1985-09-12

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Wednesday, September 11, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday during my comments with respect to Bill C-65, I addressed the part of the Bill that deals with the Public Complaints Commission. I raised a number of questions that 1 thought should be addressed at the committee stage. First, with respect to the definition of a complaint, I asked whether the definition provided in Bill C-65 was sufficient or whether we as parliamentarians should opt for a more expanded definition of a complaint such as that definition which was adopted by the Marin Commission. I also raised the question of whether or not the model that is proposed in Bill C-65 for the Public Complaints Commission is the model that is the most acceptable. Hon. Members will know that there are a number of other models that were addressed in the Marin Commission. The Marin Commission recommended a police ombudsman to look into the entire question of public complaints. That Commission suggested a one-person commission to deal with complaints.
Professor Allan Grant of Osgoode Hall Law School, a world expert on police complaint procedures, developed five other possible models for public complaints. Arthur Maloney suggested a further model. The committee will have to see whether or not the model that has been suggested in this particular piece of legislation is the best model possible in the circumstances to deal with complaints against the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
Another issue I raised yesterday during my comments was the question of the powers given to this particular commission. As Hon. Members know, under the proposed legislation this commission consisting of 12 individuals has the authority or power simply to recommend to the Minister and the Commissioner of the RCMP a certain resolution to a particular
complaint. The commission will not have any investigatory power of its own but simply the power to review decisions that have been made by the Commissioner. That is another issue at which we ought to look in committee.
As well, we should discuss whether or not it is appropriate to have a commission consisting of 12 individuals. As I indicated, the Marin Report suggested one person. The proposed legislation provides for a 12-member commission. Hon. Members will have to determine whether or not it is economical and appropriate to create a bureaucracy consisting of 12 individuals and indeed whether or not it is necessary to have 12 full-time individuals dealing with public complaints.
Another issue that concerns me is the question of the powers of the commission to hold in camera meetings. The committee will have to decide whether or not that power should be given to the commission and, if so, under what circumstances the Public Complaints Commission should have the authority to hold in camera hearings. We will have to determine whether it is in the public interest to have all hearings held by the commission held in public or whether there is a public interest to be served in holding certain hearings in camera.
Another issue that was of concern to the Opposition was the right of the Commissioner to refuse or terminate an investigation. Should the Commissioner of the RCMP be given the authority to deem a particular complaint frivolous or vexatious and thereby not pursue the complaint? It is provided in the proposed legislation that a complainant can go directly to the Public Complaints Commission to lodge a complaint. However, those complainants who decide to lodge their complaints initially with the RCMP will be faced with the possibility of having the RCMP decide not to investigate for whatever reason.
The committee will have to decide if it is in the public interest to give the Commissioner of the RCMP the authority to decide that a complaint is frivolous. It will have to decide if that responsibility should not rest with an independent body. Is there a concern that if that authority is given to the Commissioner and to the RCMP the public will question the independence of the complaints procedure? There are those who argue that the mere fact that the RCMP will do the initial investigation would, in and of itself, suggest that there may be a bias in the investigation of a particular complaint made by a member of the public. The issue of whether or not the RCMP should have the authority to decide to investigate a complaint will have to be addressed.
For the remainder of my time, I would like to deal with the other major section of Bill C-65 which contains provisions for

September 12, 1985
RCMP Act
revised discipline and grievance procedures and which formalizes rights for members of the force in these matters. These provisions include the establishment of a right to counsel. Prior to this point in time, members of the force who were subject to disciplinary action and who were involved in an investigation, either for criminal activity or for a breach of the code of conduct, did not have the entrenched right of representation by counsel. The legislation before us gives the RCMP officer who is under review the right to a lawyer. That is a tremendous step forward.
Members of the Opposition look forward to hearing from members of the force with respect to the whole aspect of Bill C-65 which deals with the internal discipline and grievance procedures, which have been long awaited by members of the force. Indeed, the Opposition is looking forward to the input from members of the force to hear what their views are with respect to the proposed legislation.
As Hon. Members know, Bill C-65 will create an external review committee composed of a chairman and four members appointed by the federal Cabinet to review grievances, serious discipline cases and orders for discharge or demotion. The committee will have the authority to make recommendations to the Commissioner who retains the authority to make the final decision. There are those who argue that this review committee should have the final authority to decide upon a particular grievance. There are others who argue that if that is allowed, then two separate reins of command will be established and the functioning of the RCMP and discipline within the force will be jeopardized as a result of giving a body outside of the RCMP the authority to make the final determination with respect to a grievance which has been filed. The committee which will be established under this legislation, like the complaints commission, will report annually to Parliament as opposed to the Solicitor General. That is a visible and appropriate provision in the Bill.
In June of 1984, a group known as the Association of 17 Divisions appeared before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs on Bill C-13 to respond on behalf of RCMP members. As I indicated yesterday, Bill C-13 was a Bill almost identical to the Bill which is before us today. That Bill was introduced by the previous Liberal administration. The Association of 17 Divisions appeared before the Senate committee and raised some interesting points which, in my view, should be considered and acted upon.
With respect to the issue of the suspension of a member from the force, Clause 13.1 of the proposed legislation gives the Commissioner of the RCMP considerable power. For instance, he can suspend without pay an officer who has contravened or is suspected of contravening the RCMP code of conduct, any Act of Parliament or any legislature. It would seem that in the case of a member who is simply suspected of having contravened the code of conduct, or any other law, that person should be presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process of law. That, of course, is guaranteed under the Constitution Act but not under Bill C-65. I think it would be an advisable amendment to the Act to provide that the Commissioner have the authority to suspend a member but to suspend that member with pay until a final determination is made with respect to the particular complaint against that officer.
Suspension from duty without pay also presupposes guilt and constitutes immediate punishment before due process has been completed. Whether rightly or wrongly, it is also perceived as exerting extreme pressure on a member of the force to resign, perhaps. It should be noted that suspension from duty with pay, pending completion of an investigation for an alleged offence, is considered an acceptable administrative practice. As a matter of fact, it was one of the recommendations of the Marin Commission. 1 should also add, Mr. Speaker, that one of the problems associated with suspension without pay is that the member of the RCMP who is suspensed is prohibited by current RCMP regulations from obtaining other employment. For example, a member who is suspended without pay can demonstrate how this power could cause untold personal trauma as well as much income loss.
In June of 1982, a member of the RCMP was arrested for an alleged offence under the Narcotic Control Act. Based upon preliminary information, the Commissioner had reason to believe that this member had committed a serious offence. In the Commissioner's judgment, the circumstances were so serious and extreme that he ordered the member suspended without pay notwithstanding that basic and fundamental principle of our justice system that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty.
When the Commissioner's legal authority was questioned in this particular case, the suspension was changed and the individual officer in question was suspended with pay. The officer was charged under the Narcotic Control Act. However, these charges were subsequently withdrawn by the Crown since the Crown was of the opinion that there was no evidence to warrant a prosecution.
In these particular circumstances, Mr. Speaker, one should ensure that these officers are not suspended without pay. It is not difficult to assume that if the Commissioner had possessed the authority to suspend this particular officer without pay, he could have been suspended without pay for the two-year period which was involved from the moment this person was suspected of contravening the Narcotic Control Act to that point in time when the charges were withdrawn.
Certainly, Mr. Speaker, there are situations which might arise in which a member of the force is alleged to have committed a serious criminal offence or has seriously contravened the code of conduct. In cases where the continued service of a member of the force cannot be tolerated, that person can be processed for a discharge on an urgent basis. In my view, at least, this section on suspension should be changed to allow the Commissioner to suspend the officer from duty with pay until the final disposition of that particular grievance.
In Part II of the Bill there is a section relating to eligibility to sit on the RCMP External Review Committee. As the Bill
September 12, 1985

reads now, no member of the force is eligible to be appointed. Representations by the RCMP Association of 17 Divisions which represents members of the force were made to the effect that no one who has ever been a member of the RCMP should be appointed to this particular committee. I think this is a reasonable suggestion which could enhance the fairness and objectivity of the committee.
Another recommendation made by the association was that the decision under the grievance procedure be rendered within a six-month period. This would appear to be a worth-while recommendation as well. It does place some demands on the review committee but these demands would not be either onerous or unreasonable. I think it would be abundantly equitable and fair to ensure that an RCMP officer's grievance is dealt with as expeditiously as possible. The association also recommended that where a decision is not rendered within six months, the decision be deemed to be in favour of the grieving member. That, in my view, would certainly provide an incentive to encourage swift decision-making by the RCMP and by the review committee.
Another aspect of this legislation which appears to be wanting is Subsection 33(4) which deals with the types of grievances which are referable to the committee. It says that the Governor in Council may make regulations prescribing the types of grievances to be referred to the committee. In my view, Mr. Speaker, it would be advisable if the grievances were spelled out explicitly rather than by way of regulation. That would serve to make the whole process more definite and add some certainty.
To conclude, I wish to reiterate that the Official Opposition supports this Bill in principle. We believe it should be dealt with on a non-partisan basis. The legislation has been on the back burner for far too long. Both the public and members of the force have been waiting for it. The sooner we deal with this Bill in committee, the sooner it becomes law, the better as far as the public is concerned. We look forward to a thorough debate of this Bill in committee. We will be raising the questions I have raised in my submissions and, hopefully, with the support of all Parties, we will make this a better piece of legislation. Thank you for the opportunity 1 had to speak on Bill C-65.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join in this debate on Bill C-65, an Act which is long overdue. In fact, the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) indicated yesterday that this is the seventh attempt, since the report of the Marin Commission was issued in 1976, which successive Governments have made to deal with the important concerns set out in Bill C-65. I might say as well that, although the Solicitor General was not able to be present for the debate today, I do want to convey to him my best wishes on his appointment. This is the first Bill he has brought before the House in his capacity as Solicitor General and I know his reputation for fairness and integrity will serve him well in that very important position. I have had the privilege of working
RCMP Act
closely with the Hon. Member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe over the past six years as a member of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, and I know that members of that committee, indeed all Members of this House, would agree with me in saying that we welcome the appointment of that Hon. Member to this very important position.
In turning to the provisions of Bill C-65, I am not going to repeat all of the concerns raised in the context of committee study of this Bill and predecessor Bills. However, I do want to note that the essential purpose of the Bill is one which we in this Party welcome. Indeed, the purpose of the Bill is threefold. First, to establish a public complaints commission for the RCMP to ensure there is a forum for the adjudication of complaints about wrongdoing within the RCMP. Second, to establish an external review committee to review grievances by members of the force. In many ways the present grievance procedure is something out of the Dark Ages. It denies fundamental justice and fair play to members of the force. Finally, the external review committee would have the power to deal with serious discipline cases and provide for orders relating to discharge and demotion.
In a very general sense the Bill is based on the recommendations of the Marin Commission established in 1974 and which reported in 1976. However, there are a number of fundamental differences between the recommendations of that commission and those of the Government in Bill C-65. In most cases, I submit, the proposals of the commission are better than those of the Government and I will deal with the specifics when I come to those particular areas.
The last time this Bill or its predecessor in the last Parliament, Bill C-13, was given consideration was when the subject matter of Bill C-13, which, as my friend from York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) pointed out, is virtually identical to that of Bill C-65, was discussed last spring when it was before the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. That committee received an order of reference to study the subject matter of the Bill. None of the predecessor Bills were debated in the House. They were tabled for first reading, but this is the first time there has ever been a debate in this House on amendments to the RCMP Act.
[DOT] (U25)
The Senate committee heard from a number of witnesses. In addition to the Solicitor General and representatives of his Ministry it heard from the Attorney General of British Columbia, Mr. Brian Smith, counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, Alan Borovoy, and representatives of the Associations of 17 Divisions. I will have more to say about the very fine work that is being done by the association in a few moments. The committee heard as well from members of the Divisional Staff Relations Representative Program, the Div. Rep. Program as it is known within the force. The Senate committee also received written representations from a number of Attorneys General and other officials.

September 12, 1985
RCMP Act
The study by the Senate committee focused on three or four specific areas; the public complaints procedure, discipline, discharge and demotion, and the procedure for dealing with grievances within the RCMP. In my initial remarks I would like to deal with the question of the public complaints procedure. Before doing that, however, I will note that the existing procedures in the provinces for dealing with complaints about improper conduct and wrongdoing on the part of members of the RCMP and of other police forces within their jurisdictions are very inadequate. The Supreme Court of Canada recently ruled in the Putman decision, which originated in the Province of Alberta, that provincial Government had no power whatsoever to impinge on the internal management of the RCMP. Those provincial Governments which attempted to bring RCMP members employed under contract with the province within the scope of their police complaint and discipline legislation, were denied the right to do so. That left a hiatus in the law because, on the one hand, the provinces had no power to deal with the complaints of the public and, on the other, at this point, there is no complaints procedure of any substance directly under the jurisdiction of the RCMP itself.
Constitutionally there are serious problems with respect to this question, but, as well, there are serious concerns with respect to the existing powers of provincial police commissions to review complaints by the public. The Attorney General of British Columbia argued that he wanted the provincial Government and the provincial police commission to have control over the complaints procedure. If that were implemented, many of us would argue that that procedure is very defective. In fact, in an annual report submitted about three or four years ago to the Government of British Columbia the former ombudsman of that province said, "Sometimes I wonder if the appeal procedure provided for in the Police Act was designed to discourage complaints". Indeed, that has, unfortunately, been the experience of too many complainants under the B.C. police procedure.
I am very pleased to be able to report to the House that the enlightened administration in the Attorney General's Department in the Province of Manitoba, under an NDP administration, has brought forward model legislation in the important area of complaints procedure for the police in that province as well as with regard to grievance and consideration of discharge and demotion. That legislation could well serve as a model to the federal Government. I certainly intend to bring the provisions of that Bill to the attention of the legislative committee which will be studying this particular Bill.
1 suggest that we call witnesses from the Police Commission of the Province of Manitoba to indicate to the committee what their experience has been with that excellent legislation.
As well, the City of Toronto had a specific provision for a complaints procedure. I know that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) would be familiar with that. It is a procedure which, again, has been strongly commended by those who are active in this field since
it does provide for independent investigation and an independent review process. I believe that the provincial legislation which authorized that independent complaints procedure in Toronto expired at the end of 1974. However, it certainly is another model which we will want to examine closely in determining what improvements might be made to this federal legislation which does fall short in a number of important aspects that I will deal with shortly.
In terms of the public complaints procedure, I have indicated that through the appearance before the Senate committee of the Attorney General of British Columbia and by way of written submission from Attorneys General from a number of other provinces, Attorneys General have expressed serious concern that in view of the fact that they pay the bill and that in eight of the ten provinces the RCMP is the contract police force, they should have a far greater role to play in the process of review of complaints by the public.
I do not concur in the suggestion of those who state that there should be no national standard and no national complaints procedure. I believe that the RCMP is a national police force and that the standards which are applicable should be national standards. However, I do believe that a number of representations made by provincial Attorneys General should be given very serious and careful consideration. Rather than delegating powers from the federal Government to the provincial Government to deal with complaints, they recommend the involvement of the provincial nominees or appointees in that process. I am pleased to note that this Bill, unlike the predecessor Bill, does make provision for consultation with the provinces on the appointment of eight of the 12 members of the Public Complaints Commission. Of course, that reflects the eight provinces which contract with the federal Government for the services of the RCMP. That is an important appointment process and I know it will be welcomed by provincial Attorneys General.
There are other possible improvements to the process. Yesterday in his remarks to the House the Solicitor General indicated that when dealing with a complaint from a particular province, the provincial nominee from that province would have the right to sit and adjudicate on that complaint, in some cases as the sole adjudicator. 1 do not read this Bill that way and would want to consider carefully whether that should be the case. For example, when a complaint comes from Alberta, should it be the Alberta nominee on that Public Complaints Commission, at least at the first instance, who hears that particular complaint? It may very well be that there will be a final review by the full commission but it would help to facilitate uniform standards within provinces if complaints from particular provinces were dealt with initially by the nominee from that province.
In other circumstances-particularly dealing with very serious complaints-it may very well be that the entire commission or a sub-committee of the Commission that comprises not only provincial nominees but federal nominees would want to look into those complaints.
September 12, 1985

Another important recommendation being made is that where a complaint is made directly to the commissioner or to the Public Complaints Commission, the Attorney General of the province within which that complaint is initiated should be informed of the complaints. Currently, a serious complaint can be made to the commission or indeed to the Commissioner of the RCMP. That complaint will not be forwarded automatically to the provincial Attorney General. I suggest that provincial Attorneys General have the right to know when there are complaints about the functioning of the force within their particular jurisdiction. That is a concern which was raised by the Attorney General of Saskatchewan as well as the Attorney General of Newfoundland and I suspect others would share that concern.
Finally, in dealing with the general concerns of the provincial Attorneys General, I note the suggestion that has been made by the Attorney General of the Province of Saskatchewan, Gary Lane, with respect to the ultimate powers of the Public Complaints Commission. He suggests that it is just not good enough that the commission should consider complaints, have findings and make those recommendations to the Minister, which then would be forwarded to the Commissioner of the RCMP who can then completely ignore those recommendations. If this process is to have any integrity at all, particularly in the eyes of the public, I would suggest that the representation of the Attorney General of Saskatchewan and many others on this point should be carefully taken into consideration and indeed adopted. It is that the commission's findings with respect to whether or not there has been misconduct by a member of the RCMP should in fact be final and binding. It should not be up to the Commissioner to ignore those findings after a study. The Attorney General of Saskatchewan goes on to say that if in fact as a result of such a finding there is a recommendation for discipline, the disciplinary consequences must flow. Once again, it is not good enough that there should be a finding of wrongdoing which is then turned over to the Commissioner of the RCMP who can proceed to ignore the recommendation made with respect to discipline. Obviously, there can be some discretion left in the hands of the Commissioner with respect to the nature or degree of punishment, but it is not good enough to suggest that he can simply ignore those recommendations with impunity.
In summary, those were the concerns raised by the Attorneys General with respect to the predecessor Bill, Bill C-13. There are two other fundamental concerns with respect to this public complaints process. Before dealing with those concerns which relate to who will investigate complaints and who will make the final decision, let me raise one further issue with respect to the appointments process to this Public Complaints Commission. It is essential that Parliament itself play a role in that appointments process. As early as 1976, the Marin Commission Report recommended that the external agencies- which were recommended by Marin-report not to a Minister but directly to Parliament. I suggest that not only is it essential that these committees report to Parliament, where the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs can consider them
RCMP Act
and in fact make recommendations for legislative change if necessary, but that Parliament should be involved as well in the process of appointment to both of these commissions.
The report of the Special Committee on Reform of the House of Commons is before the House. That is an outstanding committee which has done a great service to this Parliament in making recommendations for change to the process of appointments by Government. I would urge the Government to ensure that Parliament plays a role when appointments are to be made to the Public Complaints Commission and the External Review Commission. Furthermore, whatever process is envisaged for reviewing federal government appointments, that process should apply to appointments to these commissions as well. Not only would Parliament be involved in the appointment of these commissions, it would also be involved subsequently when the commissions would submit their annual reports to Parliament. I think that the involvement of those of us who are elected representatives, representing all parts of this country, is very important in terms of the integrity of this process.
I mentioned that there are two very serious concerns, both with this Bill and the predecessor legislation, in the area of the investigation of public complaints. The first concern is that as the Bill is now drafted, the investigation of any complaints against the RCMP will not be made by an independent investigator or investigators who are on the staff of the Public Complaints Commission but in fact will be made by the people who are being investigated. The Bill provides that public complaints about the RCMP shall be investigated by the RCMP. I do not think that is good enough. I do not think that is an appropriate means of dealing with the concerns of individual Canadians or groups of Canadians with respect to possible wrongdoing by the RCMP. My friend, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) referred yesterday to the very positive perception with which the RCMP is regarded in Canada. He is absolutely right about that. It is essential where there is a possibility of wrongdoing, either institutionally or on the part of an individual member, that complaints about wrongdoing should not be investigated by the force that is itself subject to a complaint, but should be in investigated independently.
I mentioned that the counsel for the Canadian Civil Liberties Association appeared before the Senate committee studying this Bill. He pointed out that if we leave it up to the RCMP to investigate the RCMP, there are at least three serious concerns.
First, in a number of cases people will simply just not be prepared to make a complaint. Even though it is quite possible that the RCMP would fully investigate, the perception on the part of many members of the public would be that if there is not an outside investigation, they will not bother complaining. People who have legitimate complaints will simply not make them because they feel they do not want an internal review process.

September 12, 1985
RCMP Act
Second, there must be a complete investigation made without any possibility of extraneous considerations. The general counsel, Mr. Borovoy, pointed out that the commission would not be in a position to perceive any defects or gaps in the material presented to it or in the manner in which the investigation was carried out. As he said:
-unless you are talking about glaring inadequacies in the investigation, it would virtually take clairvoyance to spot defects in the investigation from reading an investigation report. It will not be good enough and the commission is virtually dependent on the investigation that is done by the R.C.M.P.
The third major area of concern with respect to an internal investigation of complaints is that such an internal investigation is vulnerable to the suspicion that there may be internal or inter-departmental jealousies or that the considerations of public relations may prevail over the interests of objective fact-finding.
That is a well founded concern, and another reason for rejecting the proposal in this Bill that there should be internal investigation. Rather than a form of internal investigation, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association recommended that the Public Complaints Commission should have an investigative capacity similar to that employed by the metropolitan Toronto police complaints commissioner who can independently inquire into and investigate the allegations of a complaint without relying upon someone within the police force to investigate a complaint about the police force. In addition, that investigator can have full access to all police records and premises. He can appoint persons to assist him in his investigations and can apply to a Justice of the Peace for a search warrant to assist in the investigations.
There are similar powers and the Manitoba legislation, to which I referred earlier.
The Association of 17 Divisions made a representation as well with respect to the process of investigation of public complaints. It suggested that the rules which govern such investigation should be enumerated in statutory form. I am not sure that they have to be enumerated in statutory form, but they should be clearly set out in regulations. Those regulations should be subject to review by the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
I was very pleased yesterday to note that the Minister had given a commitment that all regulations and all regulationmaking powers in this Bill will ensure that there is a review by that important standing committee, and that the so-called magic formula will be used to remove any doubt about the possibility for review by that committee on regulations which are promulgated pursuant to this Act.
The first area of concern, Mr. Speaker, with respect to the public complaints process, is the question of internal investigation, but there is a second very fundamental area of concern, namely, who makes the final decision. After there has been an investigation, who will make the decision if it is found that a complaint is well founded? Who will make the decision as to whether or not there will be any form of disciplinary action or a change in policy and procedure? In the Bill, as it is presently worded, it is the Commissioner of the RCMP himself who
makes that decision. I suggest that that process undermines the public confidence that justice is being done and, more important, that justice is seen to be done. I do not think we can overlook the history in this area as well.
The report of the McDonald Commission documented not only clear instances of individual abuses, illegality, breach of the law, but it went so far as to talk about institutional contempt for the law. Yet, despite the documentation of this wrongdoing, of this illegality, to this day there has not been a single disciplinary action taken against any member of the RCMP who was involved in that wrongdoing or illegality.
This nation is founded on the principle of the rule of law. That principle requires all of us, be we Members of Parliament, police, or ordinary Canadians, to be subject to the same law. I suggest that the failure on the part of the Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Crosbie) to prosecute where there was evidence of wrongdoing, and in this context the failure of the Commissioner of the RCMP to take disciplinary action where such action was clearly warranted, undermines that fundamental respect for the rule of law which is so important in Canada.
The McDonald Commission documented a whole series of wrongdoings, whether illegal mail-opening, illegal access to government records, income tax files and other government records, illegal access to medical records, kidnappings, post office and barn burning. The list went on and on. What this Bill would condone is a process whereby if individuals who were wronged by actions of the RCMP, similar to those unfortunate reprehensible actions, made complaints, went to the public complaints Commissioner tomorrow and that commission reviewed the evidence, came to the conclusion, as did the McDonald commission that the complaints were well founded, the commission would have no power to do anything about it. What the commission would then do would be to turn the matter over to the Commissioner of the RCMP. They would say, "Here you are, Mr. Commissioner. We believe the law was broken. We believe there was misconduct and we believe there should be discipline". The Commissioner of the RCMP can say, "Thank you very much, but forget it. I do not intend to implement your recommendation". That is precisely what this Commissioner did when he received evidence of wrongdoing previously. He was asked to review evidence for the possibility of disciplinary action. He reviewed the evidence and said, "Forget it. There will be no disciplinary action whatsover".
I know constituents of all Members of Parliament, including our distinguished Speaker, share the concerns that the rule of law must be obeyed. I hope he will share the concern that this Bill undermines this fundamental principle. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) has pointed out, in some cases those who were involved in this wrongdoing, far from being disciplined, were promoted. Once again, that is unacceptable.
I would strongly urge the Government to reconsider this provision and to provide, as the Attorney General for Saskatchewan, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and
September 12, 1985

others have recommended, that the final decision with respect to discipline be in the hands not of the Commissioner of the RCMP but of the Public Complaints Commission itself.
I refer as well in this context to a letter which was written by Clay Ruby, a very distinguished and outstanding Canadian lawyer who, in referring to the previous Bill, said the Government's Bill:
-leaves the final decision on a complaint by a member of the public against a member of the RCMP to be decided by the RCMP itself. The independent commission of inquiry can be ignored by the RCMP. Based on their track record of ignoring ministerial directives, the law of the land, the Criminal Code and standards of ordinary decency, this does not give one much room for hopeful expectations.
When will politicians understand that the public is no longer prepared to accept that it is proper, fair or just for a police force to investigate itself and make decisions about what disciplinary action to follow from its own misdeeds?
I think Mr. Ruby puts it very well, and I wholly support the concerns which he raised.
My final point in this particular area concerns the nature of complaints which can be investigated by the Public Complaints Commission. My colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), touched on this issue yesterday. Before the previous Government got cold feet on this question, it introduced Bill C-19 in 1978. Both in that Bill and in the report of the Marin Commission there was a recommendation that the Public Complaints Commission should have the power not only to investigate individual complaints by members of the pubic with respect to individual acts of wrongdoing, but a broader power to investigate matters of general concern, allegations of general wrongdoing or questions about RCMP policy. That was the strong recommendation of the Marin Commission in 1976, and it was contained in a predecessor Bill. As it stands now, the Bill would allow a complaint only with respect to the conduct of any member or other person appointed or employed under the authority of the Act. I suggest that that is far too narrow. If there is a concern on the part of a man or woman anywhere in Canada with respect to RCMP policies or administrative matters, he or she should have the right to bring that concern before the Public Complaints Commission.
The next major area in the Bill is the one which deals with discipline and demotion. The major representations made in this area were those made by the Association of 17 Divisions. I should like to take this opportunity to say a few words about that association. I believe that its 2,500 or 2,700 members are very well represented, and I believe that its fundamental objective, which is to accord collective bargaining rights to members of the RCMP, is one that the House should in fact support. This Bill does not remove the impediments in the Public Service Staff Relations Act to the right to full and free collective bargaining on the part of members of the RCMP. The history of the response of senior officers within the RCMP, indeed the Commissioner, to the Association of 17 Divisions is not a particularly happy one. As far back as 1980, the Commissioner of the RCMP sent out a directive indicating
RCMP Act
the position of the force with respect to that association-"do not recognize it either positively or negatively".
The RCMP is the only major police force in North America which does not have the right to collective bargaining. I emphasize that we are not talking about the right to strike. The Association of 17 Divisions made very clear that it was not seeking the right to strike. Surely we should recognize in this day and age the right of members of the RCMP, under the provisions of the Charter of Rights which accord freedom of information, to collective bargaining on issues of concern to those members, issues of concern such as pay and working conditions. The fundamental right to full and free collective bargaining continues to be denied to members of the force. In effect there is a staff relations representative system, but that so-called Div. Rep system has not worked well at all. It is perceived by many to be too closely aligned to management within the RCMP. The reality is that one divisional representative under the present scheme has to speak for some 800 to 1,000 constables, NCOs and certain civilian personnel. Quite simply, he cannot deal with the many complaints about transfers and so on with which a union such as the Association of 17 Divisions could deal.
I should like to note a couple of the successes of the Association of 17 Divisions. It was thanks to the work of that association in a court case in British Columbia, the Husted case, that members of the RCMP who were up on internal disciplinary proceedings within the RCMP were given the right to counsel. It was not until the association intervened that they got that basic right to counsel. In fact, after that, a superintendent in Vancouver went on to say that a ruling may have been won with respect to two officers but that in all fairness the accused should not get the benefits of counsel which had previously been denied to others. I do not think we should pursue that logic too far. Unfortunately it is a mentality which is a little too prevalent within the RCMP hierarchy.
The second major victory of the association was with respect to pay. The previous Government brought forward a pay package which was to take effect four months after the expiry of the previous pay package. Members of the RCMP right across Canada voiced their outrage or their sense of betrayal that the previous Government was prepared to allow three months to go by without any form of pay increase whatsoever. It was only when that association intervened very forcefully right across the country that the previous Government backed down on the decision to deny retroactive pay to members of the force. It left a bitter taste in the mouths of many members. Unfortunately it demonstrates that without full bargaining rights that kind of thing could happen tomorrow, that members of the force are still at the whim of the Government. The association speaks with a voice which should be heeded by the Government and the committee which will study the Bill.
The provisions with respect to discipline contain a number of areas which we will want to consider closely in the course of this debate. For example, an informal disciplinary action can be taken against a member, that is, a recommendation for transfer can be imposed without recourse by management to
6530

September 12, 1985
RCMP Act
the elaborate hearing and adjudication procedures set out in the Bill. Obviously a recommendation for transfer can constitute a punitive action which is in some cases greater than an actual breach of discipline. A member could be required to sell his home, incurring substantial financial loss.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston spoke of a number of concerns yesterday, for example, the concern that under the provisions for discharge and demotion there were procedural inadequacies. Also there is a concern that under the grievance procedure the Commissioner is the final and binding authority, subject to review under the Federal Court Act. Both the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Association of 17 Divisions are of the strong view that if a grievance deals with dismissal, suspension, financial penalty or questions of basic policy, it should be subject to review, if not by the external review committee, then certainly by the Public Service Staff Relations Board.
1 am pleased to note that the concern with respect to the membership of the external review committee is one which the committee will be addressing. The previous Bill provided that there had to be three members in the internal review process, and this Bill goes on to provide that one of those members should have legal training. That is a good recommendation. However, we agree as well that no member of the force, or person who has ever served on the force, should be entitled to be a member of this external review committee in order that it be seen to be completely independent. I also support the provision for a time limit with respect to decisions on grievances as was suggested by the Association of 17 Divisions.
The protection against possible future incrimination with respect to statements made in the course of investigations should apply to pre-existing criminal charges or disciplinary proceedings. As the Bill now stands, it does not do so. I suggest that that is a serious flaw in the Bill which may very well run counter to the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The question of whether or not compelled testimony can be used in future disciplinary proceedings is one which was raised as well in the course of the Senate Committee hearings and is one with which the legislative committee will want to deal carefully. As well, I have noted the question of pay and allowances. I believe that in the absence of some form of collective bargaining-and I believe there should be full collective bargaining for members of the force-there should be a formula incorporated into regulations to ensure that the RCMP do not fall behind other police forces in Canada with respect to pay and benefits.
I emphasize that we do recognize that this Bill does constitute a significant step forward. The present provisions for dealing with public complaints, grievances and discipline are inadequate. However, I hope the Government will be prepared to heed the representations which have been made by the Civil Liberties Association, the Association of 17 Divisions, Attorneys General and other concerned Canadians and give this Bill
the teeth that are lacking in it so far. More important, I hope that it will give this process the integrity and appearance of integrity and independence which is so important in this essential area.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on the following motion: Mr. Wise, for Mr. Beatty and seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Motion carried on division.


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

Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture) moved: that Bill C-64, and Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the amendments with respect to the Seeds Act contained in this Bill which was introduced in the House of Commons today, Bill C-64, are obviously long overdue. I welcome this opportunity to outline them to my colleagues in the House and I welcome the opportunity to discuss them in brief form.
The Bill will benefit Canada's important seed growing industry and will further enhance the country's already enviable reputation as a reliable supplier of quality grain. It will help to ensure that farmers get what they pay for and that the owners of seed varieties are in a fair competitive position.
A great deal has happened in the seed growing industry since the last time any major amendments were made to the Seeds Act in this House back in 1959. The industry has doubled in size during the past eight years both in terms of acreage and of authorized establishments. It generates about
September 12, 1985

$350 million in sales annually including domestic and export markets.
Perhaps the most significant change in recent years has been the trend toward privatization of variety ownership. It is a healthy trend and certainly one in keeping with the Government's main thrust and policies. We must continue to support this trend if we are to maintain a quality seed growing industry and a good reputation with our export customers.
This Bill proposes several amendments to the Seeds Act, the most important ones dealing with matters arising out of the privatization trend. Before going into detail, I would like to point out that extensive consultations have been held with all provincial Governments and with all major associations whose members will be affected by this Bill. These groups include the Canadian Seed Growers' Association, the board of which contains representatives from every provincial Government; the Canadian Seed Trade Association; SeCan; and the Canadian Horticultural Council. Our recommendations are well known, well understood and indeed widely accepted.
The most significant provision in the Bill is one to establish more specific regulations for the advertising of seed varieties. I understand that my good friend and colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger), may have some concerns with reference to this particular amendment to the Bill. As he knows, this is a Bill which we are not moving through the House in all stages today. It will simply be moved from here to the Standing Committee on Agriculture. I know that that is the appropriate place for discussions of that kind to take place. I know from experience that this Government has utilized that opportunity and made that committee work. Indeed, we have accepted amendments at committee stage before and it might well be the case that, upon evidence submitted by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin, we can clarify or resolve this concern that has been expressed to me.
For some years now, the seed associations have been expressing concern about distorted or even false advertising of so-called varieties. Their interest is understandable because the owners of pedigreed seed have worked hard to acquire registration and deserve protection against those who use variety names to advertise unlicensed seed. In addition, farmers should not have to worry about whether the seeds they are buying are in fact as advertised. This Bill will halt false or distorted advertising practices by providing for the disclosure of certain information when seed is advertised and by prohibiting the use of variety names when seed is not pedigreed.
Tied to this are provisions in the Bill to raise significantly the penalty for violating the Act. The maximum penalty will be raised from $2,000 to some $25,000. This new level is a more effective deterrent and I believe more accurately reflects the seriousness with which we regard violations under this Act. We also intend, through the Act, to extend the time period for instituting procedures by way of summary conviction. This will allow more time for proper investigation of complaints and for the initiation of legal proceedings.
Seeds and Grain Acts
The House will note the provision in the Bill of a registration system for crop varieties to replace the present system of prescription. The current administrative procedure which has been in effect since the last amendment in 1959 requires a ministerial order process, and that makes it nearly impossible to keep our list of varieties amended on a day-to-day basis. The proposed registration system will provide for daily amendments to the registry of varieties.
I would also like to highlight a new bonding provision in this Bill. My Department finds that it is frequently necessary to impose bonding requirements on seeds imported into this country and it is a measure by which we ensure that imported seeds meet our requirements. Currently the Government enforces these bonding provisions through the Customs Act which creates some administrative difficulties in my Department. This Bill will provide bonding authority under the Seeds Act.
The remaining provisions of the Bill are relatively minor but are necessary measures for the tightening and updating of the Seeds Act. I will outline them briefly this morning for the benefit of my colleagues.
A provision to modify the definition of the term "sell" in the Act allows for the coverage of contractual agreements. This is recognition of the fact contractual agreements often occur between seed growers and seed companies.
Another provision in the Bill clarifies the role of the Canadian Seed Growers Association in the Act. Members of the House may know that this fine organization has formal responsibility under the Act for the certification of all seed stocks in Canada, except potato and tree seeds.
As I mentioned at the beginning of my remarks, the provisions contained in this Bill have been required for some time and, therefore, I am anxious to see it passed. I hope all Members of the House will agree that we ought to take every step necessary to protect our fine international reputation as producers of high quality grain. By improving the process for registering seed varieties and by ensuring that farmers are buying legitimate varieties, this Bill will enhance our country's image and build our trade position.
Quality control has been the key to our success in the past and this Bill will help to maintain our high standards. The Food Production and Inspection Branch of my Department is actively involved in quality control through the provision of independent reports on pedigreed seed production.
I am proud too, of the role my Department plays in the development of new seed varieties. Wheat varieties developed by Agriculture Canada account for 90 per cent of Canada's total wheat acreage. I can assure the House that this Government is committed to continued research because we recognize its importance in fostering greater efficiency and improved production. The federal Government, the provinces, seed growers, the suppliers and producers are all partners in the same game. In our common pursuit of quality, we are continually improving crop varieties. That is good business.

September 12, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
Discussions which began back in 1977 with seed associations and provincial Governments have finally culminated in the introduction of this Bill. The industry supports it and 1 am sure Members of this House will want to do so as well.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of my Party I am pleased to participate in the debate on Bill C-64, which proposes amendments, in part, to the Seeds Act. We know that while the Bill is an important one it is really a housekeeping Bill and one which wil not raise a major controversy in the House today. I am sure we will not hear the bells ringing for the rest of the afternoon over a major disagreement on the issues at hand as they pertain to the Bill.
However, there are concerns in the agricultural areas which 1 wish to bring to your attention, Mr. Speaker, knowing the great interest you have in this subject. The fact is that we seem to be spending a great deal of time discussing agricultural Bills, which is fine; but I really wonder why it is that this Bill was felt by the Government of Canada to be the most urgent as opposed to so many of the other fundamental and important agricultural issues which face our nation at this time. Perhaps in his response the Minister will tell us why it is that we are not dealing today with red meat stabilization legislation or the effects of countervailing duties on our agricultural industry. Perhaps the Minister will tell us why we are not dealing with the fuel tax, since that is the issue the farmers of my constituency want us to talk about. Of course, they feel that the Seeds Act is important. However, if I were to conduct a poll today of the agricultural constituents in my riding and ask them: Since we can deal with only one agricultural Bill today in the House of Commons, do you think we should provide emergency financial assistance to farmers or adopt modifications to the Seeds Act? I am sure that the constituents I represent would feel that the priorities should be somewhat different from those enunciated this morning by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). Since the Minister is here today in the House, I am sure he will undoubtedly use the opportunity to announce other interesting and productive measures for the agricultural industry of Canada. Of course, he is with us and he will have the floor later. I know that being interested in the agricultural industry the way he is he will use that opportunity to maximum benefit. The people of Canada and the farming sector in particular will rejoice.


Mr. Henderson:: Don't hold your breath.


Don Boudria: As the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) has so eloquently put it, I will not hold my breath. Well, we won't. Not because we have doubts as to the good faith of the Minister but because we know that his boss, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson), does not have agriculture as one of his major priorities. We know that the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) have made several commitments, which is a euphemism for campaign promises. They made several commitments to the people of Canada and to the farmers of this country. There was a commitment with respect to modifications to Section 31 of the Income Tax Act, with which I am sure you are familiar, Mr. Speaker. What happened to the doubling of those provisions as proposed by the Finance Committee? We did not hear mention of it in the Budget of the Minister of Finance. No doubt it was simply an oversight on his part. However, if the Minister of Finance can make a change in the Budget to take something away from it, which he did recently, I am sure that he could put something back into it such as assistance for farmers. I know that in his response the Minister will say that, of course, financial assistance has been provided through our enhanced capital gains provisions. That is all very nice, Mr. Speaker. It makes it easier and more attractive for a farmer to get out of the business than it does to stay in it. That is fine if one wishes to retire; but if one wishes to continue farming, then it provides no assistance whatsoever.
I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Blais), who is whispering in the Minister's ear right now, is telling him how the pork producers of Quebec need assistance. I wish to tell the Parliamentary Secretary that I agree with him when he tells the Minister that because the pork producers of my riding also need assistance. I thank him for his agreement with me. I am reasonably confident that together we will succeed in twisting the arm of the Minister in obtaining assistance. Perhaps all of us could muster up enough arm-twisting strength to twist the arm of the boss of the Minister of Agriculture, the Minister of Finance, who really holds the purse-strings and who, in fact, has the clout which, unfortunately, so many of his Cabinet colleagues do not seem to have.
Perhaps we can also ask the Minister to describe to us another related issue. I am referring to what is happening with the promised dairy policy. It was promised many times. Dates were even promised and then broken.
I see that I have touched a tender nerve, Mr. Speaker, since the Minister is rising to his feet.


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the Hon. Member made some reference to the conversation which was taking place between myself and my Parliamentary Secretary, and since he suggested we were talking about hogs, I would like to point out that he is, basically, wrong again. We were just feeling sorry for his constituents.


Don Boudria: I was hoping, Mr. Speaker, that at least the Minister of Agriculture was listening to my remarks and was interested in agriculture. I am sorry I gave him that kind of credit and I apologized for having told him that he knew what he was doing. I was wrong. He does not know what he is doing so I apologize to you, Mr. Speaker, profusely for giving the man a compliment which he undoubtedly does not deserve. Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I was wrong when I said that he knew about agriculture and was interested in the issue surrounding that industry. Evidently he is not when he thinks that it is not important that we address issues like the massive increases in gasoline prices.


An Hon. Member:: They are lower.
September 12, 1985


Don Boudria: Those increases in gasoline prices have a devastating effect on the agricultural industry.


An Hon. Member:: They are lower.


Don Boudria: But the Minister is not addressing that and he just admitted that that is not what he was talking about to his Parliamentary Secretary, either. Undoubtedly, they are not concerned about those issues. If they were concerned, surely that is what they would have been talking about. And the Minister just admitted that they were not.
There is a well-known chicken producer, Mr. Speaker, whom I know would be interested in that issue, sitting right across from me, namely, the Minsiter of State for Small Businesses (Mr. Bissonnette), who would be interested in those issues.


Mrs. Mailly:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. I believe Members are not supposed to refer to either the presence or absence of a specific Member in the House.


Don Boudria: I am sure you will want to correct the government Deputy Whip, Mr. Speaker, who should know that although one is not supposed to mention the absence of a Member, what I was referring to is the fact that all Members were present. Surely, Mr. Speaker, you will agree that we all are in this Chamber this morning. That would straighten out that Hon. Member and put her back in order. 1 am sure you will, the minute you have a chance, Mr. Speaker, correct her and familiarize her with parliamentary procedure in this House. Once she has been here for a little while, perhaps she will be more familiar with it. But although she is here today, perhaps her attendance is irregular, and that is why she is not familiar with procedure. But as she is here now I cannot refer to her absence.


Claudy Mailly: Mr. Speaker, this is all quite hilarious, but I think we should realize that the issue is a serious one, and I think the Hon. Member should stop joking and perhaps settle down to the subject at hand.


Don Boudria: If the Hon. Member thinks that the subject is serious, Mr. Speaker, perhaps she should stop interrupting those who know something about agriculture-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Don Boudria: -leaving it up to those who do to speak on the issues. Perhaps that would solve the problem. The Minister of State for Youth (Mrs. Champagne), I am sure, would be concerned with these issues and she should perhaps treat them more seriously as well. She would know that these issues are very important both in the province she represents and elsewhere.
Seeds and Grain Acts
I am not trying to downgrade the Bill which is in front of us today, but with the economic difficulties suffered in the constituency I represent and other farming constituencies across Canada, one cannot help but wonder if this is not just an act of presence on the part of the Minister to introduce every three or four weeks a token Bill which does not deal with the difficulties of the farming sector and with the vicious attacks perpetrated on that industry by the Minister of Finance in his disastrous Budget, which does not deal with the cut-backs in the economic statement of last November 8 and with the $50 million cuts proposed in the Deputy Prime Minister's so-called review-


Mr. Gauthier:: A slashing exercise.


Don Boudria: -which is really, of course, a slashing exercise, as the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) so aptly put it. That is what is wrong. There has not been a meaningful effort on the part of the Government of Canada to deal with agriculture. Every now and then there is a token Bill presented on issues which may or may not be important. We see token Bills introduced which deal with housekeeping issues Bills or which were introduced by the previous Government and which died on the Order Paper. Those kinds of Bills are the ones we see introduced by the Government instead of providing the assistance which it chose to promise to the Canadian people last July and August.
I hope that in the response delivered by the Minister of Agriculture or more probably now by his Parliamentary Secretary, those issues will be addressed and that we will hear statements as to the farm debt crisis, the dairy policy and the drought aid for the West. What is going to happen with the fuel tax? Are there going to be rebates? Has the Minister made representations to the Minister of Finance on behalf of the farmers? Where are we with the red meat stabilization plan at this point in terms of negotiation with various groups? What about bankruptcy legislation and all the other issues with which we should be dealing? That is what 1 want as well as my colleagues in our Party, and I am sure all Hon. Members of this House want the Minister of Agriculture to address these issues with or without the introduction of the new Seeds Act.


Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise with some trepidation in this debate because one of the main things this Bill does is to insert a word into an existing Bill. That word is "quality". So if we are going to have you, Mr. Speaker, interpret the happenings in this House as being out of order unless we are behaving in that manner, I will feel quite insecure about rising. But I have at least had the example of the two previous speakers and I do not feel quite so put upon at the moment because it appears that the order and method of carrying on debate in this House has changed very little as the result of the insertion of the word "quality" into the debate of the day.
That, I think, stresses very much what is happening with these amendments to the Seeds Act, Mr. Speaker. Who can object to the word "quality" being inserted into the Seeds Act?

September 12, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
We now have an Act respecting the testing, inspection, quality and sale of seeds. This is something which seed-growers have requested for some time. They have found themselves somewhat at a loss when looking at advertisements in the farm press or the general press to see seeds being advertised which do not meet the standards of the impression given in the advertisements. Advertisements for seeds which should not carry the designation "registered" have been appearing. No. 1 seed shows up quite regularly. This Act, as I interpret it, the last clause, at least, would require that advertisements of seeds which are not on the variety list would, have to be shown if they were given a designation, to be of the lowest quality for that particular kind of seed whether it be fescue seed or brome grass seed, wheat or whatever. So this does change in a very substantial way the method whereby seed is traded in the farming communities.
Whether the penalties and implementation being proposed here will make the new designations any more enforceable than were the old designations remains to be seen and I will come to that again a little later in my remarks because I have some concerns about the way we are apparently unable to regulate the laws which exist as they apply to seeds in this country. I am going to spend a few moments talking about the semi-dwarf wheat fiasco we went through late last winter and early spring. In the meantime, I would just like to continue with the evaluation and assessment of the words presented to us in this Bill which, other than what I have mentioned to this point, make very few changes.
There is a change to the penalties levied against those found guilty of an offence under the Act. Such offence must be prosecuted within two years of the alleged offence having taken place. In certain circumstances that could be extended to three years. A fairly major change is that the fines have been increased for offences under this Act. Formerly, the maximum fine was $500. That has now been increased to $25,000. The Minister is obviously attempting to bring the penalties up to date and I think this better reflects both the potential harm which can occur if the seed being sold is not what it is purported to be and the necessity for a deterrent for those who may have engaged in shady practices in the past. I suppose it is also in part a reflection of the inflation which has occurred since the last changes to the Seeds Act. I note, however, that the maximum jail penalty has not been changed, it is still two years. For clarification the Minister and the Government felt obliged to say that anyone not paying the fine does not automatically receive a jail sentence. So there have been some changes other than simply paying lip service to the fact that "quality" will now be part of the Act.
As well, there have been some slight changes to the definition of "sell". Previous to this Bill the Act gave only a short description of what selling seed was. That definition has been broadened to include "agree to sell or keep, transit, send, convey, deliver for sale or agree to exchange". All of those categories are now within the ambit of the Act and, hopefully,
will make possible better control over the advertising and marketing of seed products in this country.
The move to present the Canadian Seed Growers Association with some more responsibilities and powers is, I think, acceptable to most farmers. The exact extent of those powers and responsibilities is still not fully understood by all sides, but I think the committee is the place to investigate that further and I am prepared to pursue that when we get to committee.
There are some questions which have not been answered by these proposed amendments to the Act which I think are pertinent. I would have preferred that the Minister address these questions along with these amendments and I am sorry that he chose to introduce fairly limited amendments, thereby avoiding some of the larger issues surrounding the production and sale of seeds. In reinserting the issue of quality into the Act the Government is just bringing it up to date with what the seed growers have been trying to achieve over a number of years. They have always attempted to produce high quality seeds and maintain the highest possible standards for registration and grading. However, that raises some very pertinent questions given the cut-backs announced in the Budget last spring. As you will recall, Mr. Speaker, cut-backs were announced in the area of the monitoring of seeds, establishing seed laboratories to test for germination and purity and to do quality control work. It seems a little ludicrous to insert the word "quality" into the system at the same time as the money which is used to maintain the system is being reduced. How are we going to maintain this quality that the Minister so proudly includes in the new title of his Act if the money and laboratories and personnel charged with maintaining that quality have been reduced? This question was not referred to by the Minister but I think he will have to give answers to the members of the committee when the Bill gets to that stage. How can grass seed producers in the Peace River area be certain of getting adequate tests on time if they have to rely on the private sector to build up gradually the expertise and equipment when they know that the process takes three or four years? How is the quality of a specific seed going to be maintained during a period of cut-backs when the procedures are not available quickly and consistently? It does not help a seed producer very much if he has to wait months for a purity or germination test. If he has a bunch of product waiting to be cleaned and there is some doubt about whether the germination or purity standards will be met, then he is going to be reluctant to go to the extra expense of cleaning it, bagging it and putting on the various tags and seals. Before they do that they have to clean a small sample and send it away to have these various tests done to see whether the binful from the field is of a quality that would warrant this being done. These kinds of questions have not been answered by the simple step of putting the word "quality" into the Act.
As well, I was a little unhappy that the Minister did not address the question of how we handle the unlicensed semidwarf wheats which are being grown in this country. They were never licensed to be grown here; they were imported illegally, on the surface at least. While the Minister had the
September 12, 1985

Act open I would have thought he would attempt to do away with the shortcomings in the law which have permitted the illegal importation of varieties which are not visibly different from the higher quality wheat that we grow in this country.
Canadian wheat is of the highest standard in the world. We make sales because of that reputation. We make sales to countries which are self-sufficient in wheat but need a stronger wheat to mix with their domestic varieties because theirs will not produce a good, consistent loaf of bread. Our reputation has kept Canadian wheat selling in world markets when the rest of the wheat-producing countries have found their granaries to be full before the new crop is harvested. Europe and the United States are sitting on huge surpluses, but we have been able to dispose of our wheat, in large part, because of the extremely good quality which we have maintained for that exportable product.
American plant breeders have not tried to produce these lower quality unlicensed semi-dwarf wheats in a way which will make them visibly different from our high quality bread wheats. Canadian plant breeders have a consistent and longstanding policy of ensuring that higher yielding but lower quality wheat is visibly different than higher quality wheats. We have licensed the semi-dwarf wheats which have higher yields than our hard red spring wheats which are of a higher quality, but one can see the difference because some of the kernels are of a lighter or white colour.
The Americans have been producing varieties that cannot be licensed in Canada because they are visually indistinguishable from our high quality wheat. Farmers have been bringing this wheat across our big undefended border. It is apparently very simple for them to bring it across. There is no provision in the Seed Act or in the Canada Grains Act to inspect or stop those grains which will be affected. Although the Minister has the Act open, he is not making any such proposals. Instead, the Minister of State for the Wheat Board (Mr. Mayer) decided, almost on his own, but apparently with the approval of the Government, to change very effectively our whole quality system of wheat and grain production by sending a message to the farmers that it is okay to grow these unlicensed varieties. That is not acceptable in a parliamentary system. In the legal sense it is a very questionable process, but, what is more important for the farmers on the land, it puts our whole export potential in jeopardy.
About 80 per cent of the grains produced in western Canada are exported and a big portion of those grains consists of wheat. I pointed out earlier in my remarks that the sale of that wheat depends on the customer's understanding of the very high standard which we have. For the Minister to change those standards in a very derogatory was is a terrible thing for Canada's farmers. It is not maintaining the high quality that Canadian farmers expect and are used to. It denigrates the effort that we are trying to make through the Seeds Act to reintroduce quality.
Seeds and Grain Acts
The Minister should study this Act and consider ways to introduce quality into the export of wheat from this country. While preparing legislation which would include quality he should have kept the question of unlicensed semi-dwarf wheat in mind, addressed it in a realistic way, and presented proposals to the House of Commons so that the people of Canada would have a chance to comment on it. The Minister has abrogated his responsibilities. He has decided to work around the law and tell the farmers that it is all right to grow an unlicensed wheat which has never had the sanction of Canadian quality standards. You may think that this is a small thing and that it will all work out in the end, that the grain handling system will figure out a way to look after the problem, but how can it do so in a realistic way?
Consider the elevator agent who is the first in line receiving grain when it comes to market. A farmer can come in with a fine looking load of wheat and not say what variety it is. The elevator agent looks at it and says that it looks like a No. 1. The farmer has decided not to say anything even though he knows it is an unlicensed semi-dwarf wheat. Who can stop it? Chemical and baking tests will be made at the terminal elevator and that truckload may be caught there, but by that stage no one will know who delivered that grain. The elevator company which attempted to move it through the terminal system will be penalized because that grain will not be worth as much as was paid for it. They will have to find a market for that product now identified as being inferior. But what was there, in the initial stages, to keep that producer from accepting a higher price and higher grade on the understanding that it was high quality wheat? I submit there is nothing.
Given the current economic pressure that farmers are under-


John Wise: Farmers are honest.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The Minister says that farmers are honest. 1 agree with that but that is the point I am getting to now.


John Wise: You are saying that they are not.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am saying that, given the economic pressure that farmers are under now, if they have the opportunity of getting an extra 60 cents a bushel by saying nothing, most of them are going to slough the honesty question aside and say nothing.


John Wise: Are you saying we should remove the right for them to grow semi-dwarf?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I am saying that the Minister should be looking at-


John Wise: If so, what would be the economic impact?


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: The economic impact that the Minister raises would not be very large. He has licence HY-320, which is virtually as good as the ones that you cannot distinguish. HY-320 has white wheats in it. You can tell visually that it is a lower quality wheat because of the colour constraints. The

September 12, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
market for those lower quality wheats can be met by HY-320. HY-320 does have a higher yield than the higher quality but higher priced regular wheats. There is no constraint in that case since HY-320 has been licensed, is legitimate and visibly distinguishable for farmers. However, to persist in permitting the illegal and unlicensed varieties which have never been sanctioned by the seed trade, the Department of Agriculture or the grains people in this country smacks of ineptitude. I believe the Government should have taken a much harder line on this issue and been much more honest with the farmers of the country with respect to the economic impact.
Many false figures were published last spring which indicated that there might be 20 per cent or 30 per cent of the wheats seeded to these particular unlicensed varieties. The Minister decided to be lenient with the farmers. The first figures that were released toward the end of the crop year and the beginning of the next crop year claimed that 20 per cent of farmers produced unlicensed wheats. However, when the figures were recalculated it was discovered that rather than 20 per cent, it was one-twentieth or 5 per cent rather than one-fifth. There was some expert juggling among some of those who supply information which I believe has created the kind of response given by the Minister.
I believe the ministries were misinformed as to the extent of the unlicensed varieties that were going to be seeded. I think they could have been much more firm and said that they do not sanction the seeding of these varieties because of the great impact not only this year but next year and the following year. Even if we tried to eliminate those varieties tomorrow, now that they have been expanded to such an extent in this crop year they will be coming through the system for years to come. They can be stored in granaries until they are no longer scrutinized. They can be blended with other higher quality grains which will make them very difficult to find. I believe we have left a bad mark on the reputation of Canada as a supplier of high quality wheat.
I admire the Minister for attempting to increase the quality standards of the Canada Seeds Act but I wish that, while he was trying to increase the quality of Canada seeds, he had addressed more directly and properly the problem of unlicensed semi-dwarf wheats that have been coming into this country illegally from the United States and elsewhere. It has become a blot against our reputation as a supplier of high quality red baking wheats in the world.


Mr. Pierre Blais (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity this morning to take part in the debate on this legislation and express my support for Bill C-64, which will soon be referred to the Standing Committee on Agriculture, where we hope to hear from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), who tends to rattle off what he has to say in two and a half minutes here in the House but is never around
to discuss the substance of a particular topic. Unfortunately, he is much too busy to attend committees of the House. That is too bad, because committees are often ideal for discussing legislation and making improvements, in this case, for the benefit of the Canadian public and the Canadian farm producers he is always referring to.
Mr. Speaker, in a number of ways this Bill is particularly significant for the seed industry here in Canada.

Pedigreed seed is the vehicle for transmitting the benefits of plant breeding research to the producer. That is why it is so important to guarantee that the farmer actually receives the product he assumes he is buying.

Under the present system in this country, it is very important, and has been for years, to safeguard the interests for the public and our producers.
The commercial seed industry, Mr. Speaker, generates $315 million in sales annually in this country alone, and forms the basis for Canada's grain industry, which exports surpluses with over $4 billion annually, while Canadian seed grain exports also represent some $50 million per year.

Without question, seeds are the single most important farm input. Without the proper seed planted at the right time, the impact of all other farm inputs-pesticides and fertilizers, for example-would be greatly diminished.
The last major changes to the Seeds Act were made in 1959 and a great deal has occurred in the seed growing industry since then. The legislation before us today has been in the works for several years, since 1977 as a matter of fact, and 1 commend the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) for taking the initiative to finally bring it forward. I think it is very important.
The Government of Canada has been involved in the regulation and control of seed varieties for the past 80 years. When our involvement began in 1905, the main objective was to control the sale of low vitality seeds, or seeds containing harmful weeds. In subsequent years, as the seed industry developped, the Act was amended to include a grading system for seed quality, a licensing system for crop varieties and labelling requirments that help the buyer to identify quality seeds.

Since major amendments were made to the Bill in 1959- [English]
-the seed growing industry has undergone a number of important changes. It has grown dramatically and, as the Minister pointed out in his remarks, there has been increasing involvement by the private sector in plant breeding and ownership.
One of the key elements of this Bill is that it will provide greater authority under the Seeds Act to protect against false
September 12, 1985

advertising and to strengthen the seed licensing system. This is an especially important initiative in view of the Minister's stated intention to bring forward plant breeders' rights legislation in the near future.

Mr. Speaker, the amendments to the Seeds Act being examined today will ensure that further privatization can proceed. In this way, there will be proper regulation and control of the quality and sale of seeds in this country. By making the-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am very sorry to have to interrupt the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Agriculture. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, herring stocks have proved to be plentiful this fall in northwestern New Brunswick.
In fact the quota allowed by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser) was caught within five days. Reaching the quota in so little time does show that herring stocks in the gulf are huge.
The fishing industry is now asking that the quota be raised so that fishing might continue. The industry has been unable to meet the market demand and is afraid of losing its foreign markets if it cannot fill its orders.
Given the high unemployment rate in the fishing communities of New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island, I urge the Minister to raise the quota immediately.
Undoubtedly the Minister is aware of the fact that this fish quota allocated to all New Brunswick fishermen has been caught only by fishermen from the northeast region.
Unfortunately the fishermen from the southeast region did not have an opportunity to take part in fishing because herring stocks had not yet reached the strait of Northumberland.
I would therefore urge the Minister to allocate a separate quota to fishermen of the southeast region so that, in the future, southeastern New Brunswick fishermen will be sure to take part in herring fishing.



RECOMMENDATION TO POSTPONE DATE FOR CLOSURE OF GULF REFINERY IN EAST MONTREAL

Ms. Carole Jacques (Montreal-Mercier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to speak in my capacity as chairperson of the special committee established to make a study concerning the Eastern Montreal Gulf refinery located in my riding; this committee was struck by the Quebec caucus.
Considering the situation of the workers, Mr. Speaker, I would therefore ask the House and the Minister responsible to open discussions immediately with the owners of the Eastern Montreal Gulf refinery with a view to putting off any action and delaying the shutdown of the refinery until May 1986. Mr. Speaker, we hope that such a delay will enable prospective buyers to make their move and that our Government will find a solution.



CANADIAN PACIFIC RAILWAY


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians who watch television have been unable to avoid the slick ads appearing almost every day telling us what a great company CPR is, how it is involved in every aspect of Canadian life, how eager it is to serve the needs of the Canadian people, and how its employees are all part of one big family who just love to work for the C.P.R. Those ads would make hundreds of CPR employees laugh if recent decisions of the CPR were not having such adverse effects on them.
CPR has announced lay-offs in its Weston shops in Winnipeg, affecting some employees who have worked for the CPR for almost 30 years. Similarly thousands of CPR employees have been laid off from one end of Canada to the other in recent years.
CPR employees remember the promises made by the former Liberal Transport Minister who, along with the CPR and the CNR, assured the people of Canada that if only Parliament passed the legislation, which they brought forward wiping out the Crow rate agreement, thousands of new jobs would be provided.
In the same vein, when the new diesel shop was opened in Winnipeg by the CPR the former Minister assured people that 200 to 300 jobs would be created. Those of us who questioned the extravagant claims of the then Government and the rail-

September 12, 1985
ways were laughed at. Unfortunately, the concerns we expressed were only too true. In fact we were not tough enough in our criticisms.


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



INDUSTRY


Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe):: Once again, Mr. Speaker, I am bringing to the Government's attention the plight of the Canadian footwear industry which is desperately trying to stay in business in the face of unfair competition from off shore countries.
The Canadian footwear industry has been constant in its endeavours to secure a realistic limit on imports of footwear from other countries. It is not asking for the moon. It is not asking that imports be eliminated. What it is asking could not be more fair. It is that the Government limit imports to 50 per cent of the domestic market. The removal of footwear quotas would sound the death knell for the industry as well as cause the loss of 20,000 jobs.
Not only would the removal of the quotas result in lost jobs, but there would be the added burden on UIC and welfare, not to mention lost taxes at all levels of Government.
The extension of quotas on footwear imports for five years at 50 per cent of the Canadian market would create at least 6,000 new jobs, a positive shot in the arm for our economy. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I call upon the Government to address itself to this problem in a positive way.



AGRICULTURE


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, earlier this year, Quebec was declared brucellosis free. Although this is very good news and Quebec farmers are pleased, Ontario unfortunately was not so designated, which has created a major problem between Eastern Ontario and Quebec, especially in connection with the livestock trade.
In fact, today it is harder for a livestock trader in my riding to sell to Quebec than to the United States.
Since Ontario has had no cases of brucellosis for more than a year, I would urge the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) to have Ontario declared brucellosis free immediately. Further delay will cause inconvenience and mean additional expenses for farmers and livestock traders in my riding and throughout Eastern Ontario.



SHIPBUILDING


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, all Members applauded the announcement by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) on Tuesday asserting Canadian sovereignty in the Arctic and that part of this affirmation would be the construction of a Polar 8 icebreaker which could provide a continuous Canadian presence in our Arctic waters.
Today I would like to state the interests of British Columbia shipbuilders in the construction of this half a billion dollar vessel. As we well know, British Columbia shipyards, in their expertise and experience in the building of major icebrakers, are second in the world, second only to Finland, and have recently formed a consortium to bid, internationally, for building such icebreakers.
Let me say as well, and I am sure my Quebec colleagues, upon reflection, would have to agree, that if the construction of this icebreaker takes place in British Columbia, shared between North Vancouver and Victoria, substantial economic benefits will still accrue to central Canada, particularly to Quebec, which will supply much of the materials and components.
However, to construct the icebreaker in British Columbia would enable the West to share in these substantial benefits. So I urge my colleagues, given comparable costs, that in the interest of fairness for all Canadians, and to enable all parts of the country to benefit from this major project, they should to support a proposal from British Columbia shipbuilders to lead this project of such significance to Canada's sovereignty in the Arctic.



FORESTRY


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the forest industry in Canada faces a crisis as a result of the failure of the Mulroney Government to inform consumers and users of wood products in the United States properly about the implications of the Gibbons Bill now before the U.S. Congress.
This protectionist legislation, now supported by three-quarters of Congress, is likely to move forward in a matter of weeks. Within the Bill is a removal rights clause which will effectively change the rules of the game and allow the United States to place tariff walls and countervailing duties against our forest products.
Forestry is Canada's largest industry and largest source of balance of trade. One Canadian in ten relies on forestry for employment.
The Minister of International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) gutted Canada's strong position at a meeting with the Congressional
September 12, 1985

subcommittee on trade in Vancouver a month ago and has compounded this with further written criticism to Congress this week.
Surely with the United States moves on hogs and fish the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has awakened to the economic guillotine raised by the Gibbons Bill. I trust he will be making a statement in this House on actions he is taking to remedy the U.S. proposal and to prepare a survival plan for the 300 forest based communities that are at risk should the Gibbons Bill become law.



UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE


Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, during the summer recess of the House, Kootenay West was hit very hard by forest fires. Other ridings were similarly affected, although not all as severely as mine. As a result of this long hot summer, over 10,000 people were temporarily employed by the Province of B.C. to combat these fires. They worked hard and long and, at times, in serious danger. However, they were the unfortunate victims of a provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act which denied UIC coverage to temporary provincial governemnt employees working in a disaster situation.
In the remarkably short period of less than 30 days, the Cabinet responded to my urgent request that the UIC Act be amended to provide UIC coverage to forest fire-fighters.
There are those critics who suggest that to provide this UIC coverage to fire-fighters is to invite arson by those who would seek to generate their own employment by starting a forest fire. To my knowledge there were only two cases of arson involved in all the hundreds of forest fires this summer in British Columbia. I have more faith in my fellow Canadians than to believe that the change in the Act invites arson. Therefore, at this time I should like to express my appreciation, and the appreciation of fire-fighters to the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald), the then Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Beatty), and the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Fraser)-


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



SOCIAL SECURITY


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian families are increasingly at a loss to understand the attitude of the Prime Minister and Conservative Members. Most of them wonder why families with children should give up $56 million in family assistance programs, when the Government has no trouble finding one billion to help people with deposits in excess of $60,000 in a bank that is in difficulty.
Mr. Speaker, I do not think the Conservative Members realize that low-income families,... even if the child tax credit is increased during this particular time and I am referring to the back-to-school season, most spouses need the family allowance cheque every month to buy school supplies and to pay for their children's recreation and extracurricular activities, so that children of poor families do not feel left out when they compare notes with children from families with average incomes.
Mr. Speaker, in the first year, that is 1986, the result of the Government's decision will be to reduce the family allowance by $22. Hon. Members here may think $22 is not much over one year, but most of these families need this money for their children.
Mr. Speaker, I therefore urge all Members of this House to ask the Prime Minister to establish a policy on the family, not by reducing spending on improving the quality of life but by increasing amounts available for improving the quality of life of families with children.



MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT


Mr. John Reimer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, among the many justifiable expectations the Canadian people have of their Members of Parliament is that we shall be competent, conscientious and courteous in the manner in which we conduct ourselves as their elected representatives. It is an unfortunate though largely unavoidable fact that many Canadians can only judge whether or not their expectations are being met by what they see during Question Period.
During this past spring and summer I received more negative comments concerning the conduct of Members during Question Period than on any other issue or topic. Indeed, the general consensus of opinion was that the cynical laughter, the pejorative mutterings, and the overt and often entirely irrelevant one-upmanship were more in keeping with immature school children still wrestling with their developing egos, than

September 12, 1985
with competent representatives consciously grappling with weighty matters of state.
It is of utmost importance that we remember who we are, where we are, and why we are here. Therefore I call upon all Hon. Members, myself included, to conduct ourselves in a manner becoming our privileges and responsibilities as Members of Parliament. I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to exercise the full weight of your authority to deal quickly and firmly with any Members violating the letter and spirit of the rules of the House, so that Canadians can be justifiably proud of their institution and their representatives.



AGRICULTURE


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Mr. Speaker, for years Canada and the United States have had virtual free trade in red meats. Imports by Canada of U.S. pork have at times amounted to between 14 per cent and 15 per cent of our pork consumption. While Canadian producers perceived the imports as reducing their price and market opportunities, they did not move to stop them even though subsidized corn was used in their production.
Now the situation is reversed and Canadian hog producers are stunned and confused by the signals being sent by the Americans who, when faced with less than 3 per cent of their market being filled by Canadian pork, moved quickly to file a countervail of 5.5 cents per pound against Canadian products. After spending several millions of dollars fighting the levy, Canadian pork producers succeeded in getting a partial lifting of the countervail on processed products, but it is still in effect on live hogs.
United States pork prices have not been changed by the levy. Canadian producers have suffered a general price decline of 5 cents or 6 cents per pound. If our two countries are serious about furthering free trade, then both countries must be involved in solving these trade disputes. Leaving that power with the International Trade Commission of the United States Department of Commerce does not provide any appearance of fair dealing on sensitive issues involving producers in the two countries. Such powers have to be shifted to a bilateral body if the current laudable efforts toward open and honest trade are to be continued. Failure to establish such an international body makes further free trade talks pointless until we can make the existing agreements work.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. The Government will be proposing a Bill to reimburse depositors in the Canadian Commercial Bank to the tune of about $1 billion. These depositors were persuaded to invest or leave their money with the bank because they were misled by the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance. Yet the Minister, yesterday, refused me and Parliament the list of depositors at all relevant dates.
Before the Prime Minister brings in a Bill to rescue those depositors, would he guarantee and undertake to give us a full list of depositors in the Bank at all relevant dates?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, we have been asking from the beginning for a parliamentary committee to examine all the facts that the law allows. As soon as that committee is up and working, all the relevant information which we think Canadians should have, and which the Opposition thinks Canadians should have, will be available to the Canadian people.


John Napier Turner: Parliament sitting, as a whole, is larger than any committee, and the question is perfectly relevant here on the floor of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF DELAY IN APPOINTING EXPERT INVESTIGATOR
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct one more question to the Minister of Finance.
Why did the Government wait until July to ask George Hitchman to evaluate the assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank? Why did it commit tens of thousands of dollars of taxpayers' money before knowing the facts?
Why did it wait three months before retaining the services of a professional expert to evaluate the Bank?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I have already explained to the House that we took appropriate steps through the spring and in the summer to protect taxpayers and the integrity of the banking system in the country. In the 16 years that that Party sitting over there was in office, it never made one single move, not one, to change the supervisory structure of the country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
September 12, 1985


Mr. Axworthy:: And no banks collapsed, either.


Barbara Jean McDougall: They brought in, through three former Finance Ministers sitting over there, revisions to the Bank Act. There was the trust company event in 1982 and 58 new foreign banks, and they never made one move, one move, to help protect those institutions and Canadian depositors.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER OF FINANCE RESIGN
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance do not seem to understand. Here is what happened. In March there had been no evaluation of the assets of the bank. The bail-out was brought before Parliament. No monitoring was done. Finally, in July, four months later, an analysis was ordered to be undertaken by George Hitchman, and it was only upon receiving that report that the Government knew where it stood.
A third of the loans of that bank in March were sour; that is why the assets were not valid. The banks were sucked in; Parliament was conned; pension funds were destroyed; and schoolboards and municipalities were left holding the bag. I ask the Minister of Finance whether in the circumstances the only honourable course for him is to resign.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is getting a little carried away with his own rhetoric. What I would suggest to him is that if he has all this information-and some of the statements which he just made are patently false-let's get the matter into committee where the complex questions surrounding-


An Hon. Member:: Do it here.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I hear the Hon. Member saying: "Do it here". Mr. Speaker, you know, 1 know, and 1 think Hon. Members know that this matter is an extremely complex one. They are asking for long lists of depositors, which amount to thousands of people.


Mr. Ouellet:: Table them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are saying that that should be the subject matter of a committee review and a subsequent report.


CONFIRMATION OF BANK'S ASSETS
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. On March 25 the Minister said that the Canadian Commercial Bank bail-out was based in part on an on-site assessment of assets. We now learn that the $255 million price tag was provided by the bank itself and that there was no confirmation of bank assets until
Oral Questions
mid-August. Will the Minister tell the House why she waited so long to confirm the bank's figures?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Inspector General was looking at the bank during the spring. We were monitoring the funding side. We were attempting to get directors for the bank. We took consistent steps throughout the spring, something that that Party never did, for its supervisors.


BANK'S VIABILITY-MINISTER'S STATEMENTS
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is to the same Minister. Depositors were encouraged to keep their money in the bank by the Minister's statements. Why did the Minister keep saying that the bank was viable when she really did not know or have evidence to support that?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, based on the information that we had, that bank was viable at that time. When we were faced with a situation of the bank not being viable, rather than waffling and not dealing with the issue like the former Government, we did deal with it and we did take the necessary action.


NORTHLAND BANK-ACTIONS OF ROYAL BANK
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of State for Finance. When the Minister of State first found out that the Royal Bank was raiding customers of the struggling Northland Bank, what did she do about it?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I spoke with the president of the Royal Bank of Canada today. He has assured me that that story is categorically wrong and he will be issuing a press release which will indicate exactly what his instructions were to his bank.


WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITS BY ROYAL BANK
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, dealing with the same bank, when the Minister found out that the Royal Bank, the biggest bank in Canada and the largest private participant in the Canadian Commercial bail-out package, was withdrawing deposits from the CCB in May and June, what action did she take at that time?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Royal Bank went into great detail in committee this morning about exactly what happened with deposits. He was perfectly open with that committee. That indicates just why we have to get back into committee.

September 12, 1985
Oral Questions MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, yes, indeed, the explanation was made that deposits were in fact withdrawn. What did the Minister, who is responsible for this fiasco, do when she found out that that bank was making those withdrawals? Did she inform the Minister of Finance and the Prime Minister?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State for Finance has absolutely no power to make a bank keep its deposits in a certain place, and the Minister has no such power over any other Canadian for that matter. Public information was made available after the parliamentary committee reported at the end of May. The funding side was not the problem, it was the asset side as the Hon. Member well knows.


ALLEGED DISCUSSIONS BY DEPARTMENTAL OFFICIALS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, now that the Minister of Finance has had some time, will he confirm that members of his staff or members of the staff of the Minister of State for Finance spoke to people in the financial community other than bankers about the circumstances of the Canadian Commercial Bank during the critical period last summer prior to the announcement of the Minister on September 1 ?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I have already answered this question. This will be the third time that I have answered it. I have asked my staff if these allegations are true. I am advised by my staff that there is no basis for what the Hon. Member suggests right now. They did not speak to anyone in the financial community to in any way give inside information on which people could make decisions.


REQUEST FOR TELEPHONE AND TRAVEL LOGS
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Finance is telling us that no one in either of those offices spoke to any member of the financial community about the circumstances of that bank during the summer. In that event will the Minister table, as requested by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, all relevant information with respect to telephone logs and travels of those staff members during the summer months so that this cloud-and I assure the Minister that it is a serious matter-can be lifted from the entire Government?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr Speaker, there is only one cloud, and that is the cloud that the Hon. Member is trying to take from over his head and put over mine. If he has any information whatsoever, he should not make statements of innuendo. He should not smear other people who might be caught under this umbrella. He should make a specific statement here on the floor of the House of Commons, a statement with which I will deal.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Table the documents.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Until the Hon. Member and the Leader of the Opposition make specific statements of fact, I will not respond to them.


Ms. Copps:: Table the document.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


WITHDRAWALS MADE BY ROYAL BANK
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance who knows that if she did not have the specific power to get involved with the banks, she could have sought that power either by discussing it with the cabinet or, if necessary, by seeking legislation. Therefore I would repeat the question put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap. When the Minister learned that the Royal Bank, a senior partner in the rescue effort, was withdrawing its deposits and therefore undermining the rescue effort, what did she do?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, during the spring we were watching very carefully the funding in the bank and we determined that the Bank of Canada was replacing that funding. We had a growing concern around what was happening with the bank and we examined the asset side of the bank, and that is where the real problems turned out to be.


WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITS BY CERTAIN BANKS
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Yesterday, he said that if one of the chartered banks had helped to undermine the rescue plan for the Canadian Commercial Bank, it would be dealt with with the utmost severity.
Could the Prime Minister explain to the House why, since the Royal Bank did exactly that by withdrawing its deposits, no steps were taken at the time to deal with the utmost severity with the Royal Bank of Canada?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I said that we presumed that all of the Canadian banks that involved themselves in this initiative did so in good faith and the effort was designed to try to help a fledgling institution that was in difficulty. We sat here while the Leader of the Opposition smeared the leaders of the banks of Canada and all bankers, without naming anyone. We sat here while members of the NDP arbitrarily and unfairly accused bankers who have no less rights than any other Canadian citizens.
Let us move this matter to committee. Let us stop the pejorative allusion and the unfair smears. Let the matter go to committee. Let everyone be heard so that fair value judgements can be made without the McCarthyism and unfair
September 12, 1985

smears that we are hearing from Members of the Opposition and the NDP.


FISHERIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister for International Trade. Yesterday we heard news of a very disturbing ruling made by the International Trade Commission in the United States, a ruling that puts in jeopardy the East Coast fishery in this country, a billion dollar industry. What is even more disturbing is the suggestion that over 58 basic domestic programs of this country, such as the unemployment insurance scheme and the small craft harbours scheme, are in fact considered to be unfair trade practices. What immediate action will the Minister take to protect our fishing export industry? Does he intend to denounce immediately the notion that these vital domestic programs of the Government are considered unfair trade practices by the United States?


Hon. James Keileher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would advise the hon. gentleman that we are aware of the ruling. We are very concerned about it. We, as a Government, will be doing everything we can to protect our fisheries. However, I would point out to him that it was a ruling as to injury. As yet they have not made any ruling, and will not for several months, as to whether or not there were subsidies involved and whether or not countervail is possible to them.
I wish to state categorically to the House that this Government has no intention whatsoever to give up the types of programs that we have in place to assist our citizens.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BILATERAL DISCUSSIONS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to hear that the Government intends to take action. I hope it is quicker than the Minister suggests because the preliminary decision will be made by October 29 and not several months hence. I hope that he would speed up his machinery somewhat and improve his timetable.
Considering the intention of the Government as announced by the Prime Minister to bring forward a plan to commence negotiations with the United States within a matter of days, will the Minister, or the Government, announce a set of guidelines, as recommended by the parliamentary committee this summer, which will clearly state that it is non-negotiable to have any of our domestic programs considered as bargaining tools in any trade agreement with the United States?
Oral Questions


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I would like to advise the hon. gentleman that we are already taking action. We have already made representations. We are already working with the industry in assisting them prepare their case. I think we will just have to wait and see what is said in the statement when the Government makes its announcement as to whether or not it will be going ahead with trade negotiations with the United States-and that decision has not as yet been announced or made.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. HUGH PLANCE, MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT AND RESPONSIBLE FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, FOR ALBERTA
Mr. Speaker:: May I interrupt the proceedings to advise the House of the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Hugh Plance, Minister of Economic Development and responsible for Science and Technology for the Province of Alberta.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Finance. When the Minister became aware that the major chartered banks, the major private partners in the rescue attempt, were pulling out, what did she do?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am not willing to come into the House and ask for legislative powers to force anybody to keep deposits in any institution, whether it is my widowed mother or a banker. 1 am not about to do that. I do not have legislative power to ask people to keep deposits in any institution.


INQUIRY OF PRIME MINISTER
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Considering that the major partners in the bail-out were withdrawing their money and that there were millions of dollars of public money at stake, what did the Prime Minister do, if and when he was informed by the Minister of State for Finance, or the Minister of Finance, that the major partners in the rescue were pulling out? Considering that hundreds of millions of dollars of public money were at stake, what did the hon. gentleman do?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make two points. First, the support package which was put together by the Minister of State for Finance

September 12, 1985
Oral Questions
and myself involving the banks, two other Governments besides ourselves, plus the CDIC, stayed in place. There was no withdrawal of any of those funds. That stayed in place as a basis for trying to save this young bank.
The second point I wish to make, and I wish to be very clear on it, is that the problem of solvency of the Canadian Commercial Bank was not on the liability side, it was on the loan side. There were just too many bad loans which had built up over the years based on, in part, bad management decisions and, in part, the weak economy in western Canada, which was directly linked to the National Energy Program. Those were the reasons that led to the insolvency of the bank.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. It concerns the Hyundai Motor Company of Korea. As the Minister knows, the people of British Columbia, Quebec, Nova Scotia and Ontario are all bidding to have the assembly plant located in their particular province. Will the Minister indicate to the House what community he and his Department are supporting with respect to the location of this plant, indirectly, secretly, or otherwise?


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I missed the first part of the Hon. Member's question. I believe he is referring to the Hyundai Motor Company of Korea car plant. Is that correct?


An Hon. Member:: Yes.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Government of Canada, as it does with respect to other car plants coming into Canada, explains the relative programs which are available across the country and in the regions of Canada with respect to the building of such plants. However, the Government stays neutral as to where the plant might eventually be situated. In particular, the Government feels that that must be a decision of the company which, naturally, wants to have a viable enterprise.
In the case of Hyundai let me be clear that that company prefers the Province of Quebec at the present time. Some 40 per cent of its sales to date have been in the Province of Quebec. The company believes that Quebec might very well be a good home for its plant.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S RESPONSIBILITIES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my Supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. I am rather surprised at the Minister's statement
because it puts him in breach of the legal mandate of his Department, which states, in part, that his responsibiities are, and I quote:
-to promote economic development in those regions of Canada in which opportunities for productive employment are exceptionally inadequate.
Is the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion saying no to the poor regions of the country or will he continue what he has been doing for the last 12 months, that is, pork-barrelling his own riding?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, as the Prime Minister pointed out yesterday, certain members of the Opposition ask questions but do not listen to the answers. I clearly stated that we point out to various companies the relative program advantages across the country, be they provincial or regional. This includes the IRDP tier system and the available programs in the various provinces. However, it is their final choice as to whether they choose the Province of Quebec, the Maritimes, or B.C.
In the case of the Hyundai of Korea car plant, their representatives are saying that their preferred area would be the Province of Quebec. I welcome that decision on the part of those living in Quebec and all of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Perhaps this could go on somewhere else some other time.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADING REGULATIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, it is clear from yesterday's decision that Canadian fishing communities have now joined lumber producers, hog farmers and steel workers as the latest victims of trade blocks in the United States. My question on this matter is for the Prime Minister. How can the Prime Minister continue to promote a freer trade deal with the United States when these sectors where we are supposed to have free trade, such as fish, pork and lumber are the very sectors in which trade barriers are being put in place against our producers and against their jobs? Will the Prime Minister personally contact President Reagan to protest these moves?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, it is because we are trying to make sure that in the future these types of impediments do not exist, and that Canadian fish products, timber products in British Columbia, steel manufacturers in Sault Ste Marie and in Sydney, Nova Scotia, and codfish, raspberries, strawberries, and iron ore have secure
September 12, 1985

access to the United States market that we are considering these types of programs. We would hope that that kind of protectionism ceases to exist because we believe that fair trade and enhanced trade mean jobs for Canadians, and that is what we are committed to and trying to create.


DURATION OF TALKS
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister if he is aware that both the special joint committee this summer and the Macdonald Royal Commission report indicated it would take at least two years for such trade enhancement talks to reach an agreement. Is he therefore saying to Canadian producers like these fishermen that they must wait two years for urgent action on the part of the Government?


Martin Brian Mulroney: On the
contrary, Mr. Speaker. We would assume that we would be able-as we have been able in the past-to eliminate these irritants, to the extent humanly possible, as they arise, as an indication of the kinds of ongoing and more durable relationships which can exist between our two countries.
We have addressed some in the past. For example, I remember one just about this time last year, September 17 or September 18, which could have cost between 3,000 and 5,000 jobs in the steel market in Ontario and Nova Scotia, which was a protectionist measure.


Sheila Maureen Copps: It's still a problem.


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is substantially less of a problem today than it was then because we were able to intervene and eliminate that irritant and save 3,000 to 5,000 jobs in Canada. That is what we are going to continue to do while we engage in ongoing negotiations-if that is the determination of the Government-with the United States of America, which is our friend and ally and our great trading partner.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As the Minister is aware, on June 20, 1985, Bill C-18, the Criminal Law Amendment Act, received Royal Assent. Could the Minister please inform this House how soon he will be proclaiming the section which deals with impaired driving?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, we intend to proclaim the major amendments which the House passed with respect to Bill C-18 as soon as possible. The only cause for delay is that a number of the provinces are asking us to postpone proclaiming the legislation in order to give them time to implement the
Oral Questions
sections and to speak to the various police forces, the correctional services, and the courts. I will be informing them, however, that the legislation will be proclaimed at the very latest on December 2 of this year so that it will be in full force and effect for the next holidy season. I hope that all Hon. Members of the House will agree that this should be done and that we cannot afford to wait any longer.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Jean Lapierre (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. First of all, I would like to congratulate the Hyundai company on preferring Quebec, and I would go even further to express the hope that it will prefer Bromont, Mr. Speaker. However, the Minister is aware that there is also the matter of Toyota and Suzuki. What I want to know is who is telling the truth in this Government. The Minister says that he is taking a strictly hands-off approach, his Minister of State tells us that he is sending all kinds of letters and that the Government favours Quebec, while the Prime Minister says that they have a moral obligation to intervene. It is a regular circus on that side of the House.
Could the Minister inform the House who is speaking for the Government in the automobile plant issue?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am constantly amazed at how the Opposition reacts to good news.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that when I met with Mr. Toyota, the chairman of the Toyota Motor Company, he confirmed that it is planning a $300 million plant for Canada. It has received letters from seven of our provinces inviting the company to be established in those provinces. Those submissions are being considered and before this year is out it will have come to a decision as to the province in which it will situate its plant.
Suzuki and General Motors are conducting a feasibility study with a view to establishing a plant in Canada. It will perhaps be the largest of all three of the plants, but to date the feasibility study is continuing. They are particularly anxious to make sure that they will have a happy labour relationship wherever they establish in Canada, and that is what they hope to determine this month.

September 12, 1985
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION CONCERNING QUEBEC
Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister did not answer the question. What I want to know is, since he says in English they are not and his colleagues are saying in French that they are intervening in favour of Quebec, what I want to know is what the Government's policy is. Are they intervening, yes or no? [English]
Yes or no, for God's sake?
[ Translation\


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, a job in Quebec-

-is a job in English or French.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John R. Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Yesterday the Minister talked tough in the House and outside the House.


John Carnell Crosbie: So did you.


John R. Rodriguez: Will the Minister give a guarantee to the workers at Inco and to the community of Sudbury that there will be no job losses at the Inco operation?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, what I said yesterday was that I thought that Inco was not fulfilling its corporate responsibilities. What I would do today is to say that all Hon. Members of this House, including myself as Minsiter of Employment and Immigration and the Hon. Member as the Member of Parliament for Nickel Belt, should join in urging Inco to fulfil those responsibilities and to urge as well all the other Hon. Members of his Party to do likewise.


Mr. Deans:: After we have urged them, what then?


REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO PROTECT JOBS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It is fairly obvious that the Minister does not care about the people of the Sudbury Basin.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: She does not care about the workers. Yesterday she promised the possibility of legislation to force the company to recognize its responsibility to the community. Will
the Minister give us a time? Will she tell us when she will introduce legislation to protect the jobs in the Sudbury Basin? Stop the rhetoric and put up some action.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, how quickly the Hon. Member changes his tune. Yesterday he was saying it was the fault of the unemployment insurance and I said to him at that time that the company had already determined that a substantial number of employees would take early retirement knowing the provisions. What they were speaking about was additional lay-offs and he accepted the premise that there should be those additional lay-offs. That is the difference between us. He accepted that premise without argument and I do not accept it without argument.


COINAGE
Mrs. Jennifer Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Supply and Services. I would like to ask the Minister if any final decision has been made with respect to the use of a $1 coin. And has consideration been given to requesting any comment from the individual consumer on its use and acceptability?


Hon. Stewart Mclnnes (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, this particular matter was the subject of a hearing before an all-Party committee and its particular report, which is rather voluminous, is now being studied. There are questions of utility, cost, and timing. A report will be made to the Cabinet with appropriate recommendations we hope in the very near future. We are still open to briefs and representations. In particular, the Consumers Association of Canada has been invited to comment.


AIR CANADA
André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport who must know that Air Canada regulations section 356 provides that, for service and safety purposes, a bilingual flight attendant must be on duty at all times to serve passengers in both official languages.
However, it would appear that this section of the regulations has been disregarded ever since the flight attendants went on strike.
Does the Minister intend to make representations to Air Canada and make sure that the linguistic and safety provisions
September 12, 1985

will be respected at all times so that the traveling public may use Air Canada aircraft without difficulty?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, this allegation, as well as others, is being investigated. I would like to point out to the Hon. Member that the alleged infractions presented to me by CALFAA are being examined by Transport Canada. Twenty-eight have been examined and have proven to show no safety fault. Another 43 are currently being considered and I will be glad to report to the Hon. Member on the specific point he has raised today.


CONSEQUENCES OF LABOUR DISPUTE
André Ouellet: A supplementary, Mr. Speaker. In answer to a question I asked him earlier this week the Minister told me that negotiations were progressing. Well, it would seem that negotiations were suspended last night and that, in the past few days, two incidents have paralyzed services in Montreal.
Does the Minister understand that he is dutybound to step in before the situation gets out of hand, or has he asked the Minister of Labour to intervene directly and personally in the dispute?


Hon. Bill McKnight (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as the Hon. Member has said, the talks between Air Canada and the Canadian Airline Flight Attendants' Association recessed yesterday at the request of the union. The union will be consulting with its membership, I am sure, for further direction. Hopefully both parties will be able to resume direct negotiations rather than having them imposed by this Minister or any other Minister in the House.


MONITORING OF CABIN CREWS
Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, last Tuesday the Minister of Transport told this House he had some 200 inspectors monitoring safety standards of replacement flight attendants on Air Canada. But his own assistant stated clearly in the media that there are only eight inspectors actually monitoring cabin crews for all airlines, let alone Air Canada.
The Minister asked CALFAA to provide him with information which his inspectors should be getting, and which I sent over to him the day before yesterday. I would like to know if the Minister had word of any of these infractions before CALFAA provided these documents to us and, if so, what action did he take? Did his inspectors report any of these to him? If so, what action did he take? Will he put more-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I think that is enough for the first question.
Oral Questions


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: -cabin crew inspectors in place at this time?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in addition to the eight specialist passenger safety inspectors, Transport Canada has deployed a total of 79 air carrier inspectors, 185 engineers and technical inspectors, and Transport Canada senior officials who frequently fly are also monitoring the safety operations of Air Canada. I would like to report to the Hon. Member that we are informed that only one major violation has been reported.
As to the other part of the question, as near as I can inform myself, I was not advised of any infractions other than the one referred to earlier. As I indicated, the alleged infractions are being examined by my officials. So far 28 reports have proven to have no safety fault, and the remaining 43 are still under investigation.


RECRUITMENT OF REPLACEMENTS FOR STRIKING FLIGHT ATTENDANTS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, may I return to the Minister of Labour? Since I know he works hard at being a neutral factor in labour disputes, would he tell the House whether or not he has spoken to the Minister of Employment and Immigration about the recruiting of amateur and unqualified flight attendants, which is strike breaking and which compromises the neutrality of the Minister of Labour and his Department in these negotiations?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I asked him the question.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The Hon. Member does not want me to answer.
I would like to make clear to him that my Department's policy in this regard is to remain neutral. We continue to accept requests from companies where there is a labour dispute, as we continue to accept requests from people seeking jobs. But in all of those cases we notify the individual, both in writing and orally, that there is a labour dispute in progress. We make no recommendation as to what that individual should do because to do otherwise would be to abandon the neutral position we maintain.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of International Trade admitted that he had discussions with Sam Wakim about taking on the Export Development Corporation's legal business. I want to ask the Minister when that meeting took place and which law firm Mr. Wakim was working with at that time.

September 12, 1985
Oral Questions


John Carnell Crosbie: Order paper.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the Hon. Member and the House yesterday, Mr. Wakim and a number of lawyers came to see me, as has happened to all Cabinet Ministers including the Hon. Member when he was a Minister, and discussed with me, as they all do, the possibility of doing government work.


MEETING WITH MINISTER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, that was what the Minister said yesterday but I would like to ask him today, and I repeat the question, when the meeting took place and which law firm Mr. Wakim was working for? Bearing in mind that the EDC had set down criteria that the law firm doing the work should have that expertise and have an office in Ottawa, was Mr. Wakim in a position to even be considered for the work of the EDC?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I point out that the law firm appointed to do the legal work for EDC was appointed by the EDC. It was the firm of Weir and Foulds, an excellent law firm.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: We know that. The question is when?


James Francis Kelleher: That is who is doing the work for them, not Mr. Sam Wakim.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Health and Welfare takes pride in himself for feeling priority should be given to those in greatest need. Will he confirm that budget measures applying to family allowances and child tax credits mean that poor families with an income of only $10,000 will lose money under his program by 1990? Is this his plan for helping those most in need?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member looks at the program put forward by the Minister of Finance in the Budget she will know that the tax credit helps exactly those families she has identified. The Government has also said that as the economy improves we would like to do more in this area, and that of course remains an option.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question. He knows that social policy groups have documented that poor families will lose under his program by 1990.
Since he is so determined to undermine universality, either by deindexation or by supporting the Macdonald guaranteed poverty proposals, did he mean yesterday that he really cares about the importance of families? If so, why is he allowing the Government to reduce the amount of money going to families by some $600 million by 1990? What is this going to do for families?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Mr. Speaker, this Government is not reducing or changing universality. It was the Hon. Member who said on television that she would be willing to tax pensions at a higher rate than those not getting pensions. What this Government is doing-


Margaret Anne Mitchell: What about the Macdonald Commission?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: She does not like to be reminded of what she said, but I intend to do that.
Under the Budget the very families she identifies will get more in a more progressive manner, one which social agencies generally approve. As the economy improves we will do more for families. She should get her head out of the sand and stop being so antediluvian.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Wednesday, September 11, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.

The petition presented and laid on the Clerk's Table by the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray) also meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Government House Leader (Mr. Hnatyshyn) what the business of the House will be under Government Orders for the coming week.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, in this new part of the session I welcome the traditional question from my colleague, the Hon. House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray). We have made good and constructive progress in terms of legislation this week. I am grateful to both opposition Parties for the progress that we are making.
September 12, 1985

At the present time we are considering second reading of Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and Canada Grain Act. When this debate is concluded, which it may be later this afternoon, I anticipate that we will then have an opportunity to consider the provisions of 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 Penitentiary Act, the Prison and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code for the balance of today and tomorrow.
I anticipate that certain items of legislation will be introduced for first reading before next week. It is my expectation that we will start on Monday dealing with a Bill that I anticipate will be forthcoming, an Act to amend the Family Allowances Act. There are other pieces of legislation which we may be able to deal with during the course of next week, including a Bill relating to redistribution. The basis of that legislation was considered last June by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I will continue to consult with my colleagues, the House Leaders of each of the Parties, to give maximum notice with respect to legislation. I hope that we will, as we did last year, operate in a spirit of co-operation and accomplishment.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, recognizing the necessity for preparation time, I was wondering whether the Government House Leader might consider having those Ministers, who intend to introduce legislation for first reading today or tomorrow, communicate with their counterparts in each of the two Parties today and give them at least an outline of the content of the legislation they intend to introduce in order that my colleagues would have an opportunity, on Saturday and Sunday, to prepare themselves for the debate on Monday.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: 1 will certainly do that, Mr. Speaker. In fact I fully expect to be able to table the Bill with respect to the Family Allowances Act amendments tomorrow in Routine Proceedings. Being an experienced parliamentarian, the Hon. Member will know that the Bill will put in place, legislatively, the provisions of the Budget of last May. With regard to the other Bill to which I alluded, but which has not yet been introduced, think that the Hon. Member, who will probably be the spokesperson for his Party on that, is aware of the essential basis of that legislation. There will be some refinements with respect to redistribution. 1 will table that Bill at the earliest possible date and will be glad to discuss with him and with my colleague, the House Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Gray), the provisions of that legislation at any time.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the day before yesterday the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) bootlegged in the Ways and Means motion on a point of order. Would he tell the House whether he is looking for concurrence of that Ways and Means motion before we proceed to the Family Allowance Bill?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I have a long history of being against bootlegging, either in the House or outside the House,
Petitions
so I do not understand the premise of the question. Having said that, I will make it a point to give advance notice to the distinguished Whip of the Official Opposition before I make any move in connection with the Ways and Means motion to which he refers.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, on the question of the deposition of the Bill on Family Allowances, am I to understand from the Government House Leader that we will have the Bill tomorrow? It will be deposed in the House tomorrow so that we can examine it on the weekend prior to the commencement of debate on Monday?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes, Mr. Speaker. If the Hon. Member will look at the Order Paper she will be aware of the fact that I gave notice yesterday. The purpose of that was to enable me to bring it forward before the weekend if at all humanly possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by approximately 74 members of the Millwrights and Machine Erectors Local 1151, which covers most of northwestern Ontario, They are calling upon the Government to change the Unemployment Insurance Commission regulations to allow them once again to use pension moneys, vacation moneys, and severance pay as savings as opposed to earnings insofar as the unemployment insurance regulations apply.


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, I have the privilege of presenting a petition from citizens of Hamilton humbly pray and call upon Parliament to ensure that retiring employees keep their pension benefits and receive unemployment insurance benefits without deduction of pension income.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many members of the Ontario Secondary School Teachers Federation which calls upon Parliament to withdraw the proposal with regard to unemployment insurance which would require pension benefits to be calculated for unemployment insurance purposes.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition from many people in British Columbia asking that the Government ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefit without deduction of pension income.

September 12, 1985
Order Paper Questions QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)


Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to advise the House that question No. 392 will be answered today. I would ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Allmand: Since September 4, 1984, were 700 unemployment insurance agents hired to more closely monitor the unemployment insurance system and, if so (<z) what is the salary range of each individual (b) what is the regional breakdown of these employees (c) what kind of training did they undertake (d) what is their job description?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No. (a), (b), (c) and (d) Not applicable.


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


Jean-Robert Gauthier: I rise on a point of order. I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could take it under notice that we would appreciate very much if he would give us the percentage of questions that the Government has answered as of today. It is usual for the Government to account for the question that it answers. We have noticed that fewer and fewer questions are being answered. There was one today and one yesterday. I just wondered if he could give us the percentage of questions that have been answered as of today?


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the answer but it is not normal to allow that either as a statement or as a question. However, this time I will allow it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member checks Hansard he will find that two questions were answered yesterday rather than one. Without checking the figures, I assure him that it is substantial.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Wise that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, at the specific request of my colleague from Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I have decided to continue where I left off. I felt I could not leave any loose ends, especially since the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is in the House. I am delighted with this unique opportunity to see the Hon. Member taking part and listening to the debate in the House. I shall nevertheless be brief, Mr. Speaker, since the time of the House is a precious commodity and we have already established some agreement on the Bill and its consequences.
Mr. Speaker, just before the House took recess this morning, I was saying that the new legislation will provide for more satisfactory regulation and control of the quality and sale of seeds in this country, by improving our system and making it more flexible. I think now we can say we have guarantees, as far as that is possible against the introduction of inferior varieties that are not adapted to our climate, and that for the years to come.
I want to proceed quickly with another important aspect, and I am referring to the increased penalties provided under the legislation. If we refer to page 4a of the Bill, we see that far more severe penalties are now provided under the proposed legislation and that persons who contravene its provisions will be severely punished. I feel this adds a guarantee of a certain degree of security to the present legislation.
I see that my comments command the sustained attention of the Opposition as usual, when we are talking about serious matters, Mr. Speaker. They must be having a hard time deciding who is going to be the new Opposition critic for agriculture. There seems to be a lot of enthusiasm for the job.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding I would also like to comment on the work done by representatives of the Canadian Seed Growers Association whom I was able to meet several times and who must feel very uncomfortable when they hear what Opposition Members in the House have to say, because there is a vast difference between what they say and the interests of the Canadian associations. The sustained interest shown by this association over the past years has made it possible for the Government to introduce and improve legislation, with the
September 12, 1985

result that if the passage of this Bill is expedited, we shall have legislation that will be truly beneficial to our Canadian producers.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: A comment, Mr. Speaker.
The Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) made two factual errors in the course of his remarks. First he said that the Bill would be referred to a standing committee. The House adopted a resolution under which the Bill will be referred to a legislative committee. That is one correction and I am sure he will agree with me on that and that there is no problem.
Second, he said in his remarks that the Member for Glen-garry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is a Member who does not attend Committee of Agriculture meetings and who is not often in the House. I think that as Party Whip and one who ought to know the answer I will inform him, even though the Member for Bellechasse does not seem to know.
The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell-one must not forget the three ridings, that is very important-is the official Liberal spokesman and critic with respect to Supply and Services. On top of that he is vice-chairman of the caucus committee. He is the Ontario Liberal caucus vice-president. But with respect to parliamentary business, House attendance, if the Hon. Member wants to see his file I can give it to him because I look after the files, and his record is as good as anyone else's.
The Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is among those who regularly attend House and committee proceedings. He sits regularly on three committees and, in my opinion, it is unfair on the part of the Hon. Member for Bellechasse to impute to a hard-working colleague motives as vile and as ridiculous as saying that he is not here and what have you-


Pierre Blais: He is never here, Mr. Speaker! Considering the experience of my colleague the Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), I am surprised that the Member for Ottawa-Vanier would use a language ... I would dare say as ridiculous and inappropriate, to use his own words.
Mr. Speaker, far from me to point out the absence of the Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria). On the contrary! But everytime he speaks in the House a few minutes after he is gone. He raises questions and then out he goes, so no one can give him an answer.
Still I am pleased to have been brought up to date with respect to the curriculum vitae of the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. Mr. Speaker, he will need all the experience he can get after the next election if he wants to be hired somewhere because there is no assurance he will be able to come back to the House of Commons.


Mr. Rossi:: And that goes for you too!
Seeds and Grain Acts


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. 1 have a comment to make about the Hon. Member's statement. Without bragging, Mr. Speaker, I would point out to the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) that after the so-called Conservative Party sweep I happened to be the Opposition Member who was elected with the largest majority in Canada. 1 am sure he cannot claim a similar achievement, much less so after the next election.


Carlo Rossi: How true! How true!


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to join the debate on Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act. Because this Bill was introduced on short notice, it was difficult to prepare for this debate and be briefed on the Bill. However, the Minister stated that this is a technical Bill which should be beneficial to groups involved in the production, marketing, distribution and maintenance of seeds. Of course, this is an important topic, especially in a highly developed and technologically advanced country like Canada. When this Bill goes to the legislative committee-the Hon. Member for Bellechasse (Mr. Blais) does not seem to realize that we have established a legislative committee to look after Bills in the future-I hope we will be able to study it in greater detail.
It appears from a quick review of the Bill that the Government, apart from clarifying definitions of such words as "to sell" and "grade", seems to have taken unto itself a great deal of power by regulation.
For instance, Clause 4 of the Bill gives the Governor in Council vast new powers relating to information, registration of seeds, and specifying terms and conditions under which seeds can be registered.
It also prescribes procedures for review of cases involving the refusal, suspension or cancellation of registration of seeds. In Clause 4(h.5) of the Bill it gives the Governor in Council the power by regulation in:
determining the cases in which and the conditions, including provision of a bond, under which seeds shall, for the purposes of this Act, be transported and stored on importation.
There is a great deal of concern in the agricultural community with the powers the Minister already has by regulation for the inspection of crops, especially with the decision made last November 8, a day which has become known in the agricultural community as black Thursday. The Government imposed an unprecedented $32 million worth of inspection charges on Canadian agriculture.
I have in my hand a letter from the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture denouncing those charges which have been imposed on agricultural production. These charges have come at a time when agricultural producers right across the nation are feeling disposessed by this Government. They are declaring bankruptcy and the incidents of foreclosure are in record numbers. In the first two months of this fiscal year, the Farm

September 12, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
Credit Corporation reported foreclosures were taking place 87 per cent more rapidly than last year, which works out to about 11 foreclosures a week.
Pressures are great on the producers and commodity prices are low. For instance, I am told the price of potatoes to the producers in Prince Edward Island and in New Brunswick are running at 2 cents a pound or a little over that while production costs are well above 4 cents a pound. How the Government can be imposing new inspection charges at this time is puzzling. These charges amount to 3 cents a pound-that is for the average 600 acre potato farm in Prince Edward Island-or $3,600 per farm. It is a massive increase for something which historically has been paid for by the Department of Agriculture on the understanding that the Government has a certain responsibility for quality, grading and inspection of crops in order to protect the quality, the sizing and the trade aspects of agricultural commodities.
The Government is claiming more regulatory powers in this Bill. We wonder whether this is just another phase of increasing these fees. In a letter, a copy of which was sent to me by the Secretary Manager of the Nova Scotia Federation of Agriculture, he speaks about inspection licence and fees regarding field crops. He points out that the new aspect to this issue is the requirement for a mandatory licensing for all shipments crossing provincial boundaries, for which a $500 annual licence fee will be required, and a 3 cent per hundredweight inspection fee. Prior to June, 1984, shippers of fresh products on a small scale individual farm basis have been exempt from licence fee which then was only $25. We see the licence fee going up from $25 to $500. No actual inspection of the product is conducted nor is it planned that such an inspection service should be provided. I inquired of the program officer in Moncton as to whether one licence by a commodity group or a maritime association such as like the Maritime Strawberry Council could accommodate the requirement of the regulation, and was told that it would not. Each individual shipper must be licensed whether selling his own product or someone else's product. I pointed out that this regulation effectively put small producers with sales of $ 1,000 a year out of business. Therefore, it would be in the best interests of Nova Scotia producers to protest the manner in which the inspection fees are being applied. A $500 annual licence fee for which no service is provided, thus effectively putting fresh dairy and vegetable producers out of business runs contrary to Nova Scotia federal agreements and a host of other goals for our crop community groups.
We can see that those fees which were imposed last fall, besides being unfair and unjust could hardly have been imposed at a worse time for so many commodity groups in Canada. They were just not imposed for horticultural products but only for meat inspection, hogs, beef and so on. It was done without very much concern for the current difficult time we are in. That $32 million in service charges was combined with drastic cuts in many other areas and was supplemented later in the Budget with another $50 million cut, about which everyone in the agricultural community is holding his breath because
people do not know where the other shoe will drop, whether there will be more service charges, a cut in the dairy subsidy, a cut in transportation or research. I hope the Minister when we get him before the committee will be able to clarify that point.
We do have new regulatory powers. We will want to know exactly how the Government plans to use those in the weeks ahead, if and when this legislation is passed by the committee and by the whole House. The Government seems to have imposed Draconian penalties under this Bill. The summary conviction penalty now of $500 for a minor infraction of the Seeds Act would seem to be adequate. That $500 penalty is to be increased to $25,000. I know we cannot ask questions in the House today at second reading as to why that amount is being increased, but surely a $25,000 fine is a very severe penalty for a minor infraction under this Act? As well, when a proceeding commences in a court on conviction on indictment, Clause 7 of the Bill reads:
(b) on conviction on indictment, to a fine in the discretion of the court or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding five years or to both.
A five year penalty for an infraction of this Act seems a very severe penalty. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary or the Minister, whoever is carrying this Bill in the committee, will be able to explain why we would want to incarcerate somebody for five years for an infraction of the Seeds Act. I hope that that can be clarified for the members of the committee.
There is another aspect of the Bill about which I wonder whether it is in contravention of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Under Section 7 there are very broad powers regarding seizure. It seems to me that this Bill would give an inspector the right to seizure under Section 7. I am wondering whether that procedure can be exercised without the benefit of a search warrant. Surely an inspector cannot make seizures without the proper authority of a search warrant as is required by that section of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Yesterday we discussed in the House amendments which would do away with writs of assistance in drug legislation.
The concern of the House-and it is certainly that of Hon. Members on this side-is that although this Bill is probably necessary to improve the operation of the Seeds Act, why has the Government not come forward with substantive legislation? I am not aware of massive problems in the areas of licensing and the regulation of seeds. Obviously this legislation will enhance those processes. However, why has the Government not dealt with many other problems which are facing the Canadian agricultural community today? Why has there been no decision on drought assistance for the agricultural community in western Canada? The Hon. Member for Assiniboia, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson), has been thrashing around on this issue for two or three months. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said that he could not make a decision because that Parliamentary Secretary has been unable to make a report. Also he said that he hoped a report would be forthcoming in a few weeks.
September 12, 1985

I find it difficult to understand how the Government of Saskatchewan was able to make a decision in late July that it would pay a wintering benefit of some $60 per head of cattle, yet it took the Government of Canada and the committee it established another three or four weeks to decide to provide $30 per head for wintering and drought assistance. That announcement was made with a grand flourish and, lo and behold, we found that the Premier of Saskatchewan reached out and grabbed that $30 per head or $16 million and took it unto himself. The result is that farmers are no better off. It was a beautiful song and dance show. It was almost like the "sham on the rocks" in Quebec City. After the federal announcement, livestock producers ended up with the same $60 per head. As a matter of fact, they probably thought something would be forthcoming from the federal Government, but they ended up with nothing. The provincial Government effectively set the policy for assistance to the livestock industry back in late July. Why has it taken the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister so long to reach a decision about assistance or to make a recommendation to the Government in favour of assistance to grain producers?
I had an opportunity in late July to visit areas in southwestern Saskatchewan and to see the burnt crops. There will be no crop or very little crop this year. The Government brings in technical legislation when it should bring in substantive decisions and solutions. If it is beneficial, desirable and necessary for the Government to make known to livestock producers in southern Saskatchewan and Alberta how much will be available for this coming winter to keep their basic herds intact, surely it is equally valuable for grain producers. Although a seeds Bill is important and valuable, it seems to me that we should be talking about assistance to the wheat and grain growers of western Canada. In early August the wheat pool indicated that a program involving some $50 per acre or $500 million was needed. I had hoped the committee on the government side which is studying this matter sat down with the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool and other agricultural groups in Saskatchewan, Alberta and the Peace River country to get on with reaching a decision. When I asked the Minister about it in the House this week, he said that it would be another two or three weeks.
The situation is really desperate. Many of us have had a chance to visit those areas. We have seen the clips on television of farmers lining up at welfare offices looking for assistance. We have seen the statistics of the Farm Credit Corporation which indicate that in the first two or three months of this fiscal year that some 35 per cent or 40 per cent of foreclosures were on farm property. As a matter of fact, all foreclosures and bankruptcies are running at a rate of some 87 per cent or some 11 per week. Although we are glad to see this Bill before the House today, we would like to see substantive legislation and programs to rescue agricultural producers from the desperate situation in which they find themselves today.


Mr. Gustafson:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a couple of comments about some of the suggestions and accusations which were made by the Hon. Member, particularly those
Seeds and Grain Acts
relating to the drought. There is no question that the drought is a very serious situation and that it is very frustrating for farmers. It has gone on for a number of years in some of the serious drought areas and has involved a number of acres.
The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and that task force on drought have responded quickly. We felt that the main consideration had to be the livestock area. The Government supported the recommendations of the task force. We moved, and some $48 million is being paid right now-and many farmers have received their cheques-in terms of feed assistance for their herds. We felt that this was most important and we moved on phase one. The Hon. Member raised what we call phase two relating to crops and grain production. Surely he must understand that the crop reports have to come in. We are not only dealing with southern Saskatchewan. We are also dealing with Alberta, the Peace River and into British Columbia. I have recently checked with some Hon. Members from Alberta and they indicated that the crops in that area were less than 5 per cent harvested. It is impossible to get results from the crop insurance people. As well, in terms of what the Government has done, I am sure the Hon. Member is well aware that the federal Government does pay 50 per cent of the crop insurance premiums. In addition to that, last year the Government paid into the drought areas some $250 million. It is estimated that this year, the dollar value will probably go beyond $250 million. We have responded very positively. It is a downright shame that the Opposition has tried to capitalize on a very serious drought situation in order to make political headway. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that they are not going to do this on the backs of western Canadian farmers.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member says that he has responded. The Premier of Saskatchewan responded about two or three weeks before he did. The province essentially set the rate and the Government of Caanda simply offered half of the help. That is history now.
It is rather interesting that the Parliamentary Secretary has indicated that he made a report. If I heard the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) correctly yesterday, he said that he could not really make a decision because he was waiting for a report from the Parliamentary Secretary. It seems to me that they should get their stories straight so that they are both saying the same thing.
Dealing with the task force, the Parliamentary Secretary has said that it really cannot make a decision until all of the crop reports are in. There are many areas in western Canada where there are effectively no crops. I visited Assiniboia and southern Saskatchewan almost two months ago and there was no crop at that time. Things certainly have not improved since. As a matter of fact, getting the crop off is the problem. I believe we are talking about a question of confidence. We should ask if the Government is going to provide the assistance that is necessary.

September 12, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
In 1984 when the Liberal Party was in Government, there was a demand by all Members of the Tory Party who were sitting on this side of the House that the Government commit itself to crops that were destroyed in northeastern Saskatchewan. The Hon. Member who represents that area is in the House today. It was demanded that the Government make a commitment and the then Prime Minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), did make a commitment of $20 per acre. The Tories only paid half of that when they came into power.
For opposition Members to be asking when the Government is going to make a commitment to western agriculture at a time when the Saskatchewan Wheat Pool has been demanding a commitment for the last three or four weeks is certainly not too soon. I am disappointed that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Prime Minister (Mr. Gustafson), who obviously wields a great deal of power not only in his caucus but in the councils of the Government, was not able to say that the Government will make a decision within a week. If the Parliamentary Secretary makes a further comment today, I hope he will be able to make a commitment as to when the Government will help the grain producers of western Canada.


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Mr. Speaker, it is an honour to have you in the chair today to listen to a very important debate on agriculture. I am sure this debate is of grave importance to members of your constituency. Many of us in the West raise bird seed and I am sure many of your constituents, Mr. Speaker, feed canaries, budgies and so forth. I am pleased that you are here to listen to this debate.
Obviously the Member who just spoke was caught without his notes on the Seeds Act so he quickly grabbed some notes on the drought and decided to make a little speech on drought assistance. His argument dealt with who responded first. That is a typical Liberal argument. Liberal Members are not really sure what to do. There is no point in consulting so they just respond first and take credit for action on behalf of farmers. It does not really matter if they help the farmers or not. It is only important for them to get a press release out. That is the way the former Minister of Agriculture acted so often, unlike this Minister who has acted through legislation. Members of Parliament were busy last year and are already busy again dealing with issues that are important to agriculture.
During the previous Government, we often waited patiently for Mr. Whelan to come forward with legislation. The only times we debated agriculture were when we had an Opposition Day and opposition Members raised issues that were important to agriculture.
The question of who responded first is not important in my mind. The Parliamentary Secretary has done an excellent job on behalf of western farmers in being on the scene. He has discussed with them the difficulties that they face and has asked the farmers and organizations about the best possible way to respond to this year's drought. As he adequately explained, there was a need to act quickly as far as livestock producers were concerned because green feed had to be cut and farmers had to know whether or not they could afford to
purchase green feed for their livestock this year. That action has been taken and $48 million has been allocated by the federal Government. As well, monies have been allocated by the provincial Governments to respond to this very serious drought situation.
Now we are facing a serious problem for the cereal and oilseed crop farmers as well. The task force is making recommendations to the Minister for action in that area. We have made the commitment to assist the western Canadian farmers regarding the drought and we will. At the same time, the payments have gone out under the Western Grain Stabilization Act because of amendments that were made in this House. Crop insurance has been adjusted so that payments and adjustments can be made quickly. The Government has acted in a number of other areas of legislation that has been brought before this House. I find the arguments made by the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) to be pretty weak.
Not so many years ago, I sat in the spot of the Hon. Member for Algoma. It was much easier to criticize than to defend. The Hon. Member visited the drought areas. I would ask him if he made observations, decided on possible solutions and mailed those solutions to the Hon. Member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson). I see his head shaking in the negative. Therefore, we have not heard his suggestions as to how that assistance might be offered. We have only heard criticism. At any rate, I know that suggestions we will hear will be adequate and the farmers will be pleased with the assistance that will be offered in the next few weeks.
I wish to make some comments on the Seeds Act. The Seeds Act is very important to farmers across the country. Canada can be proud of the legislation that has allowed proper research to take place into the various varieties of seeds that have been offered to Canadian farmers. The legislation has put before us a system of which we can be proud, a system that takes seeds from the research centres and puts them in the hands of farmers so that farmers can take that progeny and expand on it so that it can be made available very quickly to ordinary commercial seed growers or farmers. That is something of which we have to be very proud. That Act was brought in, I believe, back in 1905. It was written with such thought at the time that few amendments have had to be made up to this point in time. A minor amendment was made in 1977. As the Minister has stated, we are now attempting to adjust the Seeds Act in a mainly technical manner to ensure that it will be more beneficial to farmers than it is at the present time.
I have no argument with most of the sections of the Act. However, I do have an argument with one in particular. I wish to raise that matter in my short address to the House this afternoon. I approve of the amendments which are being proposed to many of the sections which have to do with the importation of seeds, the bonding of importers and the seizure of improper seeds coming into the country. The penalties which were originally brought in in 1905 are outdated at this
September 12, 1985

time. They need to be adjusted so that farmers will take them more seriously. The status of the Canadian Seed Growers Association is also dealt with in this legislation.
However, as is often the case when departments draft Bills of this type, it is possible for them to put into the legislation powers with which I have some concern and with which many legislators would have concern, if they were to give it some deep thought. We were warned of the possibility of changes to the manner in which farmers may be able to advertise seeds in this country because the legislation which is before us now has been talked about for some years. Those of us who represent grain-growing areas have consulted with our seed growers and with commercial farmers as to whether or not they have had any difficulties with the legislation. 1 sent out hundreds of letters in my constituency to farmers who produce grain and seed asking for their comments. Most of them commented in favour of the legislation with the exception of one section.
That section has to do with Clause 4(2) of the Bill wherein a number of powers are being added by regulation. The one that is of most concern is that with respect to the advertising of seeds. Under the present legislation, it is only possible for a registered seed grower to use the term "registered seed" or "certified seed". Usage of those terms signifies that the grower has a licence to take progeny from the agricultural research stations or scientists at universities who produce such seed, expand it and make it available in true variety to farmers. However, in the past, under the Act, farmers who have purchased registered seed have been allowed to grow that seed and advertise it as commercial seed grown from registered seed. For example, Johnson barley which is purchased as registered Johnson barley is grown on a commercial farm and then offered for sale in advertisement as commercial seed grown from registered Johnson barley. Many seed growers have stated that there is the possibility that a farmer looking in a newspaper without proper scrutiny will think that he is buying true variety. That is generally not the case since most commercial farms are not as cautious as they should be with respect to ensuring that the fields they plant of this true variety are free of other varieties. Thus, I can see the reasoning for putting forward such an amendment. However, I believe the point has been carried too far.
The reason I believe it has been carried too far is that the legislation now states that no farmer shall be able to advertise a variety of crop for sale but that he will only be able to advertise, for example, barley for sale, oats for sale or wheat for sale. 1 can imagine if I were a farmer that I would want to purchase not registered seed from a registered seed grower but a commercial seed, perhaps because my crop froze last year, 1 do not have the seed available and I need to purchase seed for my whole farm. Registered seed generally sells at $1 to $3 a bushel above commercial seed. To buy seed for hundreds or even thousands of acres can be extremely expensive if only registered seed is bought. Thus, many farmers who make a practice of buying commercial seed are not concerned about it being 100 per cent true to variety. They are concerned about getting as true a seed as possible in the ground in the spring.
Seeds and Grain Acts
Therefore, they buy from neighbouring farms a variety which they believe is close to true and has a good germination factor. It is important that we continue to allow commercial seed growers to advertise the variety name. I hope I can convince the Minister and the officials when we meet in committee that we should not allow commercial seed growers to use the term "grown from registered seed" or "grown from certified seed", but that they can continue to use the variety name.
The point I am making is a very narrow but important one. It is important to many farmers. I speak from the experience of western Canada; however, I am sure the case can be made across the country. I believe, then, that there will be adequate distinction between certified seed or registered seed and seed which is grown on a commercial farm. That would make it much easier, in the early spring, when most farmers are looking for seed for their farms, to go down the advertising columns in search of seed. For example, if I am looking for Johnson barley for my farm I will be able to see whom I have to call to inquire about the seed because it will be listed as Johnson barley. I will also know that it is not registered or certified and that it is not intended to be totally true to variety and that there may be some possibility of wheat seeds present in the sample.
I hope to bring this issue with some vigour and backing by my constituents to the legislative committee so that we can receive an indication from the Minister and his officials as to why he feels it improper to continue to use the variety name. I hope that we will hear not only from the registered seed growers but from the commercial farmers as well with respect to the difficulties this suggested amendment will cause. Perhaps we can come to a compromise amendment which will be of assistance to farmers when they are attempting to purchase seed in the spring.
You will find, Mr. Speaker, that there are many times more commercial growers in Canada than registered seed growers. They do produce a relatively good sample for farmers and over the last century many, many farmers in Canada have utilized the commercial seed grower and have received good results from that seed. I also commend the registered seed growers who have served this country well. They are very diligent in their practice of providing adequate and true seed for farmers. They have abided very well, in large, by the act over the last number of years. Therefore, I support the Bill with the exception of that section. I intend to raise it in committee. I am pleased that we are dealing with this very important Bill in such a proper and concise manner today.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to comment on the speech of the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellen-berger) because he really tried to lead the House to believe that the Government was taking very substantive action with regard to agriculture. I was amazed because it seems to me that we essentially have had a tremendous stall on any number of issues facing agriculture. The Bill today, although it is important in a technical sense and beneficial to the registered

September 12, 1985
Seeds and Grain Acts
seed growers and to the commerce of that whole industry, is surely not as important as the other issues facing agriculture in Canada today, such as the drought in western Canada.
The Hon. Member asked what the Liberals would do. Last year we made a commitment in the Mackenzie area of northeastern Saskatchewan of some $20 per acre. Perhaps it should now be $25 and the provincial Government should match it. However, when we were in power we made that kind fo commitment late in July. It is now getting into the middle of September and the Government still has not made any commitment for the grain industry even though it is facing a desperate situation.
I would like to read briefly in a report from a newspaper article in which the Saskatchewan wheat pool calls for $.5 billion program in drought aid. The proposal would involve payments up to $50 an acre to farmers in the most severely affected areas. Mr. Avery Sahl, the vice-president of the Saskatchewan pool said that even $50 an acre will barely be enough to help the most drastically affected to survive, particularly producers who spent thousands of dollars fighting grasshoppers this summer. Mr. Sahl is also a member of the Canadian Wheat Board Advisory Committee. He said that 30,700 Saskatchewan farms have been affected by the drought in varying degrees.
I think the most important part of the article is Mr. Sahl's comment with regard to farm families because the drought is one thing with the loss of crops and so on but the impact on the families is equally important. He went on to say, and I quote:
Some farm families are literally destitute in our part of the province,... Others are not far behind, and the communities which rely on agriculture are severely strained.
In a major portion of the province, the whole rural economy is bordering on collapse.
Therefore I believe that urging the Government to make a decision and take action now is not out of line. I am sure that sentiment is echoed by every western producer who wants to see the Government take action.
The Hon. Member says that the Government is bringing forward a lot of substantial legislation. The Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) published a paper in January and gave his views of Canadian agriculture. He put out a white paper on taxation issues in agriculture and said essentially in that paper that farmers were well off, they made twice as much money as the average Canadian and paid a quarter as much tax. I question and I believe every farmer in this country questions whether that is not really the philosophy of the Government. I am not speaking about the backbenchers because the Hon. Member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) was a very active Member on the Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs. He made some very worth-while recommendations and suggestions to the committee. However, what happened to them? With respect to the farm debt crisis, which is certainly worse than in the 1930s, no action has been taken, even though the farm debt crisis has exacerbated. The number of farmers in serious financial difficulty has risen from 17 per
cent or 19 per cent last year-depending on how you calculate-to 20 per cent of the farmers in Canada today. For the Hon. Member to suggest the Government is bringing forward momentous decisions is really not true because those decisions are not there for the farm debt crisis. Certainly no decision has been made on the red meat stabilization plan. One of the decisions which was made in the Budget was to assist farmers to get out of farming. Another decision was to impose a nine cent a gallon excise tax on fuel. That was a major campaign commitment just a little over a year ago when the Conservative Party were on the hustings. Within nine months of taking that tax off fuel, they imposed a tax of nine cents a gallon which in the West is being called the harvest tax. On June 1, they removed the exemption on the petroleum compensation charge which was another six cents or seven cents a gallon. In the last three months, therefore, the Government has really imposed some 15 cents or 16 cents a gallon fuel tax. A year from January it will be imposing another four cents a litre or 18 cents a gallon of new tax. Surely that is not the kind of dramatic action about which the Hon. Member spoke because it just exacerbates the situation and imposes that much more hardship because of the increase in farm input costs.
The Hon. Member says the Government is taking action in bringing forward legislation. We have not seen a decision on the dairy policy or on the farm debt crisis. We have a debate going on between the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) and the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Cote) as to whether they are going to put in place a prebankruptcy or preforeclosure arbitration procedure. We know the Budget of the Department of Agriculture is going to be cut by some $50 million but we do not know what that is going to affect. We have seen worse kinds of difficulties with trade issues in this past 12 months than farmers have faced in many years. We are supposed to have a new era in our relationship with the United States and other countries but all we see is something like a thousand carcasses of EEC subsidized beef being dumped into our Canadian market. We see a countervail on hogs going to the United States of 5.3 cents a pound. I would like to believe the Hon. Member. I know he is a dedicated and committed Member, one who has worked very effectively in the committee on farm legislation, but I really do not see this dramatic and effective legislation coming forward which he talked about when he spoke this afternoon.


Stanley Kenneth Schellenberger: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has a selective memory, and that is allowed when you are in opposition. Perhaps it is typical. He ought to make it clear that the reason they acted so quickly in July of last year was because there was an election on and it became very important to offer quickly a supposed solution to the drought situation. We have acted quickly, as I said in my speech, with the $48 million allotment for cattle, and we will act, after full consultation, for the grain farmers in western Canada. He knows and I know that in the committee we dealt with the financial paper and we pointed out many of the errors. We made recommendations which I think are adequate and proper for farming, and some
September 12, 1985

have been acted on. The Red Meat Stabilization Bill was passed and it will be used by farmers.
As his Party's agriculture critic the Hon. Member has been very busy this year. The reason for that is that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has been very busy in acting for farmers across this country. I hope the Hon. Member continues to be very busy.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The period for questions and comments is now over.
Resuming debate? Question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Epp (for Mr. Wise), seconded by Mr. Hnatyshyn, moves that Bill C-64, an Act to amend the Seeds Act and the Canada Grain Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Pursuant to Standing Order 46, it is my duty to inform the House that the questions to be raised at the time of adjournment are as follows: The Hon. Member for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre)-External Affairs-Importation of Japanese cars (a) Government position. (b) Statement by United States official; the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon)-Industry-Mitel Corporation-British Telecom takeover proposal; the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-The Budget (a) Impact on agriculture. (b) Excise tax.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

["Order, please. I am sorry, but the hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired."]
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. There have been discussions among the Parties and I believe there will be consent for the adoption by the House of this motion, namely:
That when the Order for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, is called, the following Order shall also be deemed to have been called:
Criminal Code Amendments
"for the second reading and reference to a legislative committee of Bill C-68,
an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and
Reformatories Act, and the Criminal Code; and
That when the motion for second reading of these Bills is adopted, they shall both stand referred to the same legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The House has heard the motion. Does the House agree to the terms of the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


PAROLE ACT, PENITENTIARY ACT, PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT, AND CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, because of other business I was not able to be here in the House this morning when the House was completing debate on Bill C-65. However, my colleague from Burnaby was kind enough to come over and tell me that when he spoke this morning on Bill C-65 he was virtually bubbling over with generous comments about my appointment as Solicitor General. I want to thank him for those kind comments. While he is in such a good mood I thought it would be timely for me to call debate on Bill C-67 and Bill C-68 in the hope that that spirit of enthusiasm and goodwill and all-Party agreement which has characterized our relationship to date will continue throughout the course of the day and that in the course of the next 45 minutes we will see these two measures adopted.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Don't push your luck.


Henry Perrin Beatty: My colleague issues a minor caution. I thank him again for his kind comments this morning.
I am pleased at this point to open the debate on second reading of Bill C-67 and Bill C-68, and I want to deal with each of them in turn. At the heart of Bill C-67 are important amendments to the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act which will effect changes to the correctional program and conditional release known as mandatory supervision. Provisions in the Bill

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
will tighten some of the features of that program for penitentiary inmates who pose a high risk of violence. These changes are clearly required and they have long been advocated by police, victims' organizations, and many concerned private and professional groups and individuals. At the same time the Bill contains balancing provisions which will ensure that inmates who are considered good risks while under supervision in the community will be considered by the National Parole Board at the earliest possible point in their sentence.
In its first Speech from the Throne the Government expressed its intention to respond to public concerns with regard to our system of criminal justice. We promised to correct defects in that system to ensure the best protection of the public from criminal acts which can be devised. Bill C-67 is not the total answer to that promise but it is a very important beginning. It contains measures which were urgently required and could be introduced quickly while awaiting the outcome of broader policy reviews currently under way in my Ministry and in the Department of Justice.
Perhaps the most pressing matter dealt with by this Bill is that aspect of the existing law which compels the automatic release of penitentiary inmates on mandatory supervision as a result of earned remission. The law now allows an inmate to earn the remission of up to one-third of his sentence through good conduct. An inmate who has earned all of his earned remission must by law now be released after serving two-thirds of his sentence. The last third is served in the community under mandatory supervision. Such a release must be granted even if there is a consensus among correctional and parole officials that he poses an imminent risk of violence to the community. Situations such as this have occurred in the past, too often with tragic results. We on this side of the House find it abhorrent that this situation shoud be allowed to continue. That is why a mechanism was provided in this Bill to give the National Parole Board the authority to prevent releases in certain cases.
The schedule to the Bill identifies a group of offences which, by their nature, involve violent conduct. Inmates serving a sentence for one of those offences will no longer be unconditionally entitled to release on mandatory supervision. Their earned remission will be used to calculate a presumptive release date but they will be liable to have their release on mandatory supervision denied if certain other conditions are met.
I would digress here to say that where the Government enumerates lists of offences like this, there is certainly room for debate and discussion about the list, whether the number of offences it lists is too long or too short, and we are prepared to listen with an open mind when this matter goes to committee. However, we feel it is important that the House give guidance to the parole service for some of those offence where it is clear that an individual has been involved in violence in the past, where there is a potential for violence in the future, to ensure that before potentially violent criminals are released back into society the NPB has an opportunity to review those cases. Correctional officials will examine these cases, Mr. Speaker,
when the presumptive release data draws near. They will determine if, in addition, serious harm, which is defined in the Bill, or death, was caused to another person in the commission of the offence. If this criterion is also met, it will then be decided if there appears to be reasonable grounds to believe that another offence causing serious harm or death would be committed while under mandatory supervision if that person were released. Should such grounds appear to exist the case will be referred to the National Parole Board. This is a mechanism to trigger a review by the NPB to ensure the rights of ordinary, innocent, law-abiding Canadians, their right to be free from violence, are respected. The Board will review background and other information that is material to the case, including the assessment of experts where necessary. A hearing will be held at which the inmate will be able to make representations on his own behalf. Procedural safeguards will be provided throughout this process so that the inmate is aware of the information being considered by the Board, is able to present his own case and be assisted at the hearing, and is aware of the reasons for the decision that is ultimately taken by the Board.
Time limits are prescribed in the Bill and others will be contained in the regulations. These will ensure that, barring exceptional circumstances, the process will allow enough time before the presumed release date for the inmate to apply for a re-examination of the decision by a different panel of Parole Board members, and to apply to the Federal Court for a review if he feels that he is not being treated fairly.
Following its review and hearing the Board will decide if there are reasonable grounds to believe that the inmate would commit an act of violence while under mandatory supervision. If so, the Board will be empowered to order that the inmate not be so released and remain in the penitentiary until the expiry of the full sentence or until the detention order is lifted. Lifting the order would reinstate the balance of the mandatory supervision period. Should the Board decide that it would only be safe to release an inmate under strict conditions, it would be able to require such conditions to be met before allowing the release to take place. These conditions could include residence in a community-based residential facility operated under a private or public auspices, including low security penitentiary facilities usually referred to as community correction centres. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, these measures will enable us to fill a gap by providing the correctional system with the possibility of singling out potentially dangerous inmates and preventing their release on parole, or of releasing them under mandatory supervision under very strict conditions.

They will do so while fully protecting the rights of inmates not to be treated arbitrarily or capriciously where their liberty is at stake. While it would be vain to hope that all potentially dangerous inmates can be identified, or that all violence by released inmates can be prevented, these measures will ensure
September 12, 1985

that we are able to effectively intervene when there are reasonable grounds to anticipate violent conduct during the sentence that it is our responsibility to administer. Although the number of such cases may be few, the additional protection this will offer to the public will be significant.
1 think it is appropriate for me to digress briefly at this point to say that I am new to my responsibilities and am looking forward to having a chance to learn more about them as 1 go along. 1 am not a lawyer, as was mentioned at the time 1 was appointed. 1 am new to the criminal justice system. I hope that on behalf of the people of Canada I will be able to bring a fresh perspective to the criminal justice system. Most importantly, I hope to be able to represent some of the concerns that are felt by ordinary Canadians with regard to violent crime. What is significant to me, Mr. Speaker, and to the people that each of us in the House of Commons represents, is that in a democracy like ours the most basic liberty that we have is the freedom from violent crime. The most basic responsibility that each of us has as a member of this House is to speak up on behalf of innocent Canadians, people who are guilty of no crimes, people whose lives or safety could be placed in danger if we were not to act.
It is always essential in any measures which are taken in the field of correctional institutions or penal law that there be checks and balances put in place to ensure the basic civil liberties of all people in the system. We believe that these measures in no way derogate from that responsibility, but we believe as well that it is essential to never forget that our most basic responsibility is to assure innocent people the freedom from violent crime. As long as I am Solicitor General of Canada that will remain my highest priority. I make that undertaking to the people who we represent.
The second major feature of this Bill also applies to those inmates identified by the first criterion I have mentioned, that is, conviction for one of the offences contained in the schedule to the Bill. Inmates falling into this category who are not found to pose an imminent risk of violence, and who are released on mandatory supervision, will be given only one chance to succeed. If that first release is revoked for any reason, be it a new offence or breach of a condition, they will not be released on mandatory supervision again during that sentence.
At the present time inmates who have their mandatory supervision revoked begin to earn remission again as soon as they are readmitted to penitentiary. They may, therefore, sometimes be released more than once during the same sentence leading to what has been termed the "revolving door syndrome". It is difficult to justify the risk of giving inmates, who have committed violent crimes and then demonstrated an inability to successfully readjust to the responsibilities of the free community, more than one such opportunity.
We accept that society at large must take risks and that our goal must be the rehabilitation of people convicted of offences under the law. However, we also have the responsibility to provide for the protection of the public at large. Having given that opportunity to someone who has been convicted of a
Criminal Code Amendments
serious offence, the onus is then on him or her to prove worthy of the trust which society has vested in them.
The foregoing elements of the Bill are designed to deal more effectively with inmates who are judged to pose an exceptional danger to the public. The third major component is, on the other hand, aimed at those who are considered to be exceptionally good risks. The Bill will require the Parole Board to review and grant a hearing in person to every inmate earlier in his sentence than at present. This will not alter existing limits on parole eligibility in any way. It will only require that the Parole Board grant a full review and hearing in every case when the first eligibility date is reached. This will occur, in most cases, after one-sixth of the sentence is served, rather than one-third as is now the case. By these means the best risks can be identified and granted some form of conditional release as early as possible consistent with public protection. Even those who are not considered ready for release will be given guidance early in their sentence as to what is expected of them so that if they choose, they can begin to work toward the objectives that will lead to their eventual conditional release.
I believe that taken together these measures form a balanced package that should lead to a more rational correctional system that directs scarce resources to where they are most needed, namely the more secure and more costly environment of the penitentiary for those who pose a high risk of violence, and supervised community based programs for those who pose a low risk of violence and a higher likelihood of a successful return to the community and to a law-abiding lifestyle.
The balancing and rationalizing character of this Bill is very important to avoid unacceptable human and monetary costs while protecting the safety of the public and the rights of offenders. It was astonishing to me to discover, upon becoming Solicitor General, that today it costs on average over $40,000 a year for every inmate maintained in a penitentiary whereas it costs just over $4,000 to supervise one parolee in the community. Moreover, many argue that the longer one spends in prison the more difficult is his eventual transition back to the community.
On both grounds, correctional and fiscal, it makes good sense to discriminate as effectively as possible. The good risks who stand the best chance of a successful return to society should be placed in community programs as early as possible with all the support and supervision that they require. The high risks who are potentially dangerous should, on the other hand, be kept in secure custody as long as they are under sentence. These measures will help us to do so more effectively than is the case at present.
Some critics of the correctional system have advocated the simple abolition of mandatory supervision because of its purported failure. The huge costs of such a proposal and the relative success of the program make it clear that this would not be a justifiable option at this time. Abolition of mandatory supervision or, in other words, the elimination of release due to earned remission, would effectively increase by one-third the sentence length of all inmates serving a definite term and not

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
release on full parole. Such a categorical approach would punish the deserving along with the undeserving. About 3,000 inmates would be affected each year, half of whom now complete mandatory supervision successfully. Moreover, Mr. Speaker, it could lead to the construction of as many as six new penitentiaries at a capital cost of about $50 million each in addition to millions of dollars in annual operating expenses.
Those who would argue that this is a justifiable cost in view of the protection that it offers often do not recognize that of the 50 per cent who have their mandatory supervision revoked, about half or 25 per cent of the total have committed no new offence, but have simply broken a condition. In these cases the revocation is a preventative measure taken by the Parole Board to avoid the commission of a crime as the end result of deteriorating adjustment of the parolee. Indeed, of the total number of inmates released on mandatory supervision, 25 per cent commit a new offence while still under sentence but only 2.7 per cent commit an offence involving violence and another 3.3 per cent commit robbery; for a total of 6.6 per cent of the total if we lump these two categories together.
The costs and the inequities involved in such a categorical approach outweigh the benefits and has therefore been rejected. In my view, the measures contained in Bill C-67 make such better sense since they are aimed at identifying those inmates from whom society clearly requires protection, and in providing mechanisms for protection from them for as long as legally possible while not interfering with the majority who give no indication of posing an exceptionally high risk.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I think that the measures I have just outlined will enable us to correct some of the most obvious and criticized deficiencies of the present system of parole under mandatory supervision. Yet they will not in any way curtail the rights of inmates, no more than they will unfairly penalize those inmates who are obviously not prone to violence.
They will offer Canadians better protection against delinquents who can rightfully be expected to resort to violence, yet without having to dramatically increase expenditure as would be the case if we were to apply such measures indiscriminately to all inmates.

I believe that it is a fair, rational and balanced package that I am eager to have reviewed in committee. I would also indicate today, as I did yesterday with Bill C-65, that there are provisions in the Bill which provide for the Governor in Council to make regulations. In those instances where that provision is included in the Bill, I will see to it that the Government moves a motion to insert the magic formula of "by order" to ensure those regulations are considered to be statutory instruments, are published and are made available to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. I have already received certain constructive representations from interested members of the
public and professional groups and welcome similar observations from Members of the House on whom I urge speedy passage of this much needed Bill.
Looking back on my own responsibilities as Minister of National Revenue and the measures which the Government took in terms of bringing down a declaration of rights for taxpayers for Canadians for the first time and measures we took to build into the Income Tax Act provisions to ensure that innocent people are treated with decency and respect, I think it demonstrates the commitment of the Government and perhaps all Members of Parliament to ensure that innocent people have their rights fully respected. We hope to continue that philosophy throughout my tenure as Solicitor General, to ensure that the rights of the accused are properly protected, that we recognize that they do have rights and those people who are incarcerated in penal institutions are fully respected as well.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), is in the House. I watched with interest on Sunday as he and his colleagues were leaving Mont St. Marie where they were having a meeting. The news media indicated that his Party would begin to reopen a theme that it used during the course of the last election campaign-speaking up for ordinary people. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, that it is for ordinary people that all of us on both sides of the House must speak. I say in particular that I believe that the ordinary person is honest, that he is law abiding and innocent and he deserves to have his rights fully protected by the Government.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt but I really believe it is important that the Hon. Minister include women in his terminology. Perhaps he would say "he and she".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member knows that that is not a point of order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Members on this side of the House respect the rights of both men and women and recognize that both men and women are honest and law abiding. It is precisely for honest men and honest women that we are bringing in this legislation. We believe that the most basic right that any Canadian has-and it is nowhere more evident than in violence against women-is to be protected from violent crime. Our obligation on both sides of the House in speaking up for ordinary Canadians is to see that honest, law abiding people have their rights respected and are protected from violent crime. It is for that reason that I believe the provisions of Bill C-67 deserve the support of members of all sides of the House. [Translation]
Mr. Speaker, allow me now to speak to Bill C-68 entitled an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prison and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code.
Unlike the provisions of Bill C-67, these are housekeeping amendments designed to clarify the calculation and administration of sentences, and to facilitate the operations of the Correctional Service of Canada, the National Parole Board and the provincial correctional institutions.
September 12, 1985



The last significant amendments to the Parole Act, Penitentiary Act and Prisons and Reformatories Act were made in 1977. Oversights made at that time, changing circumstances and concerns that have arisen with experience require amendments to clarify, consolidate and correct the statutes.
Some of the amendments proposed in Bill C-68 have appeared with more substantive amendments in previous Bills which were not adopted by Parliament. Many of the amendments reflect longstanding concerns of provincial Governments which we are pleased to be able to rectify. All of the amendments are designed to correct oversights and deficiencies in the correctional law statutes, and contribute to the efficient, orderly and fair operation of federal and provincial correctional programs.
I would like to highlight for the House examples of the type of amendments which we are proposing under each Act. First,
I refer to the Parole Act, which provides for the calculation of sentences for inmates in federal penitentiaries, as well as for the release of these inmates on parole or under mandatory supervision. Since its proclamation in 1959, the Parole Act has been subjected to periodic amendments, largely initiated in response to immediate pressures and events. The Board has grown from five decision-makers to close to 100 permanent and temporary members; from a centralized establishment in Ottawa to one stretching from Vancovuer to Moncton; from the provision of parole reviews on paper, to hearings providing an array of procedural safeguards; from almost no judicial scrutiny, to a heavy caseload of litigation. In many cases, correctional authorities are attempting to cope with the current situation with an inadequate and out of date framework of legislation and regulations. The amendments to the Parole act contained in Bill C-68 do not attempt to address long-term problems, problems which are now undergoing comprehensive review. Rather, these amendments address urgent and long delayed matters of technical but nonetheless significant concern.
Of primary concern with respect to the Parole Act which Bill C-68 addresses is that of ensuring that sentences of inmates confined in federal penitentiaries are calculated so as to accurately reflect the intent of the judge who sentenced the offender. Section 14 of the Parole Act was originally enacted to facilitate the administration of sentences by correctional authorities. The section attempts to achieve that purpose by deeming different terms of imprisonment which were imposed either at the same sittings of court or at separate occasions, and for which there would normally be different parole eligibility dates and release dates, to constitute one single sentence for which there is only one parole eligibility date and one release date. I emphasize that the deeming provision does not modify the duration of the sentences imposed by the courts.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Explain.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I was hoping that my hon. friend would ask me to explain because I have done my homework on that. The concern we are trying to address with this particular provision
Criminal Code Amendments
arose from an instance where an individual received two separate sentences for two separate offences. As a result of a provision in the law which was a technicality, the courts found that this individual, between the completion of his incarceration for his first sentence and incarceration for his second sentence, was allowed out on parole in the meantime. It was a provision which, on its face, made very little sense. Although it is not a problem which has cropped up regularly throughout Canada, we felt it was something that should be addressed to ensure that we would not have the anomaly of an individual being released as a result of a technicality in the law in between the serving of two prison sentences for offences which had already taken place, already been tried by the courts and for which he had already been sentenced to prison. Can 1 give my hon. friend any further elaboration?


Svend Johannes Robinson: No.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That may exhaust my knowledge of it, anyway.
The single sentence it creates begins on the earliest day on which any of those sentences commenced and ends on the final day of the last to expire.
Although there is no doubt that Section 14 has been of great assistance in the administration of the majority of sentences, as I have already stated, its present wording suffers from certain shortcomings which limit its application and prevent correctional authorities from giving the full and proper effect of sentences imposed by the courts.
For example, under the present Section 14, situations have arisen where a judge has sentenced an offender to a substantial term of imprisonment only to find that the offender is immediately eligible for, or indeed is released on, parole due to the effect of combining the new sentence with the old. Such anomalous results are a source of great concern both to the public and to correctional authorities, and appropriate amendments are contained in Bill C-68 to correct these unintended effects in sentence calculation.
Now we get to the really meaty elements of the Bill. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby will be anxious to follow this with fascination.
Other amendments to the Parole Act will not so much correct oversights as they will simply eliminate redundancies and obsolete provisions. For example, the definition of "magistrate" will be deleted. The substantive section to which it related was repealed by previous legislation. Similarly, portions of the Penitentiary Act will be transferred to the Parole Act, so that all matters pertaining to the jurisdiction of the National Parole Board will be found under one statute.
Some of the amendments will facilitate the day to day operations of the National Parole Board by clarifying certain sections of the Parole Act. For example, amendments to Section 3 of the Act will clarify the authority of the Executive Committee of the Board to vote on parole hearings or reviews. Other amendments will provide specific regulation-making
6562

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
authority for certain matters, instead of the current statutory structure which provides only a general "basket clause" to authorize the enactment of regulations. This can, at times, leave in doubt the authority to enact certain regulations.
The second group of amendments in Bill C-68 pertain to the Penitentiary Act, the Act which provides for the administration of federal penitentiaries. Again, these amendments do not embody substantive changes in policy, but rather attempt to correct some long-standing technical problems.
I know that my colleague from Burnaby has long been vexed by the question of the name of the Canadian Penitentiary Service. For that reason, we will be changing that name to the Correctional Service of Canada. This will reflect in statute the amalgamation of the Canadian Penitentiary Service and the National Parole Service. This amalgamation took place eight years ago. This long overdue amendment for which the Hon. Member has fought long and hard will permit the official use of the designation "Correctional Service of Canada", which has been used in practice since 1977.
Similarly, another amendment will designate all officers and employees of Correctional Service Canada as "members" of the service. The 1960 Penitentiary Act referred to the two former categories of employees of the service, however, the basis for this distinction has completely disappeared with time. Confusion has resulted in the continued reference to the two categories in the Act, which this amendment will now resolve.
A related amendment will restrict the designation of peace officer status to only those members of the service so designated by the Commissioner of Corrections. Under the current legislation, all officers of the service are automatically designated as peace officers. Such a sweeping provision in our view, is unnecessary and in some cases counter-productive for those members of the service engaged in rehabilitation, rather than strictly custodial functions.
While amendments such as these are designed to facilitate the operation of the Correctional Service of Canada, other amendments will have a more direct impact on inmates in assisting their reintegration into society. For example, a section will be added to the Act to enable an offender who has been released on parole or under mandatory supervision to be lodged, temporarily and at his or her own request, in a penitentiary. This provision is considered desirable primarily during times when an offender may be experiencing difficulty while on conditional release. This would provide the offender with a short period of relief when the stress of returning to society may be compelling him or her to less constructive options for coping.

Thirdly, Mr. Speaker, Bill C-68 features several amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories Act. This federal legislation deals with questions of administration of sentences to be served by inmates of provincial correctional institutions. There are close ties between federal and provincial jurisdictions with respect to the implementation of correctional programs and I am pleased about the excellent spirit of cooperation between the provincial Governments at the operational level when there is interaction between the institutions and the probation and parole programs.
As well, we share a number of common endeavours with the provinces and we work in close cooperation with them in such fields as crime prevention and assistance services to victims of criminal acts.

In this light, Bill C-68 contains amendments to the Prisons and Reformatories Act to deal with a variety of provincial requests, some of which have been outstanding for many years. In the coming months, suggestions for additional amendments to the Act will also be considered. Throughout these activities we will seek to reduce to a minimum any unnecessary involvement in provincial corrections while seeking mutually beneficial joint action.
As one example of the amendments proposed by Bill C-68 in this regard, provincial correctional authorities have requested a clarification in statute of the status of inmates while they are temporarily outside the correctional institution. This would include, for example, inmates on work details outside the institution or inmates who require emergency medical treatment at a hospital. In consequence, we are proposing a new section in the Act which would clarify that such inmates are in custody for the purposes of this Act and any other Act of Parliament.
Some of the amendments to this statute deal more with terminology. For example, the use of terms "rules" and "regulations" will be made consistent throughout the Act. The repeal of obsolete provisions relating to the forfeiture of statutory remission will reflect previous changes made to the Act as long ago as 1978.
An amendment to Section 10 of the Act will change the terminology of the section to accord with the terminology and age provisions of the Young Offenders Act. The provisions for holding young persons separately from adults in provincial institutions will also be made consistent with the Young Offenders Act.
Fourth, one amendment will be made to the Criminal Code in consequence of the amendment to the Penitentiary Act respecting the limited designation of certain members as peace officers.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, I believe that these proposed amendments embody a number of long-needed clarifications and corrections to the statutes in question. Their timely passage through this House will facilitate the fair and efficient administration of the federal and provincial correctional systems.
These two Bills represent an important beginning in the Government's efforts to rationalize and modernize correctional programs. They deal with some of the most pressing and apparent problems. I am confident they will lead to a more efficient system and more secure environment for all Canadians.
September 12, 1985

1 thank my colleagues for their attentiveness during my remarks. I look forward to listening to theirs and also to receiving suggestions from them and from interested Canadians at the committee stage.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise on debate of these two Bills that have been grouped, Bill C-67 and Bill C-68. I intend in the course of my remarks on these Bills to address initially the question of the underlying objectives set out by the Minister in these Bills. I intend to focus, I might say, on Bill C-67. While a number of the subjects addressed by the Minister in his learned discourse on Bill C-68 were obviously of vital concern, I believe the issues raised by Bill C-67 are so fundamental and so important in the criminal justice system that I intend to focus my remarks on Bill C-67.
I will briefly go through the background objectives of Bill C-67, Mr. Speaker. I propose then to examine the history of mandatory supervision, what it was that lead to mandatory supervision, how it has worked in practice and briefly touch upon some of the studies that have been done in terms of the effectiveness of mandatory supervision, and mention concerns that have been raised by the community and by prisoners. I will then turn to the changes proposed by the Minister to the system of mandatory supervision. In fact, there are two major areas of change dealing with what has been called the revolving door syndrome, and as well institutionalizing a system of what has been called gating.
I intend to deal with what we in this Party believe to be some very serious problems with the Minister's proposals in these areas. I intend to set out in some detail our concerns with respect to their proposals. Finally, in the time remaining, I hope to be able to discuss alternatives which we in the New Democratic Party have for dealing with what is a very legitimate and real concern on the part of the community with respect to violence, in particular to the victims of crime who are too often overlooked in our system of criminal justice.
As I said, the purpose of this Bill is set out, and was clearly set out by the Minister, to address the concern of the community respecting the revolving door syndrome, that is the syndrome whereby prisoners who are on mandatory supervision may have their mandatory supervision revoked, be returned to prison, serve a period of time, come out, have their mandatory supervision revoked, go back and so on. The first objective of the Bill is to put an end to that and to provide, where mandatory supervision is revoked, that there will be no further remission of sentence. The second and very important objective of the Bill is the provision which in effect would grant a sweeping new power to the National Parole Board to designate certain individuals, at the time they become eligible for mandatory supervision, as individuals who should be denied their liberty, denied mandatory supervision and held, in effect, until the remainder of their term.
I suppose one could ask what is objectionable about those provisions or what we feel is harmful about provisions which,
Criminal Code Amendments
on their face, appear to be in accord with the concerns of the community. It will be my submission that far from responding in a real way to the concerns of the community, the Bill really provides an illusion of security and an illusion of safety to the community when in fact precisely the opposite will be the effect. I am not only speaking on my own behalf and on behalf of members of my caucus. However, I think it is fair to say that it is virtually the unanimous view of those who are active in the criminal justice system and the correctional service, barring, I might say, the police. I believe it is only the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police which advocated these sweeping measures. All others, particularly those involved in after-care, including the John Howard Society, the Canadian Association for the Prevention of Crime, the Elizabeth Fry Society and so on, have condemned this approach.
Why have they condemned it? They have condemned it because instead of reducing the level of violent crime in our communities, the approach which is being taken by the Government will in fact increase that level and will increase the danger to those innocent men and women about whom the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) spoke earlier. The proposals will result in a dramatic increase in the population of our federal prison system at a time when that system is already seriously overcrowded. Not only will that overcrowding lead to significantly increased tension in the prison system, which makes it more difficult for prison guards and results in increased violence, both prisoner to prisoner and also with respect to those who work in the institutions, but it will lead to a significant increase in cost to Canadian taxpayers. I would have thought that the Government would have looked more closely at this proposal before recommending to Parliament a scheme which will dramatically increase the cost to Canadians of operating the federal penitentiary system. My friend, the Solicitor General, has already pointed out that it costs some $40,000 per year to incarcerate a prisoner in that federal system. Indeed, it costs about $120,000 to build a new prison cell. One must contrast that to a cost of some $3,000 or $3,500 per year for after-care out in the community.
I have mentioned the concerns with respect to an increase in danger to our community, an increase in violent crime, the problem of overcrowding and the problem of a greatly increased budget for prisons. As well I would note that this proposal will result in reducing the good behaviour incentive for prisoners within the federal prison system. In effect it cuts back substantially on earned remission. The reality is that there will be an air of insecurity within the institutions. It is for that reason that prison wardens recommended against the kind of proposal which is being put forward by the Solicitor General to Parliament. The views of prison wardens in this area, those who are on the front lines, so to speak, should be given very careful consideration. Certainly they should be invited to appear before the legislative committee which will study this matter.
Finally, this Bill will do a profound injustice to prisoners and to those who are serving sentences in the community. While it is often unpopular to speak of injustices to that community, we

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
must bear in mind the remarks of Windston Churchill many decades ago when he said in effect that the mark of civilization in a community was not how it treated the elite in its society or those in positions of privilege, but how it treated the poor, the downtrodden sand, in particular, how it treated prisoners.
In light of the concerns which I have outlined, I want to examine the proposals of the Government. There are two major thrusts to the Bill. First, it would allow the National Parole Board to refuse mandatory supervision to certain serious offenders who are perceived as a threat to the community. As it stands now, the granting of mandatory supervision is automatic as long as a prisoner has displayed good behaviour during his or her term of imprisonment. At the end of two thirds of the sentence, the granting of mandatory supervision is automatic. This Bill would remove that feature and allow the National Parole Board to attempt to predict future behaviour and to attempt to predict violence.
In seeking this new power from Parliament, the Government and the Solicitor General should bring forward some evidence to back up their suggestion that it is possible to predict violence. In the absence of such evidence, in the absence of evidence indicating that a national parole board or a quasijudicial body can in fact look at an individual prisoner and say on the basis of observing his or her record that it is in a position to predict violence, of course the Government's argument falls down. I suggest to the Solicitor General that no study, not just in Canada but anywhere else in the world, has shown that it is possible to predict violence in this manner. On this subject the former Liberal Solicitor General commissioned a very exhaustive study of mandatory supervision. A report was prepared and submitted to the Government in November 1980 by a committee which was chaired by Joan Nuffield. That report clearly recommended against any measures which would involve an attempt to predict violence. After an exhaustive review of the evidence and research studies, the report found that there was no basis to the suggestion that that could in fact be done.
There is a more fundamental and a more basic concern than the one to which I have just referred. This Bill overlooks the fact that while those who are predicted as possibly being violent can be held behind bars, they will not be held indefinitely. In fact, in many cases they will be released at the end of their sentences, more bitter and more antagonistic, not having been dealt with in terms of the threat which they pose. They will not be released in a gradual manner with some sort of assistance, but they will be released directly from prison, in some cases directly from maximum security prisons on to the street. That is a threat to our communities which is far greater than the existing system.
I intend in my remarks tomorrow, because I believe it is five o'clock, to continue by addressing some of our very serious concerns with respect to this Bill.


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


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE AMENDMENT RESPECTING ABORTION PROCEDURES
Mr. John Gormley (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake) moved: that Bill C-226, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (abortion), be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is my honour to rise today on behalf of many of my constituents of The Battlefords-Meadow Lake in northwestern Saskatchewan and many of my friends across Canada to address the issue of abortion in Canadian society. This issue has had an impact on many Canadians and has been a painfully divisive and often controversial subject. Abortion has divided emotions and opinions. It has pitted often extreme points of view against one another. Beyond this, abortion has resulted in at least 65,000 human beings not being born every year in Canada and the latest figures place the estimate at close to 80,000 abortions per year. In other words, every week, 1,500 unborn children are aborted in Canada.
Regardless of one's view, abortion profoundly affects lives, the lives of living Canadians and the lives of those who one day will live. It is one of the most important and compelling struggles facing all of us.
Abortion is a medical, ethical, legal and theological issue touching all facets of human existence. Above all, abortion is a political issue that must be addressed by politicians in this Parliament. It is my hope that in this Private Members' Hour, politicians can address this matter in a non-partisan, constructive fashion. It is for this reason that I have proposed Bill C-226 for discussion.
What does this Bill propose? Presently, under Section 251(4) abortion is illegal except in cases where the life or health of a woman may be endangered or may likely be endangered. Bill C-226 proposes to amend the legislation to remove the words "or health" from this particular provision. As a result, this would make abortion less available than it presently is. I hope that in this hour, we may have a discussion on this issue and that I may be able to say why I feel the Criminal Code should be amended to make abortion less available.
September 12, 1985

The legal background of abortion in Canada predates Confederation itself. In 1803 in what was later to become the Criminal Code, the law that governs Canada today, a prohibition on abortion existed. This traced its roots back to England in the year 1603 when British law originally codified centuries of convention, convention that had established that abortion was illegal, wrong and that society should not accept abortion as an alternative.
Section 251 of Canada's Criminal Code has remained essentially the same for all of these years. It remained the same until the year 1969. In that year, Canadian law was amended to add three subsections to Section 251 of the Criminal Code. The subsections allowed certain immunities from the illegal nature of abortion. Abortion was still illegal following the amendments of 1969 but it was permissible if it was performed in an accredited hospital by an accredited doctor with the approval of a therapeutic abortion committee if that committee has approved an abortion certificate. The certificate was to be approved because it would be proven to the therapeutic abortion committee that the mother's life or health was endangered or likely to be endangered.
Bill C-226 proposes to address the Section of this law that deals with the endangerment of health. What constitutes the meaning of health? Most of us would interpret a literal meaning of health to be a sense of physical well-being. If physical health were the interpretation, it would clearly specify the acceptability or non-acceptability of abortion. However, health has been interpreted in many different ways.
The Health and Welfare Committee of this Parliament, when it studied the amendments to the abortion legislation in 1969, began hearings into the suggested changes in 1967. Obviously I was not a Member of this House then but I have found that on March 13, 1968, the Standing Committee on Health and Welfare made its report to Parliament. At that time, there was concern expressed about the meaning of the word "health". A partial transcript of the Committee Report reads as follows:
There has been a great deal of concern over the definition of health in the proposed amendments and in the Committee's interim report... the Committee feels that a simple amendment to the proposed legislation should establish that a clear and direct serious threat to the mother's health must be present.
The fear of the committee at that time, a fear that was later borne out by Canadian legal and medical history, was that the word "health" could be interpreted in the same way as the World Health Organization interprets it. The WHO definition of health reads:
Health is a state of complete physical, mental and social well-being and not merely the absence of disease or infirmity.
Health by that definition became a rather ambiguous description of what many of us would take to be physical health. In defining such a large parameter including areas of social well-being, the health provision made abortion more available. If health was well-being and if that well-being could be demonstrably proven to be threatened to a therapeutic abortion committee, an abortion would be granted by that committee.
Criminal Code
The Badgley Commission dealt with the question of therapeutic abortion committees. In testimony before the Badgley Commission, it was shown that up to 80 per cent of abortions were being approved for reasons other than physical health. Obviously this ambiguous meaning has come to allow an unacceptably high number of abortions per year.
Just how many abortions take place in Canada and just how many take place because of this ambiguous term "health"? It is obviously difficult to assess in a statistical way how many are allowed through the interpretation of health, but I think we can look at the over-all statistics. The Badgley Commission, using a system of averaging and survey, reported that before 1969, fewer than 10,000 abortions were performed per year in Canada. Since the amendments of 1969 and the inclusion of this controversial word "health", according to the 1982 census, there were 66,400 abortions performed that year. That is down slightly from the late and mid-1970s but on average, in excess of 65,000 abortions are performed per year. In some circles, it is estimated that if one takes into account the entire number of therapeutic abortions now being performed this year in Canadian hospitals, the number could indeed approach 80,000. In other words, every day that Canadians go to work, almost 400 pregnancies are ended.
Was this the intention of politicians back in 1969? The then Minister of Justice, now the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), is by all accounts, a very honourable man. The Prime Minister of the day was well regarded by Members of this House. Surely it could not have been the intention of the Leader of the Official Opposition who was the Minister of Justice at the time to allow, by an ambiguity, a law that would allow abortions to increase six and sevenfold, a law that in a sense became a loophole.
Both in committee and in debate on the floor of the House of Commons, many politicians thought that by defining life or health, they were being called upon to legalize a few hundred abortions that were being performed anyway. Many of these politicians considered that there were serious medical reasons and by putting the words "or health" in the particular legislation that they were simply making valid what had gone on for some time.
Also, we should take into account the context of the times. In the intervening years between 1967 and 1969, the argument, when one debated abortion, was largely women's rights competing against the rights of an undifferentiated mass of cells. That was the argument that was often heard in those times. Later on, I think we will see that both the terms of the argument and the magnitude and importance of that argument has changed somewhat in the intervening years.
In 1969, did politicians have insight? Did politicians envisage that by amending that particular legislation they would, in a sense, be opening that door to this number of abortions? Recently, a distinguished colleague from this House, the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), who was here in

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code
1969, addressed a meeting here in Ottawa. In that address the hon. gentleman, when speaking about 1969, said, and I quote:
Are we prepared to recognize that our laws must accord intrinsic worth and equal value to the life of every human being regardless of its stage of development or condition?
He went on on to say:
I believe that all Members agonized over this question. In the collective wisdom of the House, a law was passed. It is not perfect, and it has not worked perfectly. No one is totally satisfied with it.
The issue of abortion, as will be touched on doubtlessly by other speakers, often involves very separate but inter-related issues. I would like to deal briefly with three of them. The first is the viability of the foetus; or, when does life begin? The second issue is freedom of choice. The third issue is: Every child a wanted child. This is what I call the theory of wantedness.
With respect to the viability of the foetus, the perception and the reality of this question has probably changed most dramatically since the years 1967 to 1969 through the advent of medical and scientific research. One recalls the words of Bernard Nathenson, an American doctor who was one of the founders of the National Abortion Rights Action League of New York, who has since become an outspoken critic of abortion, after being a leading physician at the leading edge and performing a number of abortions. Dr. Nathenson spoke of what became the turning point for him. It was what is called the study of foetology. In foetology, physicians are able to perform surgery and do comprehensive medical work on a child who is still a foetus, who is legally not born, who is within the womb of its mother. Dr. Nathenson has recounted, often stirringly, about the large hospital where he performed abortions where, on one floor, physicians at the leading adge of foetology were doing research and treatment on children within the wombs of their mothers, while on the floor below Dr. Nathenson and his colleagues were performing abortions on foetuses who were at the same age of foetal development.
If we look at one single year, 30 babies in Canada were relieved of hydrocephalic pressure on the skull, a build-up of water at the base of the brain. This surgery is performed within the uterus, within the womb of the mother. We can look at something which has gone on for many years, that is, the practice of inter-uterine blood transfusions.
With respect to the point of when does life begin, we must look at the advances in genetics and the advances in work on the beginning of life itself. We see that there are separate chromosome and gene patterns. Based on a preponderance of medical evidence, it is clear that the question of viability, or the question of life, is no longer such a large and looming question as it was in 1969.
Another point I would like to deal with is the freedom of choice. If we think of life as really a collection of choices, with some moderation of restraint or constraint upon us, obviously, all of us in life would like to be free to make choices. The oldest example of this is the English jurist who spoke once about the right of free movement and the right to swing one's arm. One had an unfettered right to swing one's arm; but that
right ended at the precise point where the next fellow's nose began. The question of rights and freedom of choice presupposes that the right of one person shall not adversely affect the condition of others. That is a presupposition to any freedom of movement or freedom of choice. Obviously, if we accept that there is a question of life, then surely the right of one person to exercise a choice infringes upon the life of another.
The third point which I wish to touch upon briefly, given the well intentioned nature of this argument, is the theory of wantedness. A well respected group in Canada has as its motto on birth control and planning "Every child a wanted child". That, indeed, is well intentioned. However, the theory wantedness becomes profoundly disturbing when we look at it in the context of: What about the unwanted? Many people in society have not wanted women; and we see the hard work and the many miles ahead on getting true equality for women. We see the exploitive nature of wife battering, of pornography, of abuse against women, because some people do not believe they "want women" to the same extent as they may want others. In post-colonial America, people did not want blacks and that justified slavery. In a Europe of 45 years ago, Nazis did not want Jewish people. That was used as a justification for genocide. So I caution Hon. Members against the theory of wantedness.
If we remove from the Criminal Code Section 251, the section on health, and we leave only the endangerment of life as admissible grounds for abortion, is this acceptable? I believe it is acceptable because the endangerment of life is directly related to the question of physical health. If one's physical health is endangered to the extent that it would endanger a life, then abortion, in my opinion, should be allowed. In this respect, to simply leave the endangerment of life encompasses the original interpretation and meaning of physical health and, obviously, protecting the life of an adult person. If a law can be used to remove a healthy living foetus from a physically life-endangered woman, then medical attempts can be made to save both persons as independent persons. In the case of the foetus which does not survive, then it is, yes, an exercising of rights, but the right to life of a physically endangered adult.
The present abortion law is in need of clarification, definition and substance. In the debate today I think I can say on behalf of all Members of the House from all political Parties that we have philosophical differences. Many Members agree with my amendment. Some suggest an even more restrictive amendment to the present abortion laws. On the other hand, many of my colleagues do not agree with my amendment. They would suggest that abortion be made completely legal. It has not been my intention to further polarize public opinion, or opinion within this Chamber. Further, I do not want to inflame the emotions or temperaments of those who sit in Parliament. However, it is clear we must address this issue.
I ask today that Members think very carefully and thoroughly, not so much about the specifics of this Bill but the adequacy of our present abortion legislation. If this Bill is talked out, which in the parlance of Parliament means that by the end of this hour someone will still speak and, thus, relegate
September 12, 1985

this Bill to the bottom of the Order Paper-and I hope that someone would not be from my own political Party, but I know that it may well in fact happen-then this matter will not likely be heard again in this Parliament. I ask all Members, in conscience, to think carefully about the decision to talk out this Bill. I ask that this Bill be referred to the House of Commons Parliamentary Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. And if an Hon. Member believes that the Bill does not go far enough or should go further, it is in the forum of that committee that there will be an opportunity to examine and thoroughly study the existing legislation and this important issue.
In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, while opinions are certainly divergent and points of view differing, only Members of Parliament can address this most vital issue. By inaction we do a service to no one. By upholding the status quo, we allow an unacceptably high number of abortions to continue to be conducted every single day in this country. Failure to address this issue amounts to standing mute while lives are ruined. Let all Hon. Members of Parliament remember this.


Mary Collins: Mr. Speaker, I am happy for the opportunity to speak on the motion which has been put forward by my most distinguished colleague. As he may remember, I spoke some months ago in March of this year on a motion not similar but which did deal with the matter of abortion. As I said at that time I did not believe that Private Members' Hour was the appropriate forum in which to discuss a matter which is so difficult and upon which there is a divergence of opinion within the Canadian community. I would suggest to my colleague, therefore, that while this issue is of great importance to the Canadian public, this particular time is not the appropriate time for its discussion.
I would urge my colleagues again to remember that no matter what their views on this issue of abortion, whether they hold to the view of enlarging the scope to enable women to have greater choice or whether they would wish to restrict, as my hon. colleague is suggesting, the right of women to an abortion, we as parliamentarians have a greater responsibility to ensure that there are appropriate educational and counselling facilities for the women of this country. We must put the emphasis on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than having to deal with the situation once it occurs.
I believe my colleagues on all sides of the House would join with me in the belief that this issue has not been addressed fully and adequately. I know from my own experience, as I mentioned back in March, that there are many young people in our society today who do not fully understand the implications of sexuality and of pregnancy. They find themselves in the situation of being pregnant where it would be extremely difficult for them to go through with the pregnancy and, of course, they wish an abortion. I feel if we had greater emphasis on education within the schools, homes and other social institutions of this society and supported the community
Criminal Code
groups who focus on this need, we would be a lot further ahead.
I would have to speak today against the motion of my dear friend and colleague. 1 know we agree in many different areas but this, as he said himself, is an area that even within our own Party there are many different points of view. I guess 1 would disagree with my hon. friend on several points. First, with respect to the justice of the issue itself and, second, on the mood of Canadians with respect to this issue. First, my colleague is suggesting amendments to the Criminal Code which would delete the right of women to have an abortion if it would endanger their health and therefore restrict the rights of women to have an abortion to only those circumstances where there would be an endangerment to life itself. My mind goes back to situations which happened some time ago, before the liberalization of the law as it now stands and I believe that would indeed be a retrogressive step. From my own personal point of view, I would want to see in the future further changes made and that ultimately we could come to a situation where the issue of abortion is removed from the Criminal Code entirely because in my view the issue of whether to continue with a pregnancy or not is the right of the woman in consultation with her physician or others who may be able to provide her with advice and counselling. Ultimately it should be the woman herself who should make that decision. To further restrict what we have now in legislation seems to me to be a dreadful disservice to the women of this country.
I am sure Hon. Members are all aware of the kinds of cases in past history of women seeking abortions and not being able to have them under proper facilities and being subjected to the kitchen tables. I am sure we all remember the tragedies, the maiming and the deaths which resulted under that system. Surely, none of us want to go back to the antiquated system we used to have.
The issue of abortion is not only a woman's issue because I find that both men and women across the country are increasingly coming to support the right of women to make a decision on this issue. I am sure that many of my colleagues read the poll which was reported in June of this year in The Globe and Mail. It indicated that 53 per cent of those Canadians surveyed agreed that every woman who wants an abortion should be able to have one. An even larger majority thought the Government should ensure that there are abortion facilities in areas where hospitals do not currently perform abortions. In fact, that has been an issue raised in the Committee of Equality Rights under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which I had the honour to sit on. Our present legislation does not meet the criteria of Section 15 of the Charter of Rights because it does not provide equal accessibility to women throughout the country. I think the results of this survey of Canadians support the view that women should have accessibility to facilities in hospitals or in appropriate clinics in order to obtain safe abortions.
There are other interesting comments from this survey as well. When we look at the breakdown of the people who responded to the survey, it is interesting to note that among

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code
those with post-high school education, 62 per cent supported the freedom of choice position. That seems, in my opinion, to indicate that as people have the opportunity to become more familiar and more understanding of the issues involved, they are prepared to support the freedom of choice position. People in higher income groups and those living in larger communities tended to be more supportive of choice as well. I think that is understandable, knowing the make-up of Canada and the attitude of Canadians on this issue. The age group which is most likely to be personally affected by abortion, that is, women of 18 to 29 years, were also the most in favour. That is indicative that the women who are most affected by this issue understand and recognize that there should be freedom of choice. Fifty-eight per cent of those in that age group agreed with freedom of choice as compared with only 41 per cent of respondents over 60 years of age.
There was a further question as to when a woman should be able to obtain a legal abortion. Of those surveyed, 78 per cent thought it should be possible if the abortion had been approved by a therapeutic abortion committee, 87 per cent approved if the woman's health was in danger and 93 per cent approved if the woman's life was in danger. I believe one can see from that 87 per cent of those surveyed-and this was a poll taken right across the country-that a woman should be able to have an abortion if her health was in danger. Therefore I do not think the proposal my dear friend is putting forward is consistent with the general attitude of Canadians.
[DOT] (W30)
Finally, in this particular report there was something which I found very interesting and perhaps some of my colleagues are not aware of it. Religious differences on access to abortion were not as great as might be expected. Some 60 per cent of Protestants and 57 per cent of Catholics surveyed favoured increased access to abortion facilities. While more Protestants agreed that a woman should be able to obtain an abortion when she wanted one, a high percentage of Catholics, 57 per cent, also took this position. I think that indicates that this is not an issue divided purely on religious lines and we can take heart from that.
Recognizing the concerns in the community my friend represents, and the concerns of many Canadians that there should be some change in the law regarding abortions, I have to say to the Hon. Member that, while he is certainly not alone, there is a big difference in attitude about the changes that should be proposed. He proposes further restrictions. I, and I hope many of my colleagues, see it as being a time to give full consideration to broadening the kinds of facilities in which abortions can be performed. We should work with the provinces on that. As well, we should work to ultimately remove from the Criminal Code the issue of abortion to enable women to make that kind of choice themselves.
To come back to the point I made earlier, a one-hour debate in Private Members' Hour is not sufficient to hear all the views so sincerely held by my colleagues. I am sure that at some future time we will have the opportunity to express our
views on this most vital issue. I would like to thank my colleague for bringing this matter to the House today, but I do not propose to support his motion and I ask for the support of my colleagues for the position I have taken.


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to speak on Bill C-226 introduced by the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley). The right to life is one of the basic premises of our society and I share my hon. colleague's views, as 1 am sure all Hon. Members do, that protection for the unborn is of the utmost importance. This simple statement is of crucial significance, particularly to the abortion debate. It is becoming increasingly apparent that there is a significant decrease in concern for the sanctity of life around the world.
Respect for life has undergone a tragic change in recent years. It has gone from "sacred" status down to "important". In society today it is more and more widely held that life should be protected but only until some other "important" consideration comes along. The obvious examples of this today are the increasing popularity of concepts like euthanasia and abortion on demand. Some people today say it is all right to have an abortion if you have an important reason. This kind of excuse has been broadened to include the most trifling inconvenience. Obviously when people say life is sacred, they mean completely different things.
The point of this Bill, which I wholeheartedly support, is that most Canadians believe life is sacred. Unless this belief is reflected in legislation, we will be guilty of raising a generation which has no conception of lasting values. They will have been sacrified for expedience and convenience. Society's laws are always a reflection of the moral norms which anchor our society. The abortion rights' movement has reversed this relationship. By putting something into law they can restructure our values. By legalizing abortion on demand they can create a new morality for our society. Whenever society believes it can create its own morality, it is in trouble. The most obvious result of this self-reliance is irresponsibility to any sense of value altogether. History has shown us that rebellion, disorder and confusion inevitably follow. We must focus today on responsibility, not on rights.
This excellent piece of legislation will have the opposite effect. It will restore the legal framework of our society to a state consistent with the values which have formed the bedrock of not only our society but every society which comes to mind. This legislation confers respect on the most important moral law by giving meaning to the expression we all uphold, that of the sanctity of life. It seems ironic that in a day and age when we are spending billions of dollars to save lives through medical research, we are at the same time permitting the murder of thousands and thousands of unborn infants.
I would like to conclude by once again thanking the Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake for sponsoring this excellent and timely piece of legislation. I hope Members of this House will take the opportunity they have to make this most significant improvement to our Criminal Code by giving their support for this Bill and allowing it to go to committee.
September 12, 1985


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to rise and debate this issue in the House, even though it may be for the hundredth time that I or Members of the NDP have spoken on a motion from a Member from one of the other parties which is basically an anti-choice motion. However, I still feel it is worth it. We are a Parliament which reasons and it is worth continuing to talk in favour of choice on abortion.
It seems to me that the sentiment which very often motivates people to introduce Bills such as this is not dissimilar from the sentiment which motivates us to vigorously support choice. We both feel we are upholding certain broad principles and I guess the disagreement comes as to who is most faithfully upholding those principles. For example, we are all agreed that we do our best to represent our constituents and their views in this House, and that is a principle of representative democracy. As the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) has just indicated by citing the very thorough polling which has been done on this matter, a large majority of Canadians favour choice. Indeed, they would like to see Section 251 removed entirely from the Criminal Code so that the termination of a pregnancy is a matter for the woman and her doctor to decide. On the specific item that the Hon. Member is trying to remove from the present Section 251, namely that a woman could no longer secure a therapeutic abortion if her health was endangered, 87 per cent of those polled said that they thought health should continue to be a criterion for therapeutic abortion. I do not suppose that we all know exactly what our constituents think about this matter, but if 87 per cent of the people in Canada would be opposed to the motion that the Hon. Member brings forward today, then I think it would be right to argue that the principle upon which he and I agree, namely, that we want to be good representatives of our constituents, would be best carried out by keeping health in Section 251. It is interesting that there is no significant statistical distinction between the wishes of Catholic and Protestant men and women on this matter. Sixty per cent of protestants and 57 per cent of Catholics want to have the continuation of important grounds for enabling a woman to secure a therapeutic abortion.
Another matter upon which 1 think most Members would agree is that we are also elected to protect the fundamental rights and freedoms of all Canadians regardless of religious belief, race, colour, sex, and, I would hope, sexual orientation. In order to protect those fundamental rights and freedoms we cannot impose upon one group in society the moral values and beliefs of another. I am sure that the Hon. Member, who has left now, if he were here-


John Kenneth Gormley: I am still here.


Pauline Jewett: I am sorry, I will look at him then. I am sure that he would say he would agree that we must not allow one group in society to impose its moral values and beliefs on another. However, when it comes to defining more precisely what they mean by that, I would say that he, and others like
Criminal Code
him, are imposing upon myself, and others like me, a certain set of moral values and beliefs. They are, in the course of doing so, robbing me, and others like myself, of my fundamental rights and freedoms, including the freedom of choice.
In fact, if we look at the current law on abortion, Section 251, we see that it in itself is an attempt to legislate morality. It is an attempt to tell one group of people, women, what values and beliefs they must adhere to on the matter of choice, and to limit their choice in a rather narrow way, which the Hon. Member now wants to limit even more on the matter of abortion. In the process it violates the fundamental right of many women in Canada to equality before and under the law, and the right to the equal protection and benefit of the law without discrimination as is defined in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Some Members may remember the very hard battle fought by women to win this provision.
As Norma Scarborough of the Canadian Abortion Rights Action League pointed out to the parliamentary Committee on Equality Rights in June of this year:
Our law discriminates by limiting a woman's right to control her fertility. A man suffers no such restrictions on his reproductive choice ... Further, the law treats a medical procedure that pertains only to women in a way it treats no other medical procedure. Any man is free to decide on medical treatment in consultation with his physician, but a pregnant woman has no such freedom in making the abortion decision.
We have often pointed out, Mr. Speaker, that since 1971 the Canadian Medical Association has urged the Government to repeal Section 251 so that abortion will be a decision between a woman and her doctor. Since 1971 we in the New Democratic Party have been calling for the same, as have individual members of the Liberal and Conservative Parties, but unfortunately it has only been a minority in each of those Parties. We feel that decisions about the moral question of abortions are as much a fundamental right of individual women as the moral or religious beliefs of anyone else in our society.
It has been particularly good today to listen again to the Hon. Member for Capilano. Often in these debates over the past many years there have been no women speaking other than those in this Party. It has been refreshing to hear another woman speak in favour of choice on abortion. I remember one debate we had a few years ago in which all the speakers except one were men. I listened to the whole debate and began to get the feeling-although I do not ordinarily feel particularly feminist on this issue-that men were regulating something in the lives of all women that was not up to them to regulate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for The Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) on a point of order.


John Kenneth Gormley: 1 very much do not want to interrupt the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett), so 1 will endeavour to deal with this quickly. I noticed that in the printing of my Bill there is an indication reference that the Bill is to be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. At the end of June there were changes to the orders dealing with legislative committees. As a matter of a technicality, I would like the reprinting of the Bill to indicate

September 12, 1985
Criminal Code
that it should be referred to a legislative committee. Would it be possible, Mr. Speaker, to have the consent of the House to agree to that? Then we could continue where we left off with the Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for the Battlefords-Meadow Lake (Mr. Gormley) points out that he does not want to interrupt his colleague, but he is obviously not doing a very good job of that. He seeks the unanimous consent of the House to amend the motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: No.


Pauline Jewett: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There is not unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Ms. Jewett).


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, before the point of order raised by my friend, I was speaking about listening to these debates over the years and the feeling one had as a woman that men were trying to run and control an issue relating to women and their reproductive rights and that they really were not entitled to do so. I feel similar grief when I see a film like The Silent Scream which claims to depict the reactions of a foetus to abortion. I cannot help but feel that this is nothing more than shocking and alarmist propaganda which is very damaging to our ability to make informed, intelligent and reasonable decisions on this issue. As has been pointed out by people more qualified than I, the film is medically very inaccurate. Furthermore, it grossly misrepresents the work of organizations like the Planned Parenthood Federation.
If there is one thing that we want to do, it is to prevent unwanted pregnancies by assuring that women, particularly young women today, do not in fact become pregnant if they and their partner do not wish to have a child. Therefore, the Government should contribute a great deal more financial support to organizations such as Planned Parenthood of Canada. However, in the last two years of the Liberal Government there were cuts to Planned Parenthood and very recently the present Government cut 12.5 per cent from the budget of Planned Parenthood. The money was given to another organization that promotes only one method of birth control, namely the so-called natural method, when Planned Parenthood has been doing effective research and counselling of a variety of methods of available birth control for a number of years. Unfortunately, I am sure many Conservative members do not realize that the Government, at the same time, has decimated the budget of the Montreal-based Canadian Committee on Fertility Research from $110,000 to $30,000. That is the budget of an organization which is conducting very critical research on health risks associated with various birth control methods, including the pill and intra-uterine devices. It is learning from experience in other provinces and the experience of a variety of women throughout the country on what is the
best method of birth control for certain types of women, including those who live in certain regions of the country as well as what may be the least effective types of brith control for those groups of women. If we want to ensure that there are fewer abortions in our society, surely one of the most important ways to accomplish this is to make more effective birth control possible.
With respect to the sexual education of young people, I was particularly affected by the March 4 speech given by the Hon. Member for Capilano. I keep referring to her because I have never had someone else on the right side of the issue. On March 4, as reported at page 2715 of Hansard, she said:
We must make those kinds of fundamental changesthat she has been talking about-
-in assisting young Canadians to become more responsible, to have a greater understanding and to have access to information and services. We should put the emphasis on the prevention of unwanted pregnancies rather than on having to deal with the growing number of abortions, many of which are related to the socio-economic conditions of the women involved who have not had access to appropriate information. Perhaps they have been reluctant to have access to that information.
The Hon. Member continued:
I think birth control information should be more publicly accessible to young women rather than in under the table discussions with girlfriends.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but her time has expired.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: 
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. I am sorry, but 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 moved.

Jean-C. Lapierre: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to take part in the adjournment debate and to consider more specifically a question I put to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a while ago regarding the future of the automobile industry in Canada and Japanese car imports.
Mr. Speaker, the day I asked my question, there were a lot of developments. And I think the announcement made by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) today is very reassuring. I would like to join all Members of this House in congratulating the Hyundai company, which not only has confidence in Canada but, from what the Minister told us, decided on its own to consider locating in Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, at the present time the Lavalin group, for instance, is proceeding with studies to determine the best location for the company. I have a few suggestions to make.
I see the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand), and I am sure she will agree with me when 1 sing the praises of the City of Bromont which is located in her riding but provides jobs for both her riding and mine.
Mr. Speaker, you may know that demographically speaking, the City of Bromont has a population that is growing at a slightly faster rate than Quebec as a whole. The Bromont region, which, of course, includes Granby, Cowansville, and Waterloo, has great potential for Hyundai because it has a young population with more people under 25 and fewer people over 35, compared to the rest of Quebec. The population has a varied linguistic background, a large percentage of university graduates and a highly skilled labour force.
Consequently, Mr. Speaker, as far as industrial considerations are concerned, Hyundai would do well to consider the City of Bromont, because the region has had the benefit of prudent and enterprising municipal authorities who, by creating industrial parks and promoting their availability, have
Adjournment Debate
been able to attract over 250 businesses and generate nearly 17,000 jobs in industry.
The area has a very diversified industrial makeup with industries representing most of the major sectors, with particular emphasis on high technology sectors. I do not think it is necessary to refer to them by name since Hon. Members know of them and they would only be jealous.
As far as recreation and quality of life are concerned, I am sure that future Hyundai employees will find happiness and tranquility in the Eastern Townships.
I am therefore pleased with today's announcement, Mr. Speaker, and I dare hope that our wishes will be fulfilled. 1 must say, however, that I am disappointed with the attitude of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion who washes his hands of the other matters just as he did of the Hyundai matter. A Toyota plant is coming and I know that the Hon. Member for Brome-Missisquoi (Mrs. Bertrand) has put together a group to attract it and I support her in her efforts. I hope that she will tell the Parliamentary Secretary, among others, to intervene on behalf of the Eastern Townships, as we have some 12,000 unemployed who are on welfare and anxious to work for the Toyota firm, Mr. Speaker. We are also interested in a Suzuki plant. Of course, there is the Bombardier company who operates already in the city of Valcourt and which has made a name for itself in the building of jeeps, military trucks, and which was awarded a great many contracts under the Liberal Government. It has acquired much expertise and trained a pool of skilled workers and is itself eager to start one day a car manufacturing company of its own. Mr. Speaker, I do not claim that we will some day resemble the South-Western Ontario area, but I am convinced that if there is a political will and if the various authorities consider objectively-I repeat, objectively-the conditions which exist in the Eastern Townships, they will immediately realize that it would be the perfect site for such a plant.
Over the next few weeks and months, I think that we will make a point of keeping an eye on the situation as it develops, because the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion is not particularly keen on our region. As you know, we have had the Domtar experience, and if the past is any indication of the future, we know that we should not rely too much on him. I urge therefore my Quebec colleagues to be vigilant. This past Summer, I reminded some of them that it was their duty to work on the automobile plant issue and I see my friend the Hon. Member for La Prairie (Mr. Jourdenais) who woke up and precisely sought for his riding what I am seeking for mine, Mr. Speaker. I am sure that the Parliamentary Secretary will have no choice but to stand up and confirm that I am entirely right.


Mrs. Monique Bernatchez Tardif (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, I should like first to thank my colleague for Shefford (Mr. COMMONS DEBATES
September 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
Lapierre) for his fine statement on conditions in his constituency. I think it would be advisable in his case as in the case of all Quebec members whose constituencies are ready to welcome major investments, especially where the automotive industry is concerned, to commend their situation to the company involved since it will be making the investments.
The Minister has already answered the question in the House today and 1 hope that my colleague has already made his representations, that his file has already reached Toyota because we all know that very soon the company will be making a decision based on an analysis of the various proposals.
We should also take in consideration the fact that other sites in Quebec as well as in many other areas have been proposed and the Minister has said that he let the company know about all possible locations in Canada and I think it would be the best way to help us in Quebec by letting the company know about these locations. It is precisely what my colleague for Shefford (Mr. Lapierre) has done as many others and I hope that he will be as successful with Toyota as he is with us.


INDUSTRY-MITEL CORPORATION-BRITISH TELECOM TAKEOVER PROPOSAL
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I am almost tempted to say something about the great automobile City of Windsor and its super offer to Toyota. It would give magnificant possibilities to the many unemployed in my constituency. However, that is not the question before us this evening.
My question concerns Mitel. Of course it may seem a little out of date to be returning to a question which was raised on May 15. However, interestingly enough, the question is even more striking now than it was at the time. At that point the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) was asked whether he would meet urgently with Mitel management to urge them to accept an 18 per cent takeover bid from British Telecom instead of the 51 per cent takeover which they wished to accept.
If that 18 per cent had been accepted, this would have given Mitel the cash which it required to do what was necessary to restore its financial viability by reducing its debt load. The basic problem of Mitel is a very significant debt load which has to be paid off and is responsible for the significant losses which the company continues to experience.
Originally our problem with the suggested takeover was that British Telecom was far too much influenced by and subject to the pressures of British legislation and British Government ownership. Second, we felt that this helped to contribute to the likely shift of employment from here in Canada to the United Kingdom and third, that as a follow-through from this job loss, there was also the potential that research and development would shift from Canada to Britain as the ownership and control by British Telecom came into place. Frankly, we also
felt that Mitel was one of the important high-tech players in our economy and that it was important for our economic future for Government to support the role of high-tech industry.
Interestingly enough, the last two months of recess of the House have shown in dramatic fashion that the concerns we raised about Mitel were absolutely justified. We have seen that the Mitel takeover in Britain has been referred to the Monopolies Commission of that country. The Monopolies Commission in Britain has very significant powers. It has flexibility and a capacity to set conditions on takeovers, a capacity which is far beyond anything we have in the Canadian economy. While it is quite unlikely that the British Monopolies Commission will refuse to permit British Telecom to make any purchase of Mitel shares, it is quite likely that the Monopolies Commission will put in place severe conditions on the takeover.
Some of the conditions that are most likely to be put into effect come from the fact that the companies concerned in Britain are the potential competitors to Mitel for British Telecom business. They are particularly concerned that Mitel would be given preferential treatment as a supplier to British Telecom. That, incidentally, was the point used by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion to defend his support of the Mitel takeover.
It is quite likely that, because of the concern of these British companies, one of the conditions which the British Monopolies Commission will impose will be that Mitel will not be able to have a preferential position with respect to purchases made by British Telecom of telephone equipment. We are likely to lose that potential advantage. A likely additional condition that could be imposed by the British Monopolies Commission will be the authorization of a percentage of takeover lower than 51 per cent.
The second major development in the Mitel saga has been the recent announcement by the company that 440 jobs will be cut from its operations in Canada. Some of these jobs are in fact being shifted to other operations in Canada, but some are being transferred, as we predicted, to the U.K.
That brings me to a set of questions, Mr. Speaker. First, where was government leadership in trying to make Mitel a continuing high-tech leader in this country? Did the Government explore other private sector options? Dit it have discussions with Mitel to offer government help? Finally, why did the Government not take the advice we offered in May to have Mitel adopt an 18 per cent share offer from British Telecom which would have avoided the subsequent problems with the British Monopolies Commission, leaving Mitel and its employees very much hanging in limbo?
We have asked these questions. We hope the Government will finally give us some answers to them.
September 12, 1985


Monique Bernatchez Tardif: Mr. Speaker, following the Hon. Member's request last May, the Minister did in fact meet with the President of Mitel to find out where the company was headed.
At the time, Mr. Matthews informed the Minister that British Telecom was seeking to acquire control over the company, following common practice by taking an unconditional option on the purchase of 18.5 per cent of Mitel common shares. This percentage constitutes the maximum allowed under the regulations of the stock exchange and is meant to protect British Telecom from speculation on Mitel shares, pending decisions by the shareholders, the regulatory agencies and the courts. If the proposal is not accepted, British Telecom will have to decide whether or not to lift its option. Since the option on 18.5 per cent of the shares is unconditional, Mitel management might not be able to influence British Telecom's decision. Investment by the latter in Mitel would inject $320 million of fresh equity into the company, which it urgently needs to finance future expansion.
Mitel has needs that are common among hi-tech companies, in that it requires rapid access to capital as the company develops. During the last two years, it was able to maintain a remarkable rate of growth in sales, but on the whole, its financial results have been meagre. This poor performance has closed the doors to the financial markets to which its competitors have access and has severely taxed the resources of management which had to find alternative solutions.
Mitel recently launched a new type of automatic switcher, the SX 2000, developed in this country by Canadians with federal assistance, which will be one of Mitel's main products in the future. It will not be offered on the traditional markets, and to ensure its success, the company must dispose of the funds required to set up new distribution channels. If as a result of Government regulation, Mitel is prevented from getting access to financial markets, there is a possibility that Canada will not enjoy any of the financial benefits.
Mitel has shown it is capable of developing and manufacturing, in Canada, products that can be sold on the international market. The international telecommunications market is highly regulated and protected, and the fact that Mitel was able to overcome these obstacles demonstrates its strong competitive position.
Canadian businesses must have access to the most sophisticated communications techniques available to remain competitive, and Canadians who design and produce this technology should not be discriminated against in their own country.
In its report entitled Telecommunications in Canada, Part III, The Impact of Vertical Integration on Equipment Industry, tabled on January 7, 1983, the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission recommends that Bell be more receptive to inno-
Adjournment Debate
vations developed in Canada by businesses other than its own subsidiaries.
I would also like to come back to what the Hon. Member said about the transfer or loss of jobs at Mitel. The decision made by Mitel to transfer part of its production is an attempt to improve its operational effectiveness and profit-making position. For the last two years, this company has suffered losses. It has indicated that it is facing excess capacity. By transfering production and employees from Kanata to Renfrew, it would be in a better position to compete.
Estimates by the company itself clearly indicate that the number of jobs lost is, will be significantly lower than the one mentioned by the Hon. Member, and this decision will allow at least some Mitel employees to keep their jobs.


THE BUDGET-IMPACT ON AGRICULTURE. (B) EXCISE TAX
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, on June 26 I asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) if he would be willing to consider giving an exemption to farmers from the two cents a litre, nine cents a gallon, excise tax which he imposed in his Budget of May 23. In his response he was very evasive. He suggested that in fact the price of gasoline was going down for farmers. That was highly prophetic because when he spoke in the House and ate his humble pie, due to the old age pension reversal of the Government two days later, he in fact added another cent per litre or four and a half cents a gallon.
The reason I asked that question, Mr. Speaker, was that in the election campaign a year ago the Government made a clear statement that second on their list of agricultural commitments was a reduction in the price of farm fuel by 20 cents a gallon by removing the nine cents a gallon federal sales tax and by not collecting the current excise tax. It is my understanding that the Government is still collecting that original excise tax although it is being refunded.
Last November in fact the Government removed the excise tax on gasoline and gave an exemption to the petroleum compensation charge. That amounted to 4.8 cents per litre of gasoline for primary producers. However, on the first of June the Government moved to world price for gasoline and the exemption for farmers of 1.8 cents per litre was, of course, cancelled. However, the price of gasoline did not go down so that exemption was not available. In fact, the price of gasoline to farmers went up by 1.8 cents a litre on June 1. On September 3 the Government increased the excise tax on gasoline by 2 cents a litre, 9 cents a gallon. If we add the two together, the increase in price on June 1 and September 3, the primary producers end up paying 3.8 cents per litre additional or some $130 million on an annualized basis.
The Government clearly made a committee in the election campaign that it would take away the excise tax and reduce the price of farm fuels. I would hope that the Parliamentary Secretary, a distinguished Member of Parliament who I know

September 12, 1985
Adjournment Debate
has the best interests of agriculture at heart, will want to come clean and indicate that the Government is prepared to keep its election campaign promises and will remove that excise tax. It clearly is unfair. It is being imposed at a time when western Canada, all parts of Canada, are facing severe stress in agricultural commodities, such as the prices for hogs, beef and grain. On top of that, there are drought conditions in the west which are absolutely devastating.
I mentioned earlier that the Minister of Finance was going to impose an additional cent per litre on January 1, 1987. Of course, the other three cents per litre runs out on December 31, 1986. So during the next 16 months, combined with the last three months, we will see an increase in fuel prices for farmers of at least 31 cents or 32 cents per gallon, which is totally and completely contrary to what was promised during the election campaign.
There is a very serious situation in agriculture today. Bankruptcies and foreclosures are rising dramatically. World commodity prices for beef, hogs, and grain are dropping. In view of this, I hope the Government will decide to keep its campaign promise and reduce the two cents per litre or nine cents per gallon excise tax on farm fuels which it imposed just last week.
Everything I have said applies, of course, to the forestry, fishing and mining industries. There was a campaign promise that the excise tax would be removed, yet the Budget indicated that the tax is going to go up at a time when fuel prices should be going down. I hope the Parliamentary Secretary is able to tell us that the Government is prepared to keep its promise and remove the excise tax.


Pierre Blais: Mr. Speaker, it is a constant surprise to see the Hon. Member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) persist with that kind of questions. His is a consummate adeptness to behold the straw in his brother's eye, while not seeing the beam in his own. Knowing what they did in the past and our experience with the price of gasoline, they defeated the former Government of the Right Hon. Joe Clark in 1979, on a mere increase of 18 cents per gallon, only to impudently raise it afterwards by more than a $1.
And now they want to split hairs about that increase, all the while forgetting, whether willingly or not, my feeling is it is unwillingly, all this Government has done for farm producers over this last year. More has been done in twelve months than in twenty years, because for once we have moved in the interests of farm producers, something which had not been done for years.

Let me First of all state the Government is fully aware of and sympathetic to the extreme hardship being experienced in certain areas of agriculture. The drought and the grasshopper infestation in areas of western Canada are creating particularly severe problems for farmers. The Government is very concerned about the immediate problem facing farmers as well as the longer term challenges facing this vitally important component of the Canadian economy.

We are fully aware, Mr. Speaker, of all the problems now facing farm producers. We have reduced the cost of gasoline and removed taxes. These measures will come into force on December 1st, 1985.

The Petroleum Fuel Tax rebate reduced the price of farm fuels by 21.6 cents per gallon. When added to the rebate of the excise tax the effective saving to farmers was 28 cents per gallon.

It must be kept in mind that all these efforts have been made during the year. We are going to do more. We have fulfilled almost all our election commitments, Mr. Speaker. My colleague from Algoma (Mr. Foster) knows this very well for he is monitoring activities in committee and in here. He is aware of our work, and it is my view that this Government, through the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) and the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) has met its obligations to Canadian farm producers, Mr. Speaker.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
WWIWMBBHMMWBWMWHMB-W-*
[Stage Direction]
Friday, September 13, 1985