Speaker, the interpretation given by the Commission- since it is an interpretation-is served up every time an election comes around and causes a number of problems as well as a lot of anxiety and concern among the electorate and in ridings where there a lot of public servants. It causes problems because, quite frankly, and I do not think any Members of this House will deny this, public servants-of course I may be generalizing a bit-with the exception of those who act as political advisers to the Government, public servants in general, like all good citizens want to get involved and be allowed to get involved in the political process. We are talking about democracy in action, and they feel it is important to be able to express their views as citizens, and I think they are perfectly right to want to do so.
Occasionally, statements by the Commission create a certain degree of anxiety, reflected, for instance, in issues as
September 23, 1985

ordinary as a lawn sign. The public servant says: Can I put up a sign saying that I support Member X Y Z? The Commission says: I am not sure. But if you do put up a sign and there is a complaint, you are going to get into hot water! I remember the Miller case, where Mr. Miller, a Winnipeg public servant, wrote to his supervisor asking him to explain the Liberal Party's position on political participation, and it was about one of those grey areas. The document he sent us is quite interesting, and I would like to read to the House some extracts from this file, because it shows that public servants are in fact in an almost untenable situation.
This gentleman from Winnipeg wrote to his supervisor asking permission to attend a political meeting and, possibly, actively participate in the choice of delegates to a convention. The answer given was: "No. You cannot go to that political meeting because you are a public servant and, therefore, you would compromise your status." The public servant complied with the ruling but wrote to Mr. John Brown, Director, Personnel Services, Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Manitoba Region, in Winnipeg, Manitoba. He put forward a very good case which reflects the essence of the difficulties^most public servants face. The letter reads:
My reading of the act allows me to:
1.	attend political meetings (partisan or otherwise).
I think the law states that that is correct. We all agree that it is correct. The letter continues:
2.	express my own view at political meetings.
I think, again, he can do that and there would be no complaint.
3.	write letters to members of parliament expressing personal views.
We all receive letters of that type all the time.
4.	write letters to editors of public communications media expressing
personal views.
That is also correct.
5.	maintain a membership in a political party.
Again, that is accepted, even by the Commission.
6.	contribute funds to a political party.
Again, that is accepted by the Public Service Commission as a right allowed under Section 32. He goes on to state:
My reading of the act prohibits me from:
1.	raising money for a political party.
I do not know why that would be and I do not see it in the Act. However, that is the way he reads it.
2.	acting as a spokesperson for a political party in public forum while on the
public payroll.
3.	publicly supporting or working for a partisan candidate-
That would be forbidden by his own interpretation.
4.	running for political office ... without securing a leave from my employer
to do so-
Public Service Employment Act
The following section of the letter is one which I find interesting and enlightening. He says in his letter that when he asks permission to do certain things he is told that he cannot do them because he will compromise his role as a public servant. He goes on in the letter to use an analogy which I think is interesting and one which I wish to share with Members. He states:
In the obviation of your responsibility, you state in your last letter that I may be subject to some form of disciplinary action. Well, 1 may be hit by a truck crossing the street, but with the observation of certain traffic rules and conditions, and the application of good judgment, I will be able to avoid that possibility with reasonable certitude. On the other hand, I would not want to cross the street blindfolded, and that is what you are asking me to do.
Public servants who work for the public good are being told that if they do this they may be exposed to that so be careful and do not do anything. They are being told not to cross the street because they may get hit by a car. That is the gist of the difficulties faced by public servants. They do not have a clear understanding-neither do I as a matter of fact-of how to interpret Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act.
To clear the matter up and to make sure the issue is well aired and well understood, we have suggested the question of political participation be sent to a committee of the House so that all parties interested-union, individuals, groups-may be heard, advance their arguments and then proceed from there to modify, change or improve the legislation. Up to now, we have not been able to do that, and we have had great difficulties in trying to cope with this matter.
I must remind the House of one important factor with respect to the question of political participation. The law states that the Commission may act on a complaint laid by a candidate to an election. In other words, the whole question of triggering Section 32 and the consequences which flow therefrom may occur to someone who, in the opinion of the Public Service Commission, may have broken the guidelines or the law. The whole question is triggered by a candidate. According to my research, there has never been a candidate who has complained to the Public Service Commission. Therefore, the provisions of the Section have never been triggered. Thus, we have no way of knowing what exactly is in Section 32 of the Act.
I plead with the House to get this matter cleared up. Let us get the question aired. Let us get the whole problem out of the way by sending the matter to a committee of the House which will sit down and take decisions as it should. The committee does not expect the Commission to take those political decisions at election time. It is up to parliamentarians to look at the question of political participation by public servants and air the matter completely. It is up to us to take a decision with respect to what the legislation means. In that way, public servants will be better off.
There is all sorts of documentation on the matter, Mr. Speaker. I know Members have in their offices a great deal of research that we could use in discussion of the matter. 1 encourage the House to adopt the motion before us and get on with the work.
6882

September 23, 1985
Public Service Employment Act


Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, I am happy to have this opportunity to rise and speak on the motion before us. I commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) on introducing it today. As he mentioned in his opening remarks, he has been a Member of the House for a long time and has spoken on similar Bills or motions over the years. The political rights-indeed, the basic civil rights-of public servants have been a question of importance to me and to other Hon. Members on this side of the House for some period of time. I first rose to speak on the issue in November of last year in my maiden speech when I called for the restoration of political rights for public servants. Hon. Members may know that I was the only public servant elected to this House in last year's election.
This motion raises basic questions about the essential liberties of the Canadian people; whether a group of Canadians has the right to free speech, free assembly, and the right to work peacefully and lawfully for democratic change. On the surface, it would seem that there would be no question about this, but serious objections have been raised and have dominated this discussion for more than half a century.
Those who believe it is justifiable to deprive public servants of political rights make three basic arguments, Mr. Speaker: First, the case is made that public servants must not be permitted to participate in the political process, or to speak freely about public issues because there might be a conflict between the loyalties to Party and the loyalty to the Minister. This argument suggests that any perception of such a conflict of interest would undermine public confidence in the Public Service.
The second argument suggests that if public servants have the right to participate as other citizens do in the political process, or have the right to make public comment on public issues, that this might influence the decisions they have to make as they implement Government policies. They might give preference, for example, to their political friends when letting contracts or hiring new staff.
The third argument is that public servants would use their positions as advisers to Ministers to promote their own political philosophies. How, it is argued, could Ministers be assured that the advice they receive is not motivated by partisan or other types of considerations.
These are, indeed, serious questions, Mr. Speaker, and they are not questions which those who favour restoration of political rights should casually dismiss. If public servants are to have their basic rights restored, those of us who seek this restoration must answer these objections. If they could not be answered, there would indeed be some reason to consider abrogating the basis rights of freedom of speech and affiliation. However, if reasonable arguments can be marshalled against these objections, then we must not take the dire step of depriving adult Canadians of their basic liberties.
If we look at other jurisdictions, Mr. Speaker, we see that Canada's restrictions on these civil liberties exceeds those of
most other advanced western democracies. In the United States, Great Britain, Australia, France and Sweden, public servants have the right of free public expression. Where there are restrictions on political activity, these restrictions are clearly spelled out as they are in the United States, for instance. Where there are not clearly spelled out restrictions, as in Australia, for example, public servants are given the benefit of the doubt in their permitted action. While American law does not permit public servants to run for public office, it does clearly permit them the right to express an opinion on public issues, either privately or publicly, to display political badges and stickers, to be a member of a political party and to attend political conventions, although not, interestingly enough, to be a delegate to a convention. The limitations on their actions, in other words, are also clearly spelled out.
In the United Kingdom, there is a clear delineation of political rights for different categories of public servants, running from complete freedom for some public servants in jobs of low political sensitivity, to restrictions similar to those we have in Canada for a small group of senior public servants.
The basic criteria guiding the British rule, as the Fulton Committee in the U.K., a committee dealing with the civil service, stated, was that, and I quote:
Officials should not be drawn into expressing personal views on policy matters which could be represented as in conflict with those of their Ministers.
Only Japan and the Federal Republic of Germany, among the industrialized democracies, have restrictions greater than those we have in Canada.
With the passage of legislation governing the Civil Service in 1908 and 1918, political rights of civil servants in this country were strictly limited, initially with the laudable intention of reducing the debilitating effects which unbridled patronage had created in the Public Service and throughout Canada. For 50 years thereafter these restrictions continued until the Public Service Employment Act of 1967 gave public servants the limited rights to attend political meetings, to contribute money to a political party and to request, although not to be automatically granted, a leave of absence without pay if they wished to run for public office.
The report of the Task Force on Conflict of Interest in the Public Sector which reported last year said, and I quote:
The practical effect of Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act has been to extend virtually full political rights to roughly 90 per cent of public servants.
The remaining 10 per cent who were deprived were presumably deputy heads and senior public servants.
I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I disagree strongly with the view of the task force as expressed in that quotation. If, in fact, Canadian public servants were treated as are those in other jurisdictions and, if, where legislation describing their political rights was vague and the benefit of the doubt was given to the public servant, then what the task force suggested might be true. This Act does not spell out all the restrictions on public servants. It spells them out in really nothing more than a cursory manner. It leaves interpretation of the Act up to the Public Service Commission.
September 23, 1985

Unfortunately, for public servants, the interpretation of Section 32 of this Act has been notoriously fickle. Until last year many public servants in the National Capital Region did in fact participate in elections, working for candidates and all three political Parties represented in this House. The Public Service Commission in most cases overlooked this activity. However, outside of Ottawa, it often tended to act more severely, limiting the rights of public servants.
Federal departments governed by this Act interpreted this Act in different ways, and other federal agencies, not subject to the Act, have varied from permitting almost complete political freedom to public servants in some agencies, to putting severe limits on others. What this means, Mr. Speaker, is that some public servants have been denied rights which other public servants of equal status have been granted, and that in all cases, public servants have had their rights defined not by Parliament, the guardian of our civil liberties. Rather, these rights have been deprived by the whim of unelected officials or regulatory agencies.
Had the Task Force on the Conflict of Interest had the opportunity to consider the Public Service Commission's interpretation of Section 32-referred to by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier in his remarks-I am convinced its members would not have said that the practical effect of Section 32 was to extend virtually full political rights to public servants. In fact, this interpretation had the practical effect of prohibiting public servants from working for political parties in any capacity. It prevented them from attending political conventions or from making public comments on public issues.
It prevented those Canadians who happen to be public servants from taking part in the simplest of tasks in connection with the last general election. The result was to force those who did decide to work for a candidate stuffing envelopes, typing letters or answering phone calls, to look over their shoulders for fear that big brother, watching from the safety of the Public Service Commission, would catch them.
The campaigns of all three of the political Parties in this House, particularly in the National Capital Region, were assisted by workers who defy this ruling. These same campaigns were harmed by the loss of many capable individuals who were forced out of the political process by fear of the Public Service Commission. I think we should be clear about this, Mr. Speaker. These were the results, not of the acts of this Parliament taking a clearly thought out and detailed decision on a fundamental issue of civil liberties, but rather the results of administrative fiat, which arose from the vagueness of an ill-defined law, a law which allows unelected officials to deprive a group of Canadians of their democratic rights.
The fickle interpretation of the Public Service Employment Act extended also to decisions as to who should be allowed to take a leave of absence to run for political office. I was a public servant who was fortunate enough to receive the permission of the Commission to run. However, other equally competent individuals who could have served all three Parties, and all Canadians in this House, have been deprived of the right even to seek the nomination of a political Party.
Public Service Employment Act
Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act does not deal with the rights of public servants to comment on public issues in public. Limitations on freedom of expression for public servants have evolved largely through regulation by government agencies-not by legislation. The Public Service Staff Relations Board has set stringent limits on freedom of expression by public servants, banning criticisms of public policy.
It has done this even if it cannot be shown that such comments affect a public servant's effectiveness in the performance of his or her duties. The question has not become one of depriving people of their rights because it interferes with their public duties, but just depriving them of their rights.
However, we have a Charter of Rights today, enshrined in our Constitution, and this Charter guarantees everyone in Canada the freedoms of conscience, of thought, of belief, of opinion and expression. The Charter clearly says that these rights are subject only to "such reasonable limits prescribed by law as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society." In my view, the current restrictions of Section 32 go too far to be reasonable. The law turns the basic rights of a large number of Canadians over to the whims of unelected officials. The interpretation and implementation of this law has resulted in unreasonable limitations on even the smallest and most innocuous of political activities by public servants.
If we believe that the Charter of Rights is more than just easy rhetoric, then it is clear that we cannot permit unelected administrators or regulatory agencies to define who has rights and who does not. If there are to be restrictions, the burden of denying a group of Canadians their basic rights must be borne by the elected representatives of the people, who can spell out these restrictions in detail, and after sober reflection. We must act on the principle that fundamental rights cannot be casually abrogated, least of all by officials who do not represent the public will. We must proceed on the basis that unless fundamental rights are specifically denied in law, they are retained. If we are to deny these fundamental rights, then we must specify in law what this means in practice, as other countries have done.
This is an issue which affects a large number of Canadians. Two hundred and twenty-two thousand Canadians are governed by the Public Service Employment Act, and there are more than three hundred and sixty thousand more who work in Crown agencies and the Canadian Forces, but are not governed by this Act. Of this additional number, many thousands are deprived of political rights by decisions of the agencies for which they work. The situation is getting worse, Mr. Speaker. The number of Canadians directly governed by the Public Service Commission, or its predecessor, the Civil Service Commission, and thus automatically denied their political rights, has grown by almost one hundred thousand in the last 25 years. Among the people denied these rights by the Public Service Employment Act are 90,000 women; this in a society which is just beginning to deal with the fact that women have been grossly under-represented in Canadian public life.

September 23, 1985
Public Service Employment Act
The effects on the political life of this country are huge. Two thirds of all public servants live outside of the National Capital Region, so almost every community in every constituency, in every province of this country has people who are now, or could easily be deprived of their basic rights. The effects on the political life of this city, and region and our neighbours across the Ottawa River, are profound. What we have here, Mr. Speaker, is an attempt to isolate, to render politically steril a very large number of Canadians. They have been isolated in the attempt to make them politically neutral. Some people think that doing this will ensure that Ministers receive impartial advice, notwithstanding the personal opinions of the public servants working for them. These, then are the basic arguments which have been used to justify the denial of free expression to so many Canadians.
We have seen, Mr. Speaker, that the scope of these limitations is profound. What we must ask ourselves now is, first, will these limitations have the effect we want them to have, that is rendering the Public Service completely neutral and impartial; and, second, are there no alternatives to the severe and capricious limitations now imposed? What about the argument that public servants must not participate in the political process, because this would allow them to use their official positions to promote their personal political philosophies? Are we to assume that the only people who have a political philosophy are those who are active members of a political party? Preventing party membership will not sterilize the minds of public servants. Just as there are active members of political parties, although I am sure none in this House, who have no discernible political philosophy aside from self-interest, we are all aware from recent example of just how profoundly the political philosophies of supposedly neutral public servants have affected the development of public policy.
The fact is that whether public servants belong to a political party or not, their political philosophies will remain intact. Preventing them from speaking, or from participating in the political process will not stop them from thinking. It is naive, to the point of gullibility, to assume that all political views, or even the most important political allegiances, are revealed by party membership or by outspoken public comment. It is true that the public and Ministers have rights here. They have the right not to the illusion that public servants have no political opinions. Instead, they have the right to know what those opinions are, so that they may know if those views are biasing their judgment. There is no protection for the public in a muzzled Public Service, only an increased chance for the unobstrusive influence of their personal, hidden political views. The open admission of political affiliation is the clearest guarantee that Ministers will be able to judge the motives of their public servants when they give their advice. With the restoration of political rights to public servants, and openly declared political affiliation, any public servant with active party affiliation will be constrained to behave in an objective manner when dealing with the public, to demonstrate that political bias does not exist.
Nothing in the restoration of political rights to public servants removes the burden on the Public Service of behaving in a non-partisan manner in the execution of public duties. The rules requiring non-partisan, unbiased behaviour in their dealings with the public would still apply, and might be easier to enforce, because political affiliation, and thus possible bias, would be clearer. There is nothing unethical in expressing a political opinion. The only threat to our ethical standards occurs if those opinions, whether privately held or publicly expressed, result in bias in the performance of official duties. Certainly, if there is bias in the actions of a public servant, it must be dealt with. The essential question is whether public servants will act to implement government policy in a non-partisan manner, not whether they have personal views on politics or political philosophy.
Of course, it is essential that Canadians be assured their treatment by public servants will not be coloured by their political affiliation. They should also be assured that their treatment is not affected by their sex, their race, their language, or their ethnic origin. We make every effort to restrict discrimination on these grounds. We have laws and regulations prohibiting discrimination on these grounds, not prohibiting people from having bigoted views because that is impossible, but regulations which prohibit public servants from manifesting any such views in the execution of their public functions. Those who feel they have been poorly treated by public servants have means for appeal. Political descrimination by public servants can and should be handled in the same way. If we implement some of the changes suggested by the Starr-Sharp report, then there will be additional mechanisms in place which can review the behaviour of public servants to ensure that political bias is no more prevalent than linguistic, racial or sexual bias. We expect the Public Service to treat members of the public with the dignity they deserve, regardless of sex, race, age, language or ethnic origin-or political affiliation. We must treat public servants with the same dignity, the same recognition of their rights, as long as they do their job.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, may I say that I support the suggestions of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier and, as 1 said before in this House, the recommendation of the D'Avignon Committee which he referred to and which would divide the Public Service basically on the British model into three categories, giving full political rights to most public servants, particularly those unionized, limited political rights to those in the centre, and basically status quo for those at senior levels.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. It is now the third time the matter has been debated in the last six months in the House of Commons. I hope that early action will be taken by the Government to ensure that Private Members' Hour can be devoted to other subjects besides the subject of political rights. Because the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Baubney) has spoken eloquently on this subject, this time the subject has been proposed by the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), supported by myself as the Hon. Member for
September 23, 1985

Ottawa Centre, it indicates there is all Party support for the concept of implementing the promises made by all three Parties on political rights. The message should surely now be conveyed and thus 1 hope the Parliamentary Secretary will convey to the Minister that all sides are getting a bit impatient about delays when action could and should have been taken previously.
I commend the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier for introducing this subject. It is in my recollection the first time the matter has been raised in this House by a Liberal Member since the Liberals promised in the election campaign of 1980 to support the concept of political rights for people in the Public Service. The Liberals forgot that promise when they were in office from 1980 to 1984. It is my great regret that when the Hon. Member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) put forward specific legislation to provide political rights for people in the Public Service, it was my predecessor, the Member for Ottawa Centre, a Liberal, who was instrumental on more than one occasion in talking out that legislation and indicating that far from supporting the position taken by the Member for Ottawa-Vanier and apart from the right to put up lawn signs, he did not think that people in the Public Service should have increased political rights.
The Liberals have been equivocal on this. I hope and trust that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier is expressing the views of all in his Party. I certainly welcome the commitment that he has made on a number of occasions now that he is sitting in Opposition.
I would comment on one thing he mentioned in his presentation. He stated that he favours the D'Avignon Report approach in terms of providing for political rights for members of the Public Service, but doing so on a qualified basis. I would say that a qualified basis, which puts the rights of any Public Service employee at question, that they must have proof or possibly risk being challenged, is a situation which could still leave many people in the Public Service feeling insecure and unsure of their rights. That is why I have come to the view that as far as members of bargaining units are concerned, they should unequivocally enjoy full political rights. We can rely on them to be responsible in exercising those rights should they happen to be in a position which has any sensitivity, but they should unequivocally enjoy the same political rights as any other person in Canadian society.
A qualified approach, similar to the D'Avignon Report might conceivably then apply to the 10 or 15 per cent of members of the Public Service of Canada who are in managerial, supervisory or exempt positions. I would like to avoid a situation where that qualified business of "do you have rights or not" would apply to everybody, including a truckdriv-er, a carpenter, a secretary or a statistical clerk in Stats-Canada. I would like to see that avoided.
There is real urgency in this debate. I think the mandate of any Government begins to unwind after its first year, and we have had that now.
A firm promise was made on this subject by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who was then Leader of the Opposi-
Public Service Employment Act
tion during the course of the election campaign. He was quite unequivocal in terms of making his promises. It seems to me that if this matter is allowed to wait for too long, Mr. Speaker, we could face the situation where the promise will be forgotten. The now Prime Minister said during the summer of 1984:
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.
Further he stated that the restrictions on Public Service political activity, and I quote:
-are unnecessary and likely not justifiable under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
I do not agree with the Prime Minister on every point but I agreed with his judgment at that time. I welcomed the promise he made. When I stood for Parliament in my riding of Ottawa Centre this was a key issue among my constituents. I made a personal pledge to continue to work for legislation to ensure that Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act is changed and that members of the Public Service of Canada do enjoy full political rights. I made this commitment not just to my constituents but also to people in the Public Service across Canada.
We are not just talking about 220,000 people who are governed by the Public Service Employment Act. The PSCA has influence far beyond that. The Member for Ottawa West mentioned that employees of Crown corporations and people in National Defence bring the total number to something around
600,000	who are tinged or affected by the Public Service Employment Act. He might have mentioned that close to one worker in every four in Canada works in some level of Government, for a Crown corporation or for some other quasi-governmental body. Federal legislation in this, as in other matters affecting labour standards for public employees, has an effect on legislation affecting provincial and other Government employees as well. We are talking about a potential impact that could touch 2.5 million workers across the country, depending on what kind of leadership is being offered by the federal Government.
As far as my own concern about this, in the first place I strongly support providing full political rights for public employees. I have done this for a long time. I first began raising this issue when I was an Ontario MPP 12 or 13 years ago. My first private Members' Bill on the subject was introduced in the Ontario legislature around 1974 and debated around that time, Mr. Speaker. I have been raising this issue in whatever forum I could because I think it is important that people in the Public Service not be treated as second class citizens.
More recently, this matter was raised on April 15 in a resolution I put forward to have the matter of political rights referred to the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates and debated in this House. I regret to say that while it was debated, it was subsequently talked out by Members of the Progressive Conservative Party. The resolution at that time read:

September 23, 1985
Public Service Employment Act
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 finding to the House no later than June 28, 1985.
On September 13, I took the opportunity to raise the matter anew although I could not debate it. My colleague from Regina East debated it on my behalf representing the New Democratic Party. Again the matter was bogged down when Government Members suggested that the date we suggested be shifted to was perhaps inappropriate.
I raised this matter in early April in connection with the Ontario election. A number of people who are federal public employees were finding that the lack of political rights was causing them problems. One, a Transport Canada employee, has subsequently had to resign his position on the executive of a local riding association at the risk of otherwise losing his job. When the Parliamentary Secretary suggested, as I understand it, on September 13 that this was not really a matter of grave urgency because we had four years to sort it out, or three years to the next election, I wished I could have risen then to remind him that many provincial elections will take place in a very short time. All three prairie provinces are expecting to have elections within the next year or so. Quebec may be calling an election within a month of the election of its new Premier and leader of the Parti Quebecois. Ontario could have an election at any time. Certainly after two years from last May one would imagine that open season on an election in Ontario is going to be present. Federal employees working in provinces representing two-thirds of our population could find themselves still circumscribed in elections that are due to come very shortly.
This matter is urgent and cannot wait to the very end of the mandate. Let me say to the Parliamentary Secretary, and through him to his Minister, that if the Government is prepared to bring forward legislation, which can be debated here and referred to a legislative committee, by all means let it be done. Let it be done now. I am prepared to work on it. I am sure my colleagues from Ottawa-Vanier and Ottawa West are. Others have expressed support. Do not put us off by promises of early action, such as 1 had from the Minister when I raised this matter in Question Period in early April, by saying he hoped to have a report to the House very soon and then use it as a means of obfuscation or delay. This matter cannot and should not wait. I say to the Government be aware as well, and I recognize that I have some potential conflict in this, that this matter is going to come up in the Federal Court of Canada in a few weeks. Over the course of the summer, Justice Department lawyers and lawyers representing four members of the Public Service Alliance and myself have been resolving the nitty-gritties of the case so that the principles about whether restrictions on political rights violate the Charter of Rights and Freedoms can be discussed and rules upon by the Federal Court of Canada. Frankly, I would prefer to see a situation wherein the Government, having made a solemn pledge in its election campaign, fulfilled that pledge by bringing forth legislation, therefore possibly making the need for a court case nugatory. I would prefer to see that. I and other people as well
have gone forward because of the fact, among other things, that the action which we had been led to expect from the Government had not yet come forward.
Recently 1 sat on the subcommittee of the Justice Committee looking at the question of equality rights. I made submissions with respect to that question and the implications of the particular section of the Charger which indicates that every individual is equal before and under the law and has the right to equal protection and equal benefit under the law without discrimination. As Hon. Members know, this is qualified only by such reasonable limits as can be demonstrably justified in a free and democratic society. If we legislate restrictions on senior policy analysts and Deputy Ministers, I think the courts will uphold those as being reasonable limits in a free and democratic society, but not for truck drivers, secretaries, mining inspectors in the Yukon or the vast range of people who work in the myriad employment of the Public Service of Canada.
In its brief before the equality committee, the Public Service Alliance made essentially the same points. This matter keeps coming up in one way or another because, to give them their credit, Public Service unions are not prepared this time to stand back and accept the promises made by Parties in the election campaign or to wait for something to happen. They are pressing hard. I am pressing hard. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier the Hon. Member for Ottawa West and other Hon. Members, particularly the Hon. Member for Gatineau (Mrs. Mailly), are concerned about the issue and are speaking positively about the need to take action to ensure that people in the Public Service are not treated in a second-class way. Of course, we now have a situation where all three Parties are in fact committed to the issue, even though the Liberal commitment is perhaps somewhat more ambiguous.
The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) initiated discussions with the Public Service unions on this subject back in March or April. It is offered, as an excuse for the delay, that there were some problems in terms of misunderstandings, if I can be gentle about it, over the question of the deindexing of Public Service pensions and over the fact that the Public Service Alliance was also a political body which had some internal decisions to make about who should become the President at its convention in June. Recently I spoke with its new President, Mr. Daryl Bean, who had been involved because he was a member of the executive of the Alliance before the change of presidency as well as afterward. I learned essentially that no specific proposals had been put forward by the Government to the Public Service unions saying what it would like to do. There has been some canvassing of opinion, but it is not necessary to do canvassing because through the joint council and other means the Public Service unions have made their positions very clear. If they want it spelled out again, it can be done in 24 hours. They can give us a memo and we will get it for them; we will simply give all the briefs which they presented before.
September 23, 1985

What is needed now is a response from the Government that within a month's time or within a short period of time it will come up with specific guidelines from which legislation can in fact be drafted. The unions are ready. They are frustrated because of the inaction on the part of the Government. They are also frustrated, as I am, by the thought that this is part of a series of measures which could be traded off against action on pensions, on the master contract or something like that. I have been assured in private by the President of the Treasury Board that that is not the case and that the Government's commitment in the election campaign stands. However, the actions of the Government argue otherwise and suggest that it is in fact holding back until it gets action on these other areas. Since this is a matter of fundamental right, I say quite strongly that that is unacceptable and should not be tolerated, particularly in view of the fact that the discussions and negotiations in those other areas have taken perhaps longer than the Government initially expected.
In conclusion I would say that we need to maintain momentum on this subject. My colleagues and I are prepared to continue to give it Private Members' time and to raise it by other means in the House of Commons and in committee. If the Government indicates that it is acting now, so be it; let it go ahead. If not, we will have to find a way to maintain the momentum. My proposal in the spring that the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates look at the matter is a way of maintaining momentum. The Government rejected it at the time by talking it out.
The resolution of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier today simply asks us in the House to reaffirm the position which all of us took through our political Parties and through our Leaders during the course of the election campaign a year ago. If we were prepared to make that affirmation a year ago, then the Government should decide at this point in time, at five to six, that no further speaker will rise. I appeal to all Hon. Members not to rise to speak to this matter but to allow it to come to a vote. At least that would give an indication of our support to the Government and reinforce its determination to act in line with the promises it made.
The resolution of the Hon. Member reads as follows:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of amending the Public Service Employment Act and other related statutes in consequence thereof, in order to permit greater participation in the political process by federal public servants than is now allowed under the aforementioned statutes.
It is a weak resolution, but I think the intent would be clear if it were adopted. I call upon all Hon. Members to adopt this motion now.


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the speeches of the preceding Hon. Members, especially that of the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney) who put forward a good and well-reasoned argument as to the position which should be taken on the question of political rights for public servants. I think it is fair to comment upon the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa-
Adjournment Debate
Vanier (Mr. Gauthier). I compliment him on proceeding once again with this issue. I appreciate that that is somewhat easier now that he is in the Opposition and able to bring these matters forward as a Private Member. He is not as stymied as he was as a member of a Party in Government which never really got around to doing anything with respect to political rights for public servants.
As far as the remarks of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) are concerned, I note with interest that he is following our election promises diligently. I am sure he sees the definite progress which is being made on all fronts. I assure him that some progress has been made on this front. However, it does not suit our purpose to bring forward discussions which were held with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) in private and to lay them on the floor of the House of Commons as part of the daily debate. I will not comment upon those negotiations. I do not think it is fair or appropriate to do so. I appreciate his comments with respect to impending elections. I would like to set the record straight, however, with respect to the Province of Ontario. There is no possibiity of an election in this province because the provincial Liberal Party has sold out to the devil. Under the agreement reached and etched in stone, the Liberal Party, propped up by the NDP, will govern without any fear of having to go to the people. I appreciate that its Members are quite concerned about that, financially and politically. I think the record should be set straight on that score.
With respect to the question of Private Members' Hour, it is fair to say that we treat it as an opportunity for Hon. Members to participate in debate and get on the record. 1 would not say that I resent the allegation that we are talking it out, but I would rather make it positive by saying that the Hon. Member will know that I asked one of his colleagues if someone on that side wished to speak. We made sure that the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre had an opportunity. I have talked with my colleagues, and the Hon. Member for Ottawa West will confirm that we wanted to ensure that Hon. Members representing Public Service constituencies had an opportunity to put their views on the record. That is the process of Private Members' hour.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 46 deemed to have been made.
[Stage Direction]
September 23, 1985
Adjournment Debate

Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, last week in the House I raised a very important question about the proposed takeover of Prentice-Hall Publishing by an American non-publishing company called Gulf and Western.
This is a rather complicated issue because it is an indirect acquisition of some of the concerns which have been raised by the publishing community having to do with the fact of a publishing company being taken over by a firm not in publishing which will not have the interests of publishing at heart, quite apart from the issue of American or Canadian control. Nevertheless, the Government has made a commitment to deal with indirect acquisitions. It has made a very firm commitment to increase Canadian control in the publishing sector. This was made by the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) on July 6 and I very much welcomed that statement. It is a concern that in fact there really will be implementation of the principles that were declared at that time.
Let me quote from the Minister's statement and it is here. I will read it quickly:
This policy confirms the government's commitment, as enunciated in the Investment Canada Act, to maintaining Canada's cultural sovereignty and supporting the economic viability of the nation's crucially important cultural industries.
Let me continue:
In particular, the Government recognizes that the Canadian publishing industry must have opportunities to grow within its own domestic market and that foreign investment should not be allowed to jeopardize such development.
That is a very important matter in an industry which is largely under foreign control; largely under American control.
Concerning direct investment, the Minister stated, and here I am quoting again:
The Government will look with favour on proposals to establish new businesses or to acquire directly existing businesses, whather Canadian or foreign controlled, provided the investment is through a joint venture with Canadian control. For direct ecquisitions of foreign-controlled businesses, allowances will be possible if the divestiture of control to Canadians occurs within a reasonable period of (two years) at a fair market price.
Indirect acquisitions will be considered case by case, and again that is a question of divestiture.
The Government's policy is very clear. What we are concerned about is why it is not acting. This question of Prentice-Hall has been before the Government for nearly a year and there have been extensive delays in dealing with it.
I note that there are three other cases of a similar nature before Investment Canada: Ginn and Company; Copp Clark Pitman and New American Library.
The pressure from the arts community in the meantime is mounting. Let me quote from concerns which have been raised I think very cogently by the Association of Canadian Publishers. The Association of Canadian Publishers now looks forward to a directive by the Government which calls for the divestiture of these companies to Canadian owners. They are saying "act", and I think that is pretty clear.
The Writers' Union of Canada also has noted in terms of the subject matter why we need this control. Canadians have their own history. We have our own culture and we have our own view of others. Let me quote from their submission; "Only Canadian originated books (rather than Canadianized versions of American or British or French texts) can express those points of view and make them part of the consciousness of every Canadian".
It is a really important matter, Mr. Speaker. What we look forward to is a publishing industry in which textbooks which are the most lucrative part would also be Canadian originated, and that is not what is happening. We have companies like Prentice-Hall and others which we would like to have controlled by Canada so that the textbook publishing industries which does make money can then support other Canadian ventures.
Who is subsidizing, who is publishing the Canadian books right now? I am afraid it is not these big corporations, not like Prentice-Hall and certainly not under the control of Gulf and Western. That act of publishing comes from the small Canadian companies, and let me be specific. Up to 90 per cent of Canadian books are actually being published by smaller Canadian-owned companies. Specifically, in fiction it is 88 per cent, in biography it is 92 per cent, and in art books it is 87 per cent. The small companies are subsidizing this much more difficult field of publishing by paying small salaries and wages to their workers and by providing small royalties. In a healthy situation, we would have the textbook companies Canadian owned and the infrastructure being used to subsidize the production of important books for our Canadian culture, books that will not be bestsellers. That is how publishing works in other countries.
In other countries, the moneymakers support the production of scarcer, rarer kinds of books, books which are nevertheless extremely important for cultural purposes. That is what we must have in Canada. I call on the Government to act on this policy and not to hold back on all of these other cases as well.
I might add that the book distribution situation will run into the same problem. The merger of Classic Books with W. H. Smith will reduce opportunities for Canadian authors to have their books put on the market. We do not want a policy that is mere rhetoric. What we want is action. It is important that every case reflect this policy, and that the Government be true to the policy that it has enunciated on a case-by-case basis. Mere words are not enough.


Mrs. Monique  Bernatchez-Tardif@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion: Mr. Speaker, may I say, first of all, that when the Investment Canada Act was still in the draft stage earlier this year, the Government clearly stated the importance it attached to the cultural sector. In fact, it demonstrated its awareness of sensitive areas in this sector in two sections of the Act.
September 23, 1985

First, Section 15. As the Hon. Member is aware, investments made by non-Canadians with a view to acquiring directly, in Canada, a business with assets of less than $5 million, or with a view to taking control, indirectly, of a business with assets of less than $50 million or with the intention of establishing a new business in this country, are not generally subject to review. The only exception to this rule has to do with investors who are associated with Canada's cultural heritage or national identity. The Government reserves the right to review such cases.
There are four sectors where the investment must be compatible with Canada's cultural heritage or national identity. Here they are: the publication, distribution or sale of books, magazines, periodicals or newspapers, either in printed form or readily assimilated by a processing machine; the production, distribution, sale or presentation of films or video materials; the production, distribution, sale or presentation of audio or video musical recordings; the edition, distribution of sale or musical compositions, either in printed form or readily assimilated by a processing machine.
Mr. Speaker, the second part of the Act which attests to our very special conviction in this field can be found under Section 20.
Section 20 lists the factors to be considered to decide whether or not an investment will likely be of significant benefit to Canada.
Subsection (<?) of Section 20 requires the Government to take into account the compatibility of the investment with national industrial, economic and cultural policies, taking into consideration industrial, economic and cultural policy objectives enunciated by the Government or Legislature of any province likely to be significantly affected by the investment.
During oral question period last September 17, when the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) asked the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion whether the takeover of the Canadian publishing firm Prentice-Hall would be permitted, the Minister explained that the administrators had informed him that they would like some time to weigh the communications policy that his colleague, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse), made public some time ago. The Minister added: "Of course, we have facilitated their deliberations by giving them more time."
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to review the policy of the Canadian Government as concerns the Canadian book publishing industry.
Last July 6, the Minister of Communications announced this policy which states that: The Government feels that the existence of a vigourous book publishing and distribution industry controlled by Canadians is essential if this sector is to play its full role in the social and cultural life of
Adjournment Debate
Canada. The book publishing and distribution industry must benefit from policies aimed at protecting our cultural sovereignty, just as the newspapers, periodicals and broadcasting industries must do.
As concerns direct investments, according to the Minister, the Government will consider favourably any proposal to establish a new business or to acquire an existing business, whether it is controlled by Canadian or foreign interests, if this investment is projected for a joint venture under Canadian control.
In the case of the takeovers involving companies under foreign control, such transactions could be allowed if it is expected that Canadians will take control within a reasonable time, namely within two years, and at a fair market price. The Minister concluded that this policy is reflected in practice by the commitment made by this Government in the Act to establish Investment Canada to safeguard cultural sovereignty and support the financial position of cultural industries which play a vital role in our collective life. More particularly, the Government recognizes that the Canadian publishing industry must have the means to ensure its growth on the Canadian domestic market and that foreign investment must not prejudice this development.


TRUST COMPANIES-PIONEER TRUST-PLIGHT OF UNINSURED DEPOSITORS. (B) UNINSURED INCOME AVERAGING CERTIFICATES
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, on April 2,
I asked the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) two questions. I asked her whether she was still negotiating with the Minister of Finance of the Province of Saskatchewan for federal government assistance to help bail out the uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust of Regina which went into liquidation. She did not really have too much to say in the way of an answer. I then suggested to her in a supplementary question that financial institutions were falling down like ten pins. I pointed out that the CDIC stamp was placed on income averaging certificates, suggesting that they were covered by CDIC insurance when, in fact, they were not covered. I indicated that there should be some federal Government responsibility for those accounts.
At the time of my asking the question the Minister was quite incensed at my remark with respect to financial institutions falling down like ten pins. She claimed it was an irresponsible statement and added:
I can tell you right now that financial institutions in this country are not falling like then pins, and 1 am producing results.
Since April 2, we have seen the Canadian Commercial Bank go under, the CCB mortgage investment go under, Northland is on the verge of going under and Western Capital Trust has gone under. Some estimates are that this will cost some $4 billion, either to CDIC or to the Government directly. Admittedly, from hindsight, I claim that financial institutions have been crashing around the Minister's ears since that time.

September 23, 1985
Adjournment Debate
The point is that I am not happy with the Minister's answer. How much responsibility does the federal Government accept for the uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust? Hon. Members will remember that the Government did bring in legislation and that some federal money has gone to uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust. I assume, and I hope the Parliamentary Secretary will make this clear today, that the federal Government considered it had some responsibility because there were these averaging certificates of over five years which had the CDIC stamp of approval.
It is important, Mr. Speaker, that the Government quite explicitly explains to the House and to the public when it accepts responsibility and when it does not. It should be clear when it is going to bail out uninsured depositors and when it is not. I have asked the Minister this question in committees and on various occasions and I will continue to do that in the days and weeks ahead.
There seems to be, Mr. Speaker, no clear policy. One day the Government decides to bail out the uninsured depositors, as it has done with the Canadian Commercial Bank and as it is apparently committed to do if Northland should go under. The Government had a partial commitment to Pioneer and there are other financial institutions which have gone under like Western Capital Trust in which the uninsured depositors have not been bailed out at all. I have received phone calls and representations from people who have lost money. They were uninsured depositors in these various trust companies and financial institutions and they are hopping mad. They ask me why the Government is bailing out foreign depositors in the CCB and not them.
I believe it is important, Mr. Speaker, that the Government, as soon as possible, lay before the public of Canada what its policies are, when it will bail out uninsured depositors and when it will not. I think it is important for depositors and for financial institutions in this country to know the answer to that question. In particular, Mr. Speaker, for my own personal interest as well, and for the record, I reiterate my question: Did the Government bail out in part uninsured depositors in Pioneer Trust because it felt it had some responsibility because of the lack of regulation and enforcement of CDIC with respect to Pioneer Trust during its years in operation and, particularly, concerning the CDIC stamp on forwarding averaging annuity certificates which were really not covered by the Deposit Insurance Corporation?


Claude Lanthier: Mr. Speaker, Pioneer Trust was plagued with serious financial problems because of the high percentage of outstanding mortgages in its loan portfolio. The company voluntarily wound up and a liquidation order was issued on February 15, 1985.
Shortly after the Pioneer Trust liquidation order, the Hon. Barbara McDougall, our capable Minister of State for Finance
became interested in the situation of the 650 or so guaranteed income-averaging certificates issued for a period of more than five years, and therefore uninsured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation.
Our able Minister was mainly concerned with the many representations received from holders of such certificates, who submitted that they were not aware their investments were not covered by deposit insurance.
The Minister's concerns with the circumstances relating to those guaranteed income averaging certificate holders led her to conclude with the Saskatachewan Governemnt a special arrangement compensating the uninsured depositors, and to introduce the legislation needed to enact such an arrangement.
The purpose of the legislation was to grant the Minister authority to take the necessary steps to have payments made to the holders of income averaging certificates for up to the $60,000 limit that would have been applicable had those certificates been insured. In other words, the purpose was for the Canadian Government to contribute to the package for compensating the uninsured depositors of Pioneer Trust up to an amount shifting them to the position they believed in good faith they were in, namely up to the well-known $60,000 limit.
The Province of Saskatchewan assumed responsibility for all payments amounting to $60,000 and over, owed under the guaranteed income average certificates. Moreover, the Saskatchewan Government also undertook to pay back principal and interests accrued at the time of liquidation order to all holders of US dollar deposits, and all holders of deposits in excess of $60,000 in savings or chequing accounts, guaranteed income certificates or registered retirement savings plans.
In view of the above circumstances, I believe it was reasonable for the Government of Canada to act in this way to make sure all holders of guaranteed income averaging certificates remain in the position they had every reason to believe they were in, namely that they were protected up to the well-known $60,000 limit. As I said, the action taken by the Canadian Government was part of a plan involving the Province of Saskatchewan as guarantor for all other uninsured deposits, including those with deposits exceeding $60,000.
Regardless of any reference to false representations, Mr. Speaker, it was a matter of being reasonable with people who acted in total good faith.


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION-EMPLOYMENT OPPORTUNITIES IN CAPE BRETON
Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, I rise at this time to expand on a question I directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) last week. I have the honour of representing a constituency in Nova Scotia, Cape Breton Highlands-Canso, an area which includes some of our most impressive geography and
September 23, 1985

certainly Canadians of outstanding good judgment, having chosen to elect me to Parliament in September, 1984.
Regrettably, Mr. Speaker, it is also a region of high unemployment. This is a problem which has been faced by successive generations of my constituents. The previous Government did nothing to address the problem in a meaningful way. Our Government has taken important measures to effect full-time employment for my constituents. The Minister, in his response to my question, underscored these incentives, which include the Cape Breton tax credit and the topped-up IRDP assistance. These are generous measures. However, it appears that more must be done.
The urgency of the situation is highlighted by the fact that employees laid off from the heavy water plants really have no place to apply for new jobs at this time. I was most pleased to hear from the Minister his optimistic projections for new employment opportunities. The Minister is trying very hard and that is not disputed. Nor is the difficulty of finding a solution disputed.
This problem has been faced by successive federal and provincial Governments. However, I believe there are some other meaningful initiatives which can be taken at this time to create long-term employment. It is easy to complain that results have not been achieved. The real test of leadership for any Member of Parliament is not solely his ability to identify problems, it is also reflected in his ability to present solutions. That is the challenge which was not met by the previous Government. Today I will present a partial package which outlines some opportunities for new employment in my constituency. Exploitation of these opportunities will require the targeted expenditure of money by all levels of Government. 1 do not believe these initiatives will result in a net financial loss to the Government of Canada. Many of the people who will benefit from these expenditures presently receive incomes from one level of Government or another. In short, I am speaking about an investment by the Government of Canada, a good investment which will yield benefits for my constituents and, therefore, Canada.
In accordance with a general principle of common sense, we should first look for new economic opportunities by further utilizing our natural resources. In keeping with that bias, the following is suggested. We have an excellent environment for forest regeneration and therefore I am proposing that a greatly enhanced forest management program must be put in place. In addition to putting hundreds to work planting trees and harvesting old and decaying stock, we will be securing the raw material for the region's major industrial employer, Stora Forest Industries. We will therefore be securing existing jobs and facilitating corporate planning. Who knows, maybe a more sensible approach to our forests will mean expansion of those companies who use our forests. Perhaps another newsprint machine is possible.
We must consider the further utilization of waste wood as a fuel, perhaps to heat our institutions. Such a program would require wood chips and would put people now out of work back to work in the woods, for example. We must also view oppor-
Adjournment Debate
tunities for further expanding the Strathlorne Nursery, a source of tree seedlings which we require for an enhanced forest management program.
In the fishery we have opportunities to improve our fish quality, thereby adding to the value of our exports and permitting a greater reinvestment in our communities. We must further enhance the small crafts and harbours' programs so our fishermen will have the best possible facilities for harvesting the sea's wealth. We must be sure that our fish are further processed here and get away from exporting semi-processed product. We must examine the potential for utilizing even more species.
In the tourism industry there are greater opportunities for lengthening the season. Presently it is not uncommon for an operator to exist on a 90-day season. Surely we can improve upon this. I advocate increased spending on promotion and the enhancement of our tourism facilities and services.
The agricultural sector is growing in importance and its contribution to the economy of Antigonish County alone is $8 million. That is an impressive achievement over the last 10 or 15 years.
There are other specific measures that can be taken to achieve permanent employment. For example, I advocate the construction of a coal fired electrical generating station at the Strait of Canso. We, in Nova Scotia, have a desperate need for new electrical capacity and we must move away from the utilization of oil. In addition to putting in industry at the Strait of Canso, we will be putting miners in industrial Cape Breton to work.
I advocate the construction of an underwater institute at the Strait of Canso to complement the Nova Scotia Nautical Institute presently under construction.
I advocate the further expansion of the Strathlorne nursery, which has already been mentioned. I advocate the construction of the Grassy Island Museum in Canso, a remote part of my riding. I advocate the upgrading of the highway so that the tourism potential of this region may be further utilized.
The Cheticamp harbour must be upgraded. Millions of pounds of fish are landed there each year, much of which is trucked out. There is an opportunity for making Cheticamp the boat service centre for the Gulf region. It is a natural initiative and one that must be strongly supported. We must put capital in our shipbuilding industry.
We must further develop the potential of the Mulgrave harbour as an offshore service centre, and for international trade. We must consider the relocation of public service employment to this high unemployment region, something that we call decentralization.
These initiatives, Mr. Speaker, will require the expenditure of money, but this money will be a wise investment of our region. In promoting these we must, at all times, keep in mind the importance of being cautious and realistic.

September 23, 1985
Adjournment Debate
For decades my constituents have had false hopes held in front of them, called carrots. It is time for that to end, for results to be delivered and for us to be totally realistic.


Mrs. Monique  Bernatchez-Tardif@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion: Mr. Speaker, Cape Breton has a workforce of some 69,000 which represents 18 percent of that of Nova Scotia as a whole. Out of that figure, 14,000 are now jobless, and this accounts for a 20-percent unemployment rate. It is therefore essential that Cape Breton be the target of all industrial efforts.
The Canadian Government strategy for Cape Breton encompasses the following:
A grant package, intended to provide Cape Breton native investors and others with the incentive to apply the human and financial resources to the creation of long-term jobs;
An advisory committee to ensure the monitoring of tax incentives and recommendations on long-term job creation; and, finally,
Co-operation with the Provinces to ensure co-ordination and efficiency.
The Federal Development Bank has a program offering seminars for informing laid-off AECL employees on how to set up a business. Some of these employees have shown an interest in Cape Breton.
The RIE, the Cape Breton Development Corporation and Skita are now working together to ensure coordination in the promotion of efforts to help Cape Breton.

The Minister is looking forward to receiving the report of the Cape Breton advisory committee expected to be delivered to the federal and provincial Governments later this month. While the advisory committee is looking at long term economic development issues, the federal Government has done much to address the immediate needs of Cape Breton's unemployed. Through the ongoing and special programs of a large number of federal Departments and agencies, thousands of jobs have been created in Cape Breton to help ease the immediate crisis of unemployment.
Canada Employment and Immigration programs have created 2,500 short-term jobs in Cape Breton in 1985. Devco's coal division has put roughly 1,200 people to work on projects this year.
The Department of National Defence programs have resulted in short-term jobs for 140 Cape Breton youths. Construction at the Coast Guard college is creating about 1,200 person weeks of employment. Another Coast Guard project, particularly the wharf expansion and transit shed construction in North Sydney will create 1,500 person weeks of employment. Taken together, this will amount to about six months work for roughly 108 people.
Federal support this Fiscal year for projects under two federal provincial forestry agreements will produce over 6,240 weeks of work for Cape Bretoners to improve the Island's forest resource, the equivalent of six months work for 250 people.
Much of the work being done under the major program of CDIC and Devco will improve the infrastructure base and quality of life in Cape Breton and make the Island more attractive to industries capable of creating long-term jobs. This Government will help Cape Breton.
[ Translation]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 o'clock a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.31 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, September 24, 1985