1985-09-13

Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw to the attention of the House the situation in South Moresby in the Queen Charlotte Islands. I had the opportunity last week, along with my wife and other friends, including Bill Reid, the famous Haida artist, to sail for six days around the South Moresby parts of the Queen Charlottes visiting the traditional Haida sites, seeing the most magnificient primeval forest on the face of the globe, which is really an environmental treasure. There is limitless aquaculture, among the richest in the world. It is nesting grounds for hundreds of varieties of birds.
This, of course, is the traditional home of the Haida nation.
For over 4,000 to 6,000 years they have lived there and built up a unique culture and tradition, and depended upon the resources of the islands and the sea for their livelihood. That is all threatened, of course, by prospective off shore drilling. It is also threatened by indiscriminate logging, particularly on Lyell Island and, potentially, some of the rest of South Moresby. If this continue indiscriminately, the country will lose a priceless heritage.
I wish to suggest to the new Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan), and congratulate him upon his appointment, that he, buttressed by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), negotiate with the Province of British Columbia for a national park, recognizing the traditional rights of the Haida people in such negotiations and making an accommodation with the logging industry so that selective logging can still take place in other parts of the islands.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, the Riviere des Prairies was savagely closed in 1929. Since then many representations have been made by the Association pour I'amenagement de la riviere des Prairies to open the river to boating through what is called a lock.
Last June 12,1 had a special meeting with representatives of the association and seven other departments involved. This organization has been fighting for many years to have a lock built across the Riviere des Prairies and it deserves much better attention. For Parks Canada, nothing seems to be too positive, yet they adamantly refuse because they have no direct interest. Closed for 56 years, this navigation channel has not been the source of development which is going on elsewhere.
Things do change, Mr. Speaker. On March 14, 1985, Quebec Government Minister Brassard announced a $4.5 million contribution to finance the Riviere des Prairies lock. We also have the support of the neighbouring communities, but we are still waiting for the federal Government.
The Trent-Severs Canal has 45 locks, many of which have been rebuilt, repaired or twinned by the Government and Parks Canada, no less. Since then, a dam is the only thing that has been built across the Riviere des Prairies. The residents of Duvernay and Laval have made several official requests to the Liberal Government but they have yet to hear a favourable response.
Mr. Speaker, those people are full-fledged citizens, they have always paid their taxes and they rightfully expect their fair share of funding. In short, our aim is to re-open this waterway in the interest of the people of Laval and Montreal because the river-


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


Mr. Robinson:: Mr. Speaker, the simultaneous translators must have had a nightmare with that one.

September 13, 1985


S O. 22 WOMEN SEXUAL VIOLENCE STATISTICS
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the annual Take Back the Night Marches being held across the country this weekend and next weekend serve to highlight the pervasive problem of violence in our society. Studies indicate that 83 per cent of women have experienced sexual violence and that violence of this kind is on the increase. Indeed, the statistics are chillingly familiar. One woman in ten is beaten by her husband or mate, and a rape is committed every half hour in this country. According to Pierre-Marc Johnson, the Quebec Justice Minister, some 256,000 in that province alone are chronically beaten.
Unfortunately the Conservative Government to date has done little to respond to the plight of Canadian women. As part of its election platform, the Tories promised to increase funding to sexual assault centres which provide essential counselling and support services for the victims of sexual violence. To date we have seen no action taken on this promise. In fact the Tories have indicated their intention to cut transfer payments to the provinces. Rather than providing greater support to sexual assault centres, this may have the effect of a reduction in funding for transition houses and other shelters for battered women. Nor has the Government seen fit to provide adequate funds for research on batterers. Given the documented increase of violence against women at all levels of our society, this oversight is inexcusable.
We call upon the Government to take urgent action on this serious problem.
* *
*


TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to draw the attention of the House to the situation now prevailing in the Canadian textile and clothing industry, and voice the concerns of employees in the industry, business people, mayors and chambers of commerce in the Valleyfield area and the population in general.
Not long ago, Canada's biggest textile manufacturer, Dominion Textiles in Montreal, announced it was closing its plants in Saint-Jean and Valleyfield, thus adding to a long list of shutdowns and jobs lost in the textile sector.
Mr. Speaker, Dominion Textiles maintains it had no choice but to proceed with these shutdowns, considering the dramatic increase in clothing imports in Canada since 1979.
Despite an ambitious program, the industry has been unable to compete with foreign imports, especially from countries with low labour costs.
We have no reason to believe that the industry alone will be able to improve its competitive position in the foreseeable future.
Mr. Speaker, that is why I want to ask the Minister responsible for these issues to immediately take steps to ensure the survival of an industry that employs more than 170,000 people in Canada, 90,000 of whom work in Quebec.
Finally, I want to ask the Minister of Regional industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) to provide for a long-term textile and clothing policy. Such a policy would ensure that Canadian manufacturers have a share of the domestic market, thus guaranteeing the industry's viability in this country.
Mr. Speaker, the future does not look promising.


Mr. Speaker:: Order! I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member, but his time has expired.


FINANCE
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I was going to use this opportunity to register my objection and the objection of my Party to the move by the federal Government to deindex family allowances. However, I have just been handed a letter from a Chairman of one of the Conservative caucuses which I felt deserved reading into the record.
Dear Ms. Copps:
Thank you so much for your letter of September 3rd, 1985 on the subject of tax on health products.
By now you will have undoubtedly heard that a sympathetic and compassionate Conservative government has not only undertaken not to impose any such new taxation but also to remove taxes imposed on health products by the former heartless and contemptible Liberal government.
Please, when you rise in your place, to bestow thanks and appreciation upon the Minister of Finance try to control your understandable emotions of gratitude and affection towards the Prime Minister, the Minister of Finance and Conservatives in general since ladies ought to appear seemly at all times.
The letter is signed by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson). I thought this matter deserved attention in the House, particularly in light of the fact that the statements in this letter are absolutely false.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Ms. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, recently the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) stated that the Government wants to bring forward initiatives which will enhance both the Government's position relative to the family but, more important, show that the family is the cornerstone of society.
September 13, 1985

It is ironic that while he extols the virtues of the family in theory, in practice his Government is reducing the indexation on family allowances, is reducing the eligibility and indexation for the child tax credit, is cutting transfer payments to the provinces for family health and education, and is chopping funds for planned parenthood.
I am tired of this Minister's platitudes about helping those most in need while the government Budget widens the gap between rich and poor, subsidizes failing banks, and attacks universal family allowances. Social policy groups have shown that lower and middle groups will be the losers by 1990 as a result of this Government's Budget. Families will lose $600 million in family benefits by 1990.
[DOT] (mo)
I call upon all people who care about families, especially those who won the fight for universal pensions, to reactivate this fight now on behalf of Canada's children. Universal family allowances must not be decreased by a reduced indexation.


FORESTRY
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in this House, while discussing the controversial Gibbons Bill now before the U.S. Congress, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) stated that our Government was not doing enough to prevent this legislation. And I quote from Hansard at page 6539:
Surely ... the Prime Minister ... has awakened to the economic guillotine raised by the Gibbons Bill.
I travelled with the Hon. Member for Skeena to Washington this summer to discuss the issue of countervailing duties against our softwood lumber products with a group of American Congressmen. Our Government invited the Hon. Member for Skeena to take part in even further discussions with Congressman Gibbons in Vancouver last month.
The Hon. Member knows that we are very much aware of the inherent dangers in protectionist legislation south of the forty-ninth parallel, but when he talks of "waking up" to the issues, perhaps he should counsel his own Party and, while he is at it, the Liberal Party as well.
Those Hon. Members have to learn that they cannot continue to talk out of both sides of their mouths when it comes to the Americans. There is a iplace for valid criticism but you cannot attack the United States on the one hand, abusing, demeaning, and insulting it, while on the other hand you are pleading with it to buy our B.C. lumber. These people are our friends and our greatest market-place. They have no friends in the New Democratic Party or the Liberal Party. What the opposition Parties have to wake up to, Mr. Speaker, is the fact that, when you talk out of both sides of your mouth, people stop listening.


S.O. 22 INDUSTRY SYDNEY STEEL CORPORATION-SIZE OF RAILWAY ORDER
Mr. David Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, over the summer the people of northeastern Nova Scotia, who are already hard hit by the Government's Budget, received yet another economic blow. Canadian National Railways, the biggest customer of the idle Sydney Steel Corporation, announced in July that it had decided to purchase almost 30,000 tonnes of rails from foreign suppliers.
CN officials also confirmed at that time that its purchase of rail from Sydney Steel for the coming year would be down significantly, indeed, that it would actually be less than one-third of the tonnage which CN purchased from Sysco last year. All of this occurred despite the promise of the Conservative Member of Parliament for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay) that CN would purchase rail exclusively from Sysco.
While Rome burns, the Government and the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. Stevens) continue to fiddle. At the time of the announcement the Minister even admitted that he was completely unaware of CN's decision to buy rail from foreign sources. Over the last year we have continually been told that the federal and provincial Governments were very close to reaching a cost-sharing agreement on the second and final phase of the modernization program at Sydney Steel. The replacement of Sysco's outdated hearth with a new basic oxygen furnace is desperately needed.
Surely, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada and the Government of Nova Scotia ought to come together forthwith to give a clear, firm, positive commitment with respect to the modernization of Sydney Steel and they must stop their deception and deceiving tactics, not only for the sake of the steel workers in Sydney, Nova Scotia, but for all Nova Scotians-


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


INTER-PROVINCIAL TRADE ONTARIO BRICKS BANNED IN QUEBEC
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, at a time when we find the Conservative Government expounding the merits of free trade with the United States, 1 think it would be well for it to look at something which has happened only a short distance from Parliament Hill.

When I got off the bus Wednesday night, I saw a hole where the sidewalk used to be.

M.J. Robinson Trucking Limited has been forced to tear up $8,000 worth of laid brick sidewalk in Aylmer, Quebec, because the bricks were manufactured in Nepean, Ontario. The spokesperson for the Quebec Transport Ministry, which is sponsoring the construction, stated that by law all goods used

September 13, 1985
Oral Questions
on work for the Ministry must be manufactured in Quebec. The Government should look at the potential of free trade in our own country before rushing headlong into negotiation of free-trade arrangements with our neighbour to the south.


VISIBLE MINORITIES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday we learned that Canadians from visible minority communities represent only 1.7 per cent of all employees within the federal Public Service. The under-representation of visible minorities within the federal Public Service was not a well concealed secret. Monday's findings, however, clearly demonstrate the alarming degree of this imbalance, especially when one considers that the presence of visible minorities within the Canadian labour force is estimated at 4 per cent.
In response, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) announced a number of measures. While they are no doubt a beginning, they largely focus on data collection and monitoring rather than on immediate hiring and training and a workplace free of discrimination.
If the Government is to encourage other levels of government and the private sector to pursue employment equity successfully, then bold and decisive action should be the order of the day. In June of last year the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) declared: "I believe there is no obligation more compelling and no duty more irresistible than to ensure our minorities live at all times in conditions of fairness and justice." It would be highly appropriate for the Conservative Government to recall those words, for Canadians are anxiously waiting for these statements to be translated quickly into reality. Surely the time for platitudes is over.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance have created a financial nightmare. It is absolutely sickening to think that two Cabinet Ministers could have been so grossly irresponsible with the taxpayers' hard-earned money. Therefore, why did the Prime Minister authorize the bail-out package when it must have been obvious that the Minister of Finance did not have the foggiest notion of what
the true assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank were in March? The Minister was flying by the seat of his pants. Why did the Government and the Minister brazenly pretend that they knew what was going on when they hadn't a clue?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I suppose there is one way to find out whether my right hon. friend is telling the truth or is whistling in the graveyard. And that is to do what is provided for by the rules of this House, namely, that a matter of this complexity be analyzed in a fair and above-board manner by a committee of this House so that appropriate value judgments can be made.
There can be no doubt but that the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance, when confronted with a difficult situation, consulted the appropriate officers of the Government of Canada and brought forward a recommendation. This was then discussed with the Opposition and received, as I recollect, the benediction of the Official Opposition.


Mr. Broadbent:: Right!


Martin Brian Mulroney: We recognized, and I think everybody in Canada recognized, that it was in the interests of all to attempt to save that fledgling institution in western Canada. It was done in good faith, and it clearly did not work out. Well then, if there is responsibility or blame to be apportioned, there is a fair and honourable way of doing it, that is, through a dispassionate and objective analysis in a parliamentary committee. We have been recommending this for some days and I hope my right hon. friend will agreed that is the fair way to do it.


INQUIRY WHY GOVERNMENT DID NOT CONVINCE MAJOR BANKS TO LEAVE DEPOSITS UNTOUCHED
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary for the Minister of State (Finance). The Liberal Party went along with the assurances given by the Prime Minister and his Ministers that the arrangements made for the Bank in March were worthwhile. They were not. Why did the Minister of State (Finance) not try to persuade the big banks to leave their deposits with the Canadian Commercial Bank? Was it because she was unable to provide the arguments that would convince them? Why did she give Parliament the impression that she had actually set up a rescue plan with the CCB, although no sensible arrangement based on fact existed?


Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)):: Mr. Speaker, I have explained to this House that we went to the Canadian people with the best information we had available in a situation where there were depositors and borrowers in the western economy at risk. I would be very interested in knowing, based on that information, if the Opposition would have supported us if we had shut the bank down at that time.
September 13, 1985


MINISTERIAL RESPONSIBILITY
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, I have just a short question for the Minister of State for Finance. What does it feel like being responsible jointly with the Minister of Finance for the biggest bank fiasco in Canadian history?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I stand here and say that I am a very proud associate of the Minister of Finance of this country.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deans:: You also said that the banks were safe.


Barbara Jean McDougall: 1 can also say that I am very proud of the actions that we have taken to enhance the supervisory capability in this country, which is something that his Government never did.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Think how proud she will be when they do something right.


ROLE OF CHARTERED BANKS
[Stage Direction]
t	.
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Finance. On Friday, March 22, the Government brought together representatives of the major banks and urged them to contribute millions of dollars to rescue the Canadian Commercial Bank. Will the Minister confirm that these banks, when presented with a segment of the CCB's loan portfolio-a segment identified by CCB management rather than by Government regulators- asked for examination of the entire CCB portfolio and offered to provide enough people to do the work over the weekend, and that their offer was refused?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the discussions that were carried on were between the bank and our officials. The package that came together did so out of mutual agreement. I cannot comment on a discussion to which I was not a party.


EXPENDITURE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY
Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. What possible justification can the Government have had for expending millions of dollars of taxpayers' money, not only without security, but without any information other than that provided by the organization asking for the money?
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, the management of the bank came to us and presented us with a problem which they had identified, and they made available to us the best information that they could at that time. We presented that same information-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Rodriguez:: How did you verify it?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we based our support package on our discussion with the banks which, at the end of the day and the end of the negotiations, were prepared to participate in the system. 1 do not know what went on behind closed doors. We had no reason to challenge the figures that were presented by the bank-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: -based on the information that was available to us at that time.


Mr. Cassidy:: Incompetence, that's what it is.


Barbara Jean McDougall: As the Hon. Member knows, we moved on behalf of the depositors and borrowers of that bank. That is something which we felt responsible for in the failing economy which that Government created.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: They laugh at western bankruptcies.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, that is like saying that the fire department has no reason to challenge the word of an arsonist.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to understand the Minister's position as she has explained it this week. She has given two reasons for the fiasco at the Canadian Commercial Bank. One is that there was a confidence problem related to the level of deposits. The second explanation she has given is the bad debt position.
If the problem was one of bad debts, why in heaven's name did the Government not take the three days which were necessary in March to have a comprehensive assessment of the debt position of the bank done? Or, if the problem was one of deposits and the withdrawal of money after the bail-out took place, why did the Government not insist that the chartered banks, which were part of the deal, accept their moral responsibility by keeping their money in the bank? In either case, will the Minister admit that there was a monumental goof on the part of the Government with the taxpayers' money?

September 13, 1985
Oral Questions


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member has had that question answered many number of times-


John Edward Broadbent: No. Not at all.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -and this is exactly why we have been asking to put it into the committee. I went before the Standing Committee on Monday, at my request. I talked to it for about three hours around the situation in the bank. At the end of that three hours I said I was prepared to go back at any time.
We have been attempting-


Ian Deans: Why don't you answer the question?


Barbara Jean McDougall: -to have a reasonable and rational discussion about every aspect of what has happened in this bank, and I am asking you today to agree to this committee discussion so that we can carry on a rational conversation about this.


John Edward Broadbent: The questions that the committee can deal with are important. They concern a lot of technical information. However, the issue at stake here in this Parliament of Canada is the willingness of the Government of Canada to accept ministerial responsibility. That is what we are talking about today.


MINISTERIAL DECISIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister, and I will ask it carefully. The Minister has given two reasons for the Government becoming involved in this fiasco. The first was that the fiasco was a byproduct of the banks withdrawing money after the original bail-out took place. She shifted ground yesterday and said no, the real reason for the problem was the assets of the bank.
Will he not admit that, in either instance, it was ministerial decisions that were involved? If it was an asset problem originally, why did the Government not take the time to do the three-day assessment to look at those assets, instead of putting millions of dollars of taxpayers' money at risk? If it was a withdrawal of money in recent months, why did the Prime Minister not phone the heads of the banks and tell them to leave their deposits there?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, he has asked a number of questions and I will try to deal with the fundamental one. What transpired was that the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance, for both of whom I have the highest regard and great confidence, were confronted with a very serious problem. Nobody likes it. Canada has a strong banking system and nobody likes to be confronted with a problem of this nature.
The problem was that a relatively small financial institution based in western Canada ran into a serious problem of liquidity. It came to Ottawa and to the chartered banks. All of the appropriate officials were consulted.


Ian Deans: No.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I am trying to provide an answer. The appropriate officials were consulted and a package was put together in co-operation with the chartered banks pursuant to the best advice that was available.
The alternative at that time was to say no, that we would allow a western Canadian institution to fail without any help from the Parliament of Canada. We were not going to do that and we did not do that. I think it is a tribute to the Minister of State for Finance and the Minister of Finance that what they did was to come forward to Parliament and say that it was a serious matter and present the serious types of packages that were designed in a way which we believed would save this institution. We received the benediction of the Official Opposition-


An Hon. Member:: On your assurances.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Martin Brian Mulroney: And that was the best assurance that anyone can give.


Mr. Speaker:: Both the questions and the answers should be shorter, please.


John Edward Broadbent: I simply say to the Prime Minister that if he had taken three more days last March he might have saved the taxpayers of Canada a billion dollars. That is what he ought to have done.


WITHDRAWALS MADE BY CHARTERED BANKS
John Edward Broadbent: The purpose of my question to the Prime Minister is to find out who is really going to pay for all of this, and who benefits. The banks withdrew some $386 million since March, which they will obviously keep. Yesterday we learned, incredibly, that they will be paid back their original $60 million which we thought was going to be at risk.
We thought that was going to be at risk, which means that the banks-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that the taxpayers are going to pay about $1 billion and that the banks are getting all their money back, when is the Prime Minister going to stand up for the taxpayers of Canada instead of the bankers of Canada?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated, and I think it is consistent with Canadian
September 13, 1985

traditions, that first we hear the evidence before we hang anybody. All we are saying is in a complex-


Ian Deans: Why didn't you get the evidence before?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I ask the Hon. Member if the bankers are all presumed to be criminals, why do you have your money in the banks? The New Democrats have their money in the bank.


Ian Deans: You are at fault.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Presumably these are honest people entitled to the benefit of the doubt. I have said this and I will repeat it, the matter ought to go to committee for a fair hearing-


Ian Deans: You ought to accept responsibility.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -so that full light can be cast upon all transactions. If there has been anything improper, that will come out. If there has been anything illegal, we will instantly prosecute. We are here to defend Canadians and that is what we are going to do.


Ian Deans: Yes, six months later.


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION OF MINISTER'S STATEMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Finance). Last March, the House was informed that an injection of $255 million would save this Bank. This was stated very clearly by the Minister. We were also informed that the banks had taken part in a full evaluation of the assets and that they had helped to establish that the 255 million would save the Bank. However, yesterday we were informed by the bankers themselves that this was not the case and that the Minister's statements on the subject were not very accurate.
The Calgary Herald reports that the Minister of Finance-


Mr. Speaker:: Order! 1 am sure the Hon. Member has a
question.


Raymond Garneau: Indeed I do. My question is quite simple: Why did the Minister mislead the House?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, 1 take that accusation very seriously. I have never deliberately misled this House, as the Hon. Member knows. We were faced with a situation in March where western depositors and western borrowers were going to face a real problem. We had two choices. One was to close down the institution based on the information we had, and the other was to look after the depositors and the borrowers of that institution based on the information we had. We chose to look after the borrowers and to look after the depositors.


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


REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF LOAN MADE TO NOVA SCOTIA PROMOTER
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister had a duty to protect the borrowers, as she just said, does she think it fair that after the Government of Canada invested $255 million in this Bank, the Bank's management should grant loans bearing 30 per cent interest to a developer in Nova Scotia? Does the Minister really think she is protecting taxpayers' money by letting this kind of thing happen?


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is why it should go to committee.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we began with the problem in March in which we put money into an institution that we felt was well worth the effort of trying to give it a future.


An Hon. Member:: Risking our money.


Barbara Jean McDougall: We continued to monitor that situation. We continued to watch what was happening in that bank. When we discovered that another decision had to be taken, we took that decision, based on the problems on the asset side of the balance sheet.


CHARTERED BANKS' RESPONSIBILITIES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. We now know that the banks were depositors in March at the time of the bail-out. We now know that the banks throughout the summer withdrew substantial sums of money, over $300 million, money which was replaced by the Bank of Canada-by the taxpayers of Canada-and we now know the banks are having whatever is left that belonged to them covered by the taxpayers through the Government's actions. Not once, not twice, but three times a bail-out.
I ask the Prime Minister why did the Government permit the banks to transfer their responsibilities to the Canadian taxpayers?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the Hon. Member is referring to the support package and the way it appeared in today's press, but the legislation that we will be presenting next week will not include funds to be paid to the banks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Barbara Jean McDougall: I am not really quite sure where the NDP got that idea.


John Napier Turner: From you.


Barbara Jean McDougall: They never got it from me. The position will be, Mr. Speaker, and I would like to take a minute on this,

September 13, 1985
Oral Questions
if I could have the attention of the House, to explain, because the position in the support package-


Mr. Ouellet:: Statement.


Barbara Jean McDougall: -the position of the support package in non-technical language-


An Hon. Member:: Go back to school.


Barbara Jean McDougall: Do you want the answer?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I will give the Minister a little bit longer. She may be verging on what should properly be a statement. However, go ahead.


Barbara Jean McDougall: 1 am trying to respond to the question around the ranking of banks, Mr. Speaker. The ranking is that the banks in the support package rank with depositors when assets are liquidated in the event of a winding-up. Our legislation will be presented showing that we are taking over the uninsured deposits and become the uninsured depositor, which ranks equally with the banks when the assets are liquidated. There will be no funds asked of Parliament for the banks. I am not sure where Hon. Members over there got that idea.


USE OF TAXPAYERS' MONEY
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is relatively simple and it is for the Prime Minister. Given what we now know about the amounts of money taken by the banks from the Canadian Commercial Bank over the summer, and given that we now know that the Bank of Canada, using taxpayers dollars, put the money back that was taken out, is the Prime Minister prepared to stand up and tell the people of Canada, the taxpayers, why their taxes will have to be raised in order to cover up the incompetency of the Government's actions last March?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, let us understand it. Is the Member for Hamilton Mountain, on behalf of the NDP, telling the people of Canada that last March, faced with an important matter involving western Canada, the Government of Canada, which has pumped, for example, hundreds of millions of dollars into Canadair in Montreal, should have said no to western Canada? Is that what the Hon. Member is saying? Because that is not the position of this Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I will tell you what you should have done.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: You are anti-west.


Ian Deans: You should have looked into it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: That is what they are saying-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order!


Ian Deans: You had time to look into it.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You are going to have to answer for the position you have taken.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Gauthier:: Is this civility?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: Next?


Charles Joseph Clark: Here is the Ontario leadership of the NDP.


Mr. Speaker:: It seems to me that the more serious the subject, perhaps that we ought to pay greater attention to try to deal with it calmly. The Hon. Member for Algoma.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, we have seen a great example of the Prime Minister's civility this morning.
My question is for the Minister of Agriculture. In his absence, perhaps I might put it to the Prime Minister. He knows that the agricultural industry, especially the red meat sector, is facing one of its most desperate periods in history, and especially the red meat industry as a result of the low prices caused by the American countervail and the millions of pounds of EEC subsidized beef being brought into the country.
On August 29 the Minister of Agriculture met with the hog and beef producers and made a commitment to bring a stabilization program before Cabinet this week. Did the Minister of Agriculture keep his promise? Did he bring a stabliza-tion program to assist this industry before Cabinet this week? Was the Cabinet able to deal with it-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order. That is two or three questions.


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could respond on behalf of the Minister of Agriculture. He is seized with this particular issue at the present time. He has brought it before Cabinet, and it is currently being considered.


TIMING OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, it seems that a matter like providing $1 billion to a busted bank, when in the end we only have a busted bank, can be decided on in a weekend. However, this matter has been going on for several weeks-
September 13, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member had a very long preamble to his first question. Does he have a question immediately, please?


Maurice Brydon Foster: Is the Minister aware that by delaying this decision, it further balkanizes the agricultural market of the country, that we are pitting one province against another in stabilization programs, and that we are really bringing on countervail duties by the United States and other countries?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture is very deeply concerned about continued balkanization. He is trying very desperately to work together with the provinces to reach an agreement so that we can have a national stabilization program which will be effective all across the country.
With respect to the earlier part of the Hon. Member's question, may I just remind him that the Government has unleashed $1.2 billion worth of money to the agricultural industry since it took office.


An Hon. Member:: It also unleashed Barbara McDougall.


BANKS AND BANKING
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. It concerns the events surrounding the collapse of the Canadian Commercial Bank and the events of last March. He just told the House that in March it was a liquidity problem as far as the Government saw it. Could he, therefore, explain why it was, when it became evident very soon thereafter that the chartered banks and other banks were withdrawing hundreds of millions of dollars from that bank, that he and the Government did not get on the phone and make the bankers who had participated in the rescue effort keep their funds in rather than contribute to the liquidity problems of the CCB?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first the question was: Do you assist, do you attempt to assist, or do you turn them down and say no. We felt that it was worth while trying to save that financial institution. Some time later in the course of events, which has been described and responded to by both Ministers in the House, changes arose that clearly resulted in-and it can only be qualified with an understatement-a regrettable situation. We want all the facts out. We have nothing to hide. We want all the facts out. Even if there is blame to be apportioned, we want the genesis of this to be examined as well-what gave rise to that economic situation in western Canada which caused such damage to these kinds of brand new institutions.
I invite my hon. friend to accept the reference of this matter to committee so that all these questions can be fairly put and
Oral Questions
fairly answered, so that Canadian people can make up their minds.


WITHDRAWAL OF DEPOSITS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, 1 shall repeat my question since I failed to elicit a response from the Right Hon. the Prime Minister.
If it was a cash flow problem in March, why did the Government not do anything to prevent the chartered banks and the other banks from withdrawing deposits of hundreds of millions of dollars, that is the liquid assets of the Canadian Commercial Bank during the months of March, April, May and June? Why did you not take action and insist that they assume their share of responsibility, which would have been to keep the bank solvent?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I believe I have already said that it is indeed the kind of value judgement which a parliamentary committee would make in an enlightened and reasonable manner, if that was warranted by the situation. As I said, the bottom line is if anyone has misled Parliament, if someone is guilty of any wrongdoing, we will take full legal action. 1 would suggest however, and I think you will agree with me, that the appropriate forum to make such recommendations is a parliamentary committee appointed to shed light on the whole issue. We have absolutely nothing to hide. We want to make that quite clear to all Canadians and we do urge Opposition Members to endorse the immediate creation of a parliamentary committee.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A great many Canadians are most concerned about the continued presence in our country of Charles Ng and Joseph Kindler, two Americans who have allegedly committed very serious crimes in the United States. Are they to be extradited and, if so, when will they be extradited to the United States?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Justice perhaps I could respond on his behalf. As the Hon. Member will know, this is a matter which is before the courts at the present time and it would be inappropriate, as a consequence, for the Government to comment. I will bring the concerns of the Hon. Member to the attention of the Hon. Minister. I know that he is certainly aware of the concerns of many Members in the House on the subject.

September 13, 1985
Oral Questions FINANCE


DRUG TAX EXEMPTIONS
Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Finance I will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Last May his Government introduced certain illness taxes on over-the-counter drups. When the political heat was on in August, certain drugs were exempted. How did the Government arrive at the drugs which were exempted?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, I think the decision that was arrived at was very sensitive to the fact that there were some people who were more affected than others and, after consultation with them, the Minister was in a position to say that there were things to which he would like to have a sensitivity.


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF KALL DRUG TAXES
Sheila Maureen Copps: Again 1 will direct my question to the Prime Minister. Does the Minister not have a sensitivity to cancer, glaucoma, Parkinson's disease and heart disease? These are some of the treatment drugs which were not included in his exemptions. Will he not state in the House today that the time has come to remove illness taxes, once and for all, for all Canadians who need over-the-counter drugs?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased that the Hon. Member asked that question. As she has identified in the House, the Minister of Finance removed the taxes not only on some of the items which would have been covered under the Budget in May, but in fact he removed taxes of the Liberal Government which had been in effect since 1968. For instance, it had taxes on such things as sugar testers or glucose monitors for people who suffer from diabetes. Those have been removed as well.
I would suggest to the Hon. Member that she should be careful when she talks about illness taxes. However, the Minister has even gone further. We are having further consultations with groups such as the ones she mentioned to see whether or not other steps should be taken. Not only have we gone further than the Budget of May, we have even removed taxes which they imposed in 1968. They saw no moral issue at that time but sure do now that they are in opposition.


BANKS AND BANKING
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In an attempt to sort all the factors concerning CCB, we come upon some conflicting statements. The Prime Minister stated that liquidity was the problem and that the Government had to act in order to protect all depositors in western Canada. Now we hear that
the reason the Government had to pull the plug on CCB was the extent of the non-performing loan portfolio. Could the Prime Minister explain the difference and the reasoning behind the difficulties of CCB as the Government sees them?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, all I can indicate to my hon. friend is something which I know he understands. Given the complexity of this kind of situation, the only forum in which it can be properly discussed with maturity and fairness, where cross-examination can take place, where proper depositions and witnesses can be heard, is a parliamentary committee. We have been suggesting that, in fairness, so that reputations are not unfairly tarnished, that the truth comes out, and that it be done in a spirit of openness. We have absolutely nothing to hide. We want all the facts out so that Canadian people can make an appropriate judgment.


POSITION OF CHARTERED BANKS
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker considering that Bill Mulholland, Chairman of the Bank of Montreal, told us in the Finance Committee last night that all the bankers or experts in that room, when the package was being considered, told the Government that its information was insufficient or suspect, why did the Government decide to proceed and risk $1 billion of Canadian taxpayers' money?


Barbara Jean McDougall: Mr. Speaker, we have never, ever denied that it would have been nice to be able to spend the weeks involved in looking at the balance sheets. I am a balance sheet analyst. 1 know how long it takes to perform this task. If they felt that they had inadequate information at that time, they were free not to participate but the decision had to be made in a way that looked after those depositors and borrowers. The risk that we were prepared to take, and that they were prepared to take, was that this institution could succeed. We were on the side of the people involved in this bank as depositors and borrowers as it was an important western Canadian financial institution, something to which this Member should be sympathetic.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Acting Minister of Agriculture. As has been pointed out by a previous question, the agricultural community in Canada is experiencing extreme hardship, particularly in the East due to the inequities in the Feed Freight Assistance Program. Can the Minister advise the House what the Government intends to do to assist farmers in the East address this very serious problem concerning the Feed Freight Assistance Program?
September 13, 1985


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I know the Minister of Agriculture is looking at this particular issue and I will certainly draw the Hon. Member's representations to his attention next week.


EXPORT DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade and concerns the Sam Wakim affair. When the Minister evaded a straightforward question that I asked him yesterday on a matter directly within his personal knowledge, he gave the impression that he was trying to hide something. I will ask him again. When did the Minister have that meeting with Sam Wakim? What firm was Mr. Wakim representing at the time? Who was it who initiated that meeting?


Hon. James Kelleher (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I want to assure the Hon. Member that I have nothing to hide. Late last fall a number of lawyers, including Mr. Wakim approached me to discuss the possibility of performing legal services for EDC. We felt that other firms should have that opportunity and so we asked EDC to explore that possibility. EDC advised us that it was prepared to explore that possibility if three criteria were met. I told the Hon. Member of those three criteria. I passed that information on to Mr. Wakim and others. It was available to anyone else who wanted it. EDC, not I, set the criteria, determined whether or not those criteria were met, and retained Weir and Foulds.
The last point I would like to emphasize right now is that I could not and did not any time give assurances to Mr. Wakim or anyone else regarding EDC's legal services.


REQUEST FOR COMMITTEE REFERRAL
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister who must surely see that the questions I asked were not even addressed in the answer given by the Minister. The Prime Minister made several long statements today advocating the use of a parliamentary committee to review matters and has established a patronage review committee. In the spirit of that committee, I would ask that the matter of the appointment of his friend Sam Wakim to do important work which could be worth $1 million per year, work that affects Canada's external trade and image, be referred to that committee.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I have been reading lately of a good lawyer friend of mine, a classmate, who apparently did business with the Government, and this has caused us some concern. I am of course referring to a good friend of mine, Raynold Langlois, son of Liberal Senator Langlois, who got $368,000 from the Govern-
Oral Questions
ment last year and who was a classmate of mine. I never complained about Raynold Langlois getting that business. I never complain about any Liberal lawyers getting $400,000 or $500,000 worth of business. I never try to sully their reputations. It was printed yesterday that my old pal, Raynold Langlois, received $368,000-


André Ouellet: My old pal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: He is also a friend of the Hon. Member for Papineau. We all went to law school together. He has done amazingly well. He has not been harmed by his membership in the Liberal Party. Why do Liberal Members not talk about that every once in a while rather than trying to savage people's reputations?


HOUSING
Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour who is responsible for housing, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. Will the Prime Minister confirm to the House that in the Minister's negotiations to hand over delivery of social housing programs to the provinces he has decided to divert federal taxes to provincial shelter allowance schemes and to require that poor people pay 30 per cent of their income for rent-geared-to-income housing, or in some cases 35 per cent, rather the the present 25 per cent?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Labour, the Minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, I will take notice of that question and ensure that the Minister gets back to the Hon. Member at the earliest possible date with the detailed answers that have been requested today.


ELIGIBILITY FOR SOCIAL HOUSING
Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, while that request is being conveyed to the Minister of Labour responsible for housing, I would ask that the House Leader also ask him to confirm that it is his intention to disenfranchise childless couples and childless singles from eligibility for rent-geared-to-income housing.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, without accepting for a moment the premise of the question, the answer to the Hon. Member's first question applies to the second as well.

September 13, 1985
Oral Questions BANKS AND BANKING


CANADIAN COMMERCIAL BANK COLLAPSE-REQUEST FOR MINISTER'S RESIGNATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have the weekend to reflect. I believe that the evidence that has come before the House, the country and the committee during the week, has revealed a shameful incompetence on the part of two Ministers, and incompetence costing the country about SI billion. I believe that the Prime Minister will recognize that some heads should roll. I am not talking about officials, I am talking about Ministers because under parliamentary government there is ministerial responsibility. Will the Prime Minister, during the weekend, hold the Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance to account and ask for their resignations?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I understand the role of the Opposition and the important responsiblities that the Leader of the Opposition must assume in a parliamentary democracy. I have had the honour of serving in that position myself and I believe I understand the imperatives of the job.
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to the question of shameful incompetence. He is entitled to that opinion in regard to the Minister of Finance, in regard to myself, or in regard to anyone else. I would be surprised if it were otherwise. However, that is not a view that is sustained by any evidence whatsoever. It is not a view that has been tested, as it always must be, in the fairness that prevails in the parliamentary tradition, and that is why I have been pointing out respectfully to my right hon. friend the danger of the smears in which he has been involved. They are not in keeping with his character or his reputation and not in keeping at all with the honourable reputation he has established in this House.
I would say something to my right hon. friend that I think he already knows. The Minister of Finance and the Minister of State for Finance are two extremely impressive, loyal, and honourable public servants. If there are any attacks against their reputations, I would ask my right hon. friend to make those attacks in a precise way. However, he ought to have no objection whatsoever to agreeing immediately to the creation of a parliamentary committee so that on Monday morning we can begin the objective analysis that will allow Canadians to make the appropriate judgments.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SEARCH AND RESCUE
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National Defence. Is it the
intention of the Government to implement the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger dealing with search and rescue and, specifically, does the Government intend to acquire helicopters with the range and hovering capability to protect our offshore workers, as recommended by the commission, in time for winter drilling?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has long displayed intense interest in the improvement of search and rescue facilities, particularly in Atlantic Canada. I can tell the Hon. Member that of the 66 recommendations which came forward in the first report, 55 of them have either been implemented or are on their way to being implemented. Of the 70 in the second report, some 50 have been implemented or are on their way to being implemented.
The report of the royal commission to which the Hon. Member refers was received by me on behalf of the Government on June 28. As he knows, being as familiar as he is with the rules of the House, the Government has 120 days to respond. At least, that is the target. We should know the answer to the specific question he poses when we come forward with our response to that report.


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions, with the exception of one, presented by Hon. Members on Thursday, September 12, 1985, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
The petition presented by the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus) does not meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 47(2), 1 have the honour to table in both official languages copies of Order in Council No. 1985-2653 concerning the composition of Cabinet committees, the lists of Acting Ministers and Ministers who may act for the Prime Minister.
As tradition has it, Mr. Speaker, unanimous consent of the House must be obtained to have this lists published as an appendix to Hansard. I would ask for that unanimous consent in this instance.
September 13, 1985


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the suggestion. Is it
agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For list referred to above, see Appendix p. 6615.]


APARTHEID
[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak to the House about apartheid and about what Canada can do to end a repugnant racist system. I am guided by two realities: first, that Canadians are offended by, and abhor, the practice of institutionalized racism by a society which claims to share our values; and, second, that Canada's influence is limited but real, and our challenge is to take practical steps which help to end apartheid.
Expressing our outrage is part of our duty and those Canadians citizens who join in peaceful protest and demonstration help to show the South African Government how deeply the people of this country are offended by their racist practices.
It is also part of our duty to make clear to South Africa that Canada is prepared to invoke total sanctions if there is no change. As a general principle, we believe that diplomatic and economic relations should exist even though Governments might disagree. Indeed, if we had accepted six months ago the advice of some groups that we break all diplomatic and commercial relations with South Africa, we would be in no position today to act individually or in concert with other nations to add to the pressure being felt by the South African Government.
We fully recognize, however, that Canada has a responsibility to provide both moral and practical leadership. The Government of South Africa should have no doubt that we will invoke full sanctions unless there is tangible movement away from apartheid.
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I will be reviewing today the actions Canada has taken, announcing new initiatives and asking the House to consider avenues of influence which we, our fellow citizens and our friends in the world can pursue. However, first, I think it helpful to indicate some of the changes we seek to bring on those norms of behaviour we expect of all civilized countries, changes which would prove that South Africa is moving away from apartheid. [Translation]
The changes we are seeking include first of all, establishing common citizenship, which means the same political rights, including voting rights, for all and eliminating the different
classes of citizens.
Statements by Ministers
Second, abolishing the laws by which South Africans are classified according to colour or race. Third, freedom for all South Africans to live, travel and work without being subject to arbitrary constraints.
Fourth, independence for Namibia in accordance with United Nations Resolution 435. This would be a major indication that South Africa is willing to accept its neighbours and live on peaceful terms with them. However, the most important points are those I am about to announce now.
First, liberation of political prisoners-the liberation of the leaders of the African National Congress and the United Democratic Front who were forced to resist the apartheid system.
Second, the establishing of a process of consultation and negotiation with the true leaders of those who are referred to as Indians, blacks and coloureds. In other words, such consultations cannot be restricted to the leaders of the Homelands. [English]
Finally, the initiation of a process of reform based on consent, not imposition or coercion. Such a process would clearly lead to representative institutions which include blacks. These are key steps, for it is not Canada's or any other country's consent or support which is crucial to this process. It is the consent and support of South Africans of every race and colour which counts.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we are witnessing in South Africa, rather than change, is a deepening crisis. Demonstrations, strikes and acts of resistance against an injust system continue. They continue to be met with violence, arbitrary arrest and detention-measures of repression and control rather than conciliation.
We condemn the detention of the leaders of the United Democratic Front-Professor Farouk Meer, and others. We are shocked by the detention of Allan Boesak, the President of the World Alliance of Reformed Churches, who a short while ago visited Canada and spoke to us not of revolution or violence, but of justice, equality and reconciliation. We deplore the heartlessness of a Government which keeps behind bars the now seriously ill Nelson Mandela.
We call on the South African Government to release all those whose offence is simply to oppose apartheid.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We add the names of Tutu and Boesak to that of Mandela among those who should be invited for dialogue, not rebuffed, relegated to silence, or dismissed with concept.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: It would be tragic if history were to repeat itself and the UDF were to be cast in the role of ANC as something to be stopped, repressed, rendered illegal.

September 13, 1985
Statements by Ministers
Bishop Tutu can no doubt bear his rebuff from President Botha. Both Nelson Mandela and Allan Boesak may bear their imprisonment. But can South Africa bear the result? It is clear that one more community in South Africa, the business community, is beginning to have its doubts. Their confidence shaken, business and investors within and outside South Africa have fostered a wave of disinvestment-without the prompting of Governments, but surely reflecting both the events on the ground in South Africa and the signals many Governments have sent. If some South African entrepreneurs have, for too long, lent support to apartheid, the consequence of their movement now cannot be overstated.
Canada's contribution to bringing about those new realities, recognized by South African businessmen, has been significant. Our policy, through several administrations, has been one of consistent opposition to apartheid.
More recently, at Baie Comeau on July 6, I issued a statement of policy on behalf of the Government of Canada. Basing ourselves not on our own righteousness, but on our common humanity, we introduced 10 steps, including certain economic sanctions, to strengthen our opposition to apartheid, and two measures to foster peaceful change.
We ended the Program for Export Market Development and the global insurance policies written by the Export Development Corporation in so far as they applied to South Africa. That lived up to the pledges of the former Government and stopped all official support for trade and investment in South Africa. These two trade measures sent very distinct signals.
We broadened and tightened application of the United Nations arms embargo so as to include a broader range of high-technology items, including computers. We have been the only Government to announce the abrogation of our Double Taxation Agreements.

We have drawn the attention of Canadians to the resolution of the Security Council prohibiting the sale of the krugerrand. We were not disappointed in our hopes that the people selling these gold coins in Canada would get the message, since sales have practically ceased altogether.
We have drafted policies on sports events, official meetings and co-operation. We have made it known that the custom processing of Namibian uranium would come to an end upon expiry of current contracts, at whatever cost.
We have announced the appointment to our embassy in South Africa of an officer responsible for labour issues, in order to maintain direct contacts with those South African workers who support reform. The officer will be selected in consultation with the Canadian Labour Congress.
We have more than tripled funds earmarked for the education and training of blacks, which means we will be able to provide 40 bursaries during the present financial year. We are delighted with the Canadian labour movement's decision to
support the training of blacks in South Africa, and we shall welcome any initiative or contribution from other sources. [English]
But that has not been all. Other levels of Government have also sent strong signals. A number of provinces have seen this as a special case and have shown by their actions that Canadians in all parts of our country abhor apartheid. In addition, private Canadian companies have voluntarily announced that they will no longer purchase South African products. Canadian labour has consistently spoken out against apartheid, and now some Canadian unions have refused to unload a ship carrying South African steel. Universities are debating disinvestment of their South African holdings. This issue has, in a dramatic manner, affected Canadians as a people, and South Africans who condone apartheid should know that they offend not just the Government of Canada, but our people and our values.	*
In focusing that anger, in applying steady pressure for change, we must have the best information and judgments we can get on how to use our influence most effectively. We will work closely with our friends. The distinguished African leader, the Chairman of the Front Line States, President Julius Nyerere of Tanzania, has been invited by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to pay an official visit to Canada which will take place from September 24 to September 26. The Secretary General of the Commonwealth will visit Canada in early October. We will seek their advice and that of other leaders opposed to apartheid, particularly in the Commonwealth and among the front line states. We expect the meeting of the heads of government of the Commonwealth in mid-October to provide an opportunity for common action against apartheid.
We are taking a number of further measures as the Government of Canada as part of our continuing pressure against apartheid. First, as I believe the House knows, 1 am meeting with a number of representatives of Canadian business and finance in order to examine areas of co-operative action against apartheid because I believe that there is a very real possibility that where Governments may not have influence on some levels of the business community and the bureaucracy in South Africa, Canadians active in business could well have the influence which could add to what Governments, Parliament and public officials are trying to do.
The first meeting took place on September 9. The others will follow shortly, on September 17 and September 20.
Second, the Canadian Government is introducing a voluntary ban on loans to the Government of South Africa and all of its agencies. We are asking all Canadian banks to apply such a ban and we have reason to believe that they will do so. Some have already acted on their own and we welcome that. The ban will not affect any outstanding credits nor prevent loans that would clearly be to the benefit of blacks.
Third, I am announcing the appointment of Mr. Albert Hart as administrator of the Canadian code of conduct for the employment practices of Canadian companies operating in South Africa. Mr. Hart has had a distinguished career as a
September 13, 1985

public servant in Canada including appointment and service as High Commissioner to Ghana. Mr. Hart will take up his duties shortly and will be in touch with the companies concerned. We are today issuing a standard reporting format for the annual public reports which have been requested by the Government under the code of conduct.
Fourth, the Canadian Government will apply a voluntary ban on the sale of crude oil and refined products to South Africa. To this end, we are asking Canadian companies not to enter into any contracts for the sale and export of these goods to South Africa. Our sales in this area have been limited in the past. This measure is being taken now to ensure that Canada does not become an alternative source of supply in the future.
Fifth, we are bringing in an embargo on air transport between Canada and South Africa. It will cover both cargo and passenger flights. As we have no bilateral air agreement, neither country's airlines have obtained traffic rights from the other country for scheduled international services. Direct air transport between the two countries has, in consequence, been limited to occasional charters. The effect of this measure is therefore to stop those charter flights and to rule out reciprocal air service at least until the process of dismantling of apartheid is well engaged.
Sixth, a register has been opened for the voluntary measures which Canadian provinces and municipalities, as well as private institutions, organizations and firms have taken against apartheid. Thousands of Canadians have acted quietly on their own in protest and we encourage others to do so. Individuals and institutions which wish to do so are invited to register their actions by writing to me and indicating what they have done. The list of measures will have an exemplary impact and will be conveyed to the Secretary General of the United Nations in the expectation and with the recommandation that other nations might follow suit so that there will develop a world wide register of the actions of individuals who abhor apartheid.
Seventh, in view of the increasing number of arrests of non-violent opponents of apartheid, 1 am today announcing that an additional $1 million will be allocated on humanitarian grounds to assist the families of political prisoners and detainees in South Africa. These funds will be channelled through organizations such as the International Defence and Air Fund for Southern Africa and Canadian groups which are actively supporting the victims of apartheid.
In the prevailing circumstances, we must proceed with prudence and determination so that the words we say and the actions we take, alone or in concert with other countries, will help end injustice and violence. There have been some hopeful signs in recent days regarding the pass laws and common citizenship. We do not know whether the reforms hinted at will be realized but we certainly wish to encourage movement in that direction, and encourage the efforts of those South African business people who have long supported reform and who have now taken the initiative to encourage dialogue with the true representatives of blacks in South Africa.
Statements by Ministers
The days and weeks ahead will be marked on our side by a continued search for steps which may help to bring justice to South Africa and greater harmony to the region. For Canada that search will centre on consultations with our partners in Africa and elsewhere in the world, but particularly on the Commonwealth. Nor, of course, do we exclude talks with South Africa if the door remains open and we can influence events.
Seven of South Africa's close neighbours are Commonwealth countries and an eighth, Namibia, has been invited to join. Their people are closely linked. Their economies are deeply dependent on one another. Their security and their standing cannot be separated. There can be no peace in the region while South Africa remains at odds with its Commonwealth neighbours and while they live in fear of it. Apartheid is a Commonwealth problem. The question is not whether the Commonwealth has a role; by force of circumstance it must be concerned and involved. More than that, the Commonwealth has traditions and historic ties with South Africa which have prepared it to play a reconciling part if the Government of South Africa opens the door to it.
Despite the sharp differences which have divided Governments, the people of the Commonwealth and the people of South Africa are from the same traditions. There is a disposition to be hopeful and to seek reconciliation among South Africa's neighbours. What we must know is whether it will be reciprocated.
Another forum whose unanimous resolutions have consistently been ignored by the South African Government is the United Nations. At the imminent General Assembly, as it has in the past, Canada will encourage upon the world community the sort of concerted action which should leave South Africa with no doubts about the repugnance of its policies. As the world speaks, the unusual phenomenon of growing pressure on the South African Government from within that country will be given an opportunity to bear fruit. Our actions today, those taken by other Governments, and those actions which will be taken, will collectively keep the pressure on. If the Government of South Africa remains unbending to that pressure, then Canada will be left with no recourse other than to end our relations absolutely.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Jean Chretien (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, it is with pleasure that I rise in the House this morning to take part in this debate, but first I wish to congratulate the Minister on his presentation.

I think this statement is welcomed by this House and I-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: If there is a subject we should try to be very united on, it is the issue of apartheid in South Africa. We in

September 13, 1985
Statements by Ministers
this land know it is possible to overcome differences. We have come a long way down that road. Therefore, we should have absolutely no reservations about trying to make a positive contribution to make sure that every human being is equal around the globe. The situation in South Africa is a very good example of discrimination and domination which has to be strongly rejected. I am very glad that the Minister has come forward with this statement this morning because we need a comprehensive statement on this situation.
This past summer it appeared to be difficult for the Minister and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) to find common ground on this issue and I am happy to see that there now seems to be one position which is acceptable to everyone in your party and I am very pleased with that. The speech and all the remarks before the inauguration of sanctions were very good. But I think there is a big gap between the rhetoric and the reality. I wish the Minister had been able to get up in this Elouse and say that by, for example, January 1, 1986, we will sever our relations with South Africa if it does not act accordingly. This is because in analysing the situation in South Africa we realize that the moderates there are moving. It is not only on one side. The business community is now taking some positive steps to put pressure on the administration there and I think that economic sanctions are the answer. Some people feel that Canada has played a small part in the economy of South Africa. But, on the other hand, if every nation moves strongly and rapidly, the Government of South Africa will have no choice but to move. That is why I think the speech, the rhetoric, is very good but I am a bit disappointed that the Minister could not impose sanctions or give orders to certain people in Canada, many of whom we can give orders to, not to do business with South Africa. Of course, many of the banks have already stated their position that they will not lend South Africa any more money. But the problem is that we have to create a strong impression and thus my difficulty is with the actions of the Government. I think it might be seen by some as effective as mandatory sanctions; I agree with the Minister on that. But we see the debate in the United States where the President made a statement on apartheid which included somewhat less than the expected sanctions proposed in the Senate which is dominated by the Republicans. We saw what the EEC did this week. They put in place mandatory sanctions against South Africa.
So I feel the action is somewhat weak, but I do not want to be partisan and difficult about it. I just hope this will work. But we have to make clear that my such and such a date we will impose mandatory sanctions against South Africa in every field. I am glad to see that the Minister is even threatening to sever our relations with South Africa because that is what I wish we would do, to be very clear if thiings do not change very dramatically. Sometimes, when we are trying to find our way, we give a very confusing image of Canada, as happened this past summer. Our ambassador was recalled but the explanation given was that it was not quite a normal recall but that he was just recalled for consultation. I should have been made very clear that we had recalled him to give him new instructions or even to keep him here. But we did not do that. We waffled. We waffled as well between the statement of the Minister and that of the Prime Minister. Now it seems that there is cohesion in the Government and I think we are happy to support that.
The Speech is perfect but the action is weak. I hope the Minister will take the opportunity when it arises to set the date and say precisely what the action will be. Of course, one might argue that it will not have a big effect because the economic relations between Canada and South Africa are limited to something like S400 million in trade. That will not kill them. But if all nations of the world do the same thing we will succeed and there will be more justice in that country. There are political prisoners there just because they have expressed a political view. I am glad they have been named and the Minister is offering some help for their families and so on. We welcome that. But we have to keep the pressure on and encourage a dialogue between the moderates and the Government in South Africa to start soon.
There is a solution to these problems. Of course, some people are preoccupied with the fact that some of their privileges will disappear. But what is important is to give all the fundamental rights to the black people and 1 know and you know that when they are equal and first-class citizens of that land they will want the country to progress. 1 think humanity will be better off for that. So we welcome this move by the Minister in the sense that it shows cohesion in the Government against apartheid.
I think the action could have been stronger, and I hope it will not be seen that we are waffling somewhat. It would have been easy to say that these sanctions have to be followed rather than making them voluntary. The result may not have been different, but the speech would have been stronger and more influential. We have made some progress in that businesses and citizens have decided to use the peaceful tools they have of putting economic pressure on the business community. If the nations of the world were to do that from the other side, progress would be made. It is a step in the right direction. We must be as united as possible in that policy in Canada because, even though we are small and humble, we have had some experience of that nature in this land. We have proved that there is much generosity in human beings. This world problem presents an occasion to display that generosity. I welcome the statement and I hope that the Minister will tell South Africa exactly what we will do on January 1, 1986 if they do not move. I hope he will keep pressure on the Government to ensure that political prisoners will be freed as quickly as possible.
By doing so, Mr. Speaker, we could have made our contribution, because Canada is a country that could play an important role, considering the fact that as a country, we have shown it is possible to accommodate the differences that exist within a nation, and while giving all citizens a chance to be equal and
September 13, 1985

to keep their differences, their cultures and their language, to accept people of a different colour as equals and invite them to share in the benefits and responsibilities of Canadian citizenship.
Mr. Speaker, if they want to do the same thing in South Africa, I am confident that blacks and Asians and whites can live together, with a measure of good will, while respecting each others differences, and join in building a society that is truly worthy of the modern world.


Ms. Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, we, too, welcome the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) today. I am very pleased that he is continuing to influence and develop the Government's South Africa policy. The development has been slow, contradictory, and not enough but I, and I am sure many others, welcome the Minister's efforts.
For decades we in this Party have called for an end to the apartheid regime in South Africa. We have called for active Canadian and international efforts to end apartheid and bring about majority rule in that country. We urged the previous Liberal Governments to end Canada's de facto support for the regime in Pretoria through government assisted exports and traditional "quiet diplomacy". Despite continuing racism, repression and murder, and the ever-mounting international pressure for the isolation of South Africa, the Liberals did not act. Although the Hon. Minister says they would act today, they did not act over 20 years.
Once again, recent events in South Africa have caused widespread shock and revulsion in the international community and in Canada. Since the killings at Uitenhage on the 25th anniversary of the Sharpeville massacre, it has been a bloody year for South Africans. The unacceptable use of repression, force and murder by the state has been met in South African by resistance and abroad by revulsion and shock. No Government which must rely on such savage methods can make a claim to legitimacy among nations or support from its own people.
As Nelson Mandela said more than two decades ago, "Naked force and violence is the weapon openly used by the South African Government to beat down the struggles of the African people and to suppress their aspirations". What more evidence do we need than that only last night, more than two decades later, seven more blacks were killed. The brutal use of violence by a police state will ultimately lead to the defeat of those who employ such violence.
As the Minister has pointed out, the apartheid regime of South Africa now sits condemned, as it should have long ago, by international public opinion, by the family of nations, and by the inevitable course of history. The world and the majority of people in South Africa demand an end to apartheid. It is an unreformable evil that changes to citizenship regulations and pass laws will not correct. It is founded on racism and enforced by violence. Its "reform" will come only through the establishment of majority rule.
Statements by Ministers
New efforts and energies must be directed to the struggle for liberation and human decency in South Africa. While the Minister's statement is most welcome, it does not sufficiently represent the kind of new efforts which must be undertaken by Canada and other countries. In his statement the Minister said that in focusing our anger and applying steady pressure for change we must have the best information and judgments we can get on how to use our influence most effectively.
Nelson Mandela, in prison for 20 years or more, says that Governments must impose full economic sanctions. That is his judgment. The judgment of Desmond Tutu is the same. Seventy-three to 77 per cent of the black African population has said the same. That is their judgment on how to use our influence most effectively. In fact, other Canadians have taken as many, and sometimes more, initiatives until now than has the federal Government. Seven provincial Governments have established some economic sanctions by banning South African liquor sales. In fact, the Premier of Quebec has charged that the federal Government has lobbied the provinces not to take such actions. Trade unions in Canada have called for economic sanctions and the labour movement has refused to handle South African cargo at Vancouver. Petro-Canada has banned its latest sulphur shipment to South Africa, once again running ahead of External Affairs which has asked "to be kept up to date" on such initiatives. Even the Conservative Party leader in Manitoba has called for Canada to sever all economic relations with South Africa.
The Government has an obligation to undertake efforts and initiatives at least equal to those being undertaken by the people of Canada. In our view the Government should initiate a program of staged economic sanctions to be implemented within specific time limits in the absence of the dismantling of apartheid and concrete moves toward majority rule. As 1 have noted, South African blacks themselves are calling for such sanctions.
Canada should also actively promote at the United Nations broader international trade sanctions. There should be a tough mandatory rather than voluntary code of conduct, for Canadian business now operating in South Africa, and a government ban on any further Canadian investment in that country.
I welcome the Minister's call for the release of all political prisoners and detainees, especially ANC and UDF leaders. I urge him to consider Canadian financial assistance to the legal defence of such prisoners and the granting of charitable tax status for Canadian-based organizations providing such legal support. The Minister might also now consider something which the previous Government refused to do, namely matching funds raised in Canada by the Canadian Aid for South African Refugees Organization through CIDA. We have asked for this for a number of years. However, it has never been granted.
Perhaps the Minister would consider providing matching funds to aid South African refugees as we have matching funds in other parts of the world to aid refugees.

September 13, 1985
Petitions
Next, Canada must firmly renounce the illegal South African occupation of Namibia, in defiance of the United Nations and the work of the Western Contact Group. If Canada is to remain a member of that group it must work more rigorously for speedy South African withdrawal and a settlement that will include the active participation of SWAPO.
Finally, Canada must undertake special development assistance and support for states neighbouring South Africa to end their vulnerability to South African attack and their dependence on the South African economy.
Change will come to South Africa. It will either continue to be bloody and revolutionary, brought about by continued state repression and violence, or it will be peaceful orderly change through the speedy dismantling of apartheid and the establishment of majority rule.
The further measures announced by the Minister today, while most welcome, are largely voluntary. Canada can act now. Only by taking the lead in the community of nations in the imposition of economic sanctions-staged economic sanctions as we have said-within publicly stated time limits can other nations be influenced to take similar actions and can fundamental change become hopefully a reality in South Africa.


PETITIONS
Mr. Moe Mantha (Nipissing):: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition from the City of North Bay and area asking for fairness in gas pricing in North Bay which is five cents to six cents higher than in areas like Mattawa, Cobden, Verner and Sudbury. They are asking for action to be taken.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by many people from Alberta, specifically Calgary and Red Deer. This petition calls on the Government to remove Section 57 of the Unemployment Insurance Act which uses pension income as earned income in calculation unemployment insurance benefits.


Mr. Elliott Hardey (Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition signed by approximately 550 workers at the International Harvester truck assembly plant in Chatham, Ontario. They oppose the concept of free trade with the United States. They fear that companies will consolidate and close Canadian operations.



FAMILY ALLOWANCES ACT


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: for leave to introduce Bill C-70, an Act to amend the Family Allowance Act, 1973.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the first time and ordered to be printed.
* *
*
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Paul Dick (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: No. 231.


Mr. Howie: From January 1, 1984 to January I, 1985, what amount of government funds were allocated for research into the causes and treatment of (a) cancer (A) multiple sclerosis (c) kidney disease (d) heart disease?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:
(a)	Fiscal year 1984-85
(b)	Fiscal year 1984-85
(c)	Fiscal year 1984-85
(d)	Fiscal year 1984-85


[Stage Direction]
In so far as Medical Research is concerned:
(a)	Calendar year 1984
(b)	Calendar year 1984
(c)	Calendar year 1984
(d)	Calendar year 1984
Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: The question enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
September 13, 1985

Criminal Code Amendments



WAYS AND MEANS


[Stage Direction]
Schellcnberg
(Nanaimo-Alberni)
Scowcn
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the Customs Tariff, laid upon the Table on Thursday, May 23, 1985, be concurred in.
Messrs.
Tardif (Mrs.)
(Charlesbourg)
Thacker
Towers
Tupper
++NAYS
Messrs.
Vankoughnet Vezina (Mrs.) Vincent Weiner Witer-71.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that a Ways and Means motion to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act, laid upon the Table on Monday, September 9, 1985, be concurred in.
Allmand Axworthy Baker Boudria Caccia Copps (Ms.) de Corneille Finestone (Mrs.) Foster
Gagliano
Garneau
Gauthier
Guilbault
(Saint-Jacques)
Henderson
Hopkins
Johnston
(Saint-Henri-Westmount)
Lapierre
Malepart
Marchi
Nicholson (Miss) (Trinity) Robichaud Rompkey Tobin-23.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: 1 declare the motion carried.


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



CUSTOMS TARIFF

Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



MEASURE TO AMEND

Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion, please say
yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion, please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Speaker:: In my opinion the yeas have it.
And more than five Members having risen:


Mr. Speaker:: Call in the Members.


Erik Nielsen: that Bill C-71, an Act to amend the Customs Tariff, be now read the first time and printed.


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


Erik Nielsen: that Bill C-72, an Act to amend the statute law relating to income tax and to make a related amendment to the Tax Court of Canada Act, be now read the first time and printed.


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


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Thursday, September 12, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-67, and Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, and Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Parole Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act, and the Criminal Code, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, 1 am pleased to rise to resume debate on this very important piece of
6594

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
legislation. At the conclusion of my remarks yesterday, I was raising the serious concern that this Bill, far from promoting public safety, will in fact have the opposite effect. I say that for a number of reasons. I know that my time is limited, but in the remaining time I certainly hope to be able to talk about some of the alternatives that we in the New Democratic Party feel are of significance and importance in this area.
I wish to turn to some of the specific concerns with Bill C-67, particularly when contrasted with some of the other similar Bills which have been before the House in the past. First, in dealing with the provisions which would close the so-called revolving door, I suggest the Bill has a rather bizarre provision which would, in fact, have a serious adverse impact on the community and on prisoners. What is stated in the Bill is that those prisoners who are initially convicted of crimes of violence, assault or homicide will not be eligible for remission on their mandatory supervision after one revocation. In other words, if there is any form of forfeiture of their mandatory supervision after they are out, they lose any opportunity for further earned remission. Not only will that add to overcrowding, it will cause serious problems within institutions because there are no incentives whatsoever for the prisoner to be of good behaviour. The one possible incentive which now exists is the possibility of earned remission, and that will be removed.
In addition, there is a glaring inconsistency in this Bill. I would ask Members of the House to consider the following situation. An inmate who is originally imprisoned for a nonviolent crime, for example, a fraud, is released from prison after two-thirds of his sentence has been served, because of his good behaviour, and is out on mandatory supervision. He is out on mandatory supervision for a couple of months and commits a serious crime of violence. Under the terms of this Bill, that prisoner would be returned to prison, having his mandatory supervision revoked, but would then be eligible for earned remission once he is back in. However, another prisoner, who was originally imprisoned for a crime of violence, in the same situation, is released after two-thirds of his sentence has been served, is out on the street and then has his mandatory supervision revoked, not because he commits a new crime but because he moves, is drunk or in breach of one of the other conditions, for example, he incurs a debt he is not supposed to incur. That individual will be hauled back into prison and forced to serve the remainder of his time in prison without any opportunity for earned remission.
What kind of ludicrous set-up is it when there are two individuals, both of whom are out on mandatory supervision, one of whom commits a serious crime of violence and is eligible for earned remission, and the individual whose mandatory supervision is revoked because he breaches a term or condition of mandatory supervision has the prison doors slammed shut until the end of his sentence? That is what this Bill does. It is just one of the many flaws in the Bill.
I wish to deal with another concern respecting this part of the Bill as well, that is to say, mandatory supervision can be revoked for any breach of any term or condition which is set out under the provisions of the Bill. That does not just mean a
future criminal offence. That can mean a breach of any of the conditions. Even the previous Government recognized that it was wrong to suggest that an individual, whose mandatory supervision is revoked for breach of a condition which is not a criminal offence, should be subject to loss of any future earned remission. That was wrong and that would be destructive of the environment within prisons, let alone to the question of fairness to the individual involved.
I would like to give one example of what that can lead to. A young man named Henry MacDonald, who was 30 years old, was released in September of 1980 on mandatory supervision. He had served two thirds of his sentence. One month later, however, the parole board revoked his release because he refused to live where he was told to live. He was told to live in London, Ontario and he left there and went home to his family in Brantford, Ontario. His family and even the local police said that he was causing no trouble whatsoever but he was in breach of that condition. So he was picked up and put back into prison in Millhaven Institution, the most violent maximum security institution in Canada. And that was done because he moved back with his family. On November 24, 1980, he was found stabbed to death in his cell.
This Bill will promote that kind of violence in our prison system and ultimately this Bill will promote increased violence in our communities. Serious questions have been raised with respect to the efficacy of the mandatory supervision program itself. This program, which was initially implemented in 1970 in fact has been shown to have virtually no impact whatsoever on the rate of recidivism of individuals who are subject to mandatory supervision. If one takes an individual who is on parole and another individual who is subject to mandatory supervision, the rate of involvement in future crime may be somewhat higher for the individual on mandatory supervision, but that is not surprising given the fact that it is the best risks who are originally given parole. If one takes two other groups of individuals, one group released after serving two thirds of their sentence and then serving the remainder without any form of mandatory supervision, and the second group who are released and are required to serve the remainder of their sentences under mandatory supervision, one finds there is no effect whatsoever on recidivism.
It has been argued by many that compulsory parole supervision in the community has no effect on the likelihood of an offender's reconviction. In fact, it causes serious problems. Really it is a form of surveillance, not a form of assistance and rehabilitation.
There are other problems with this Bill. I mentioned this bizarre provision whereby there is a double standard relating to the individual who is eligible for mandatory remission, on the one hand, and one who is not eligible for it, on the other hand, based solely on the offence for which they were originally incarcerated. But one of the most serious concerns I have about this Bill is the test which is applied to determine whether or not an individual will in effect be gated. As I indicated
September 13, 1985

yesterday, it has been shown to be virtually impossible to predict future violence. But under the terms of this Bill, the test is so broad and so sweeping that virtually anyone could be gated without any form of judicial review whatsoever. Let us bear in mind the fact, Mr. Speaker, that it is the same body which is determining that individual's eligibility for release that has previously been denying him that release all along the way. So we have the National Parole Board which is saying, "No, we are not going to grant you day parole. No, we are not going to grant you full parole", all the way along. Now it is suddently given an opportunity, after two thirds of the sentence has been served, to keep that person in. Do you think it is not going to take advantage of that, Mr. Speaker? Of course, it will. And on what grounds? Because of the possibility that he may be dangerous in the community, and that is decided without any real certainty or statistical basis for showing that we can predict that kind of violent behaviour.
At least, Mr. Speaker, in two other previous Bills, the criteria were more tightly drawn. In fact, I believe they related to the dangerous offender criteria in the Criminal Code. As it stands now, this new Bill would be directed not at inmates who have committed a serious personal injury offence as defined in the dangerous offender provisions of the Code, but it would be directed at a whole series of other offences which are going to be mentioned in a new schedule to the Parole Act. There will be 14 different offences. So it broadens the net very substantially.
With respect to the provision on the so-called "revolving door" syndrome; in that particular case, those individuals, having has their mandatory supervision revoked, will not even be eligible for discretionary parole in the future. The door will be permanently shut. So the criteria are far too broad.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I would note that under the previous Bill there was a requirement that psychiatric evidence be heard. One would have thought that it would be pretty essential in dealing with the possibility of future violence. Under this Bill, there is not even a requirement that there be any evidence heard from psychiatrists.
As well, Mr. Speaker, there are a number other concerns. I mentioned that the criteria are very broad. Effectively, the Board will now have to be satisfied of the likelihood of the commission of an offence causing death or serious harm and the guidelines can be established by the Governor in Council. I mentioned as well, Mr. Speaker, the fact that an individual who is detained pursuant to this provision, who is gated pursuant to this provision and is ordered to be detained in penitentiary, will not be eligible for parole. So if he is not eligible for parole, Mr. Speaker, then the fact is that another element of fairness in the procedure is denied to the prisoner. The final area I would like to touch on is that there is no sunset clause whatsoever in the gating provisions which are put forward by this Minister.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, we have serious concerns both with respect to the revolving door element of this Bill and with respect to the so-called gating provisions. What are the alternatives? I believe it is incumbent upon those of us who argue
Criminal Code Amendments
that this approach is the wrong approach to provide alternatives. I intend to do that in the few minutes which remain. First, I will note that in 1977, a subcommittee of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs issued a unanimous report to this House. The most important recommendation which was made was that we have to start to recognize that far too many Canadians who are convicted of crimes are imprisoned. Prisons should be used as a last resort and should be used only in those circumstances in which there is no other meaningful alternative and where the individual does pose a genuine threat to the community. The sentences in Canada are far too long in many cases. We are not looking at alternatives to imprisonment. Not only that, but we must go back even before that time, because if we are serious about reducing the level of crime in our communities and if we are serious about reducing prison population in Canada, we have to start looking at the prevention of crime. It is not good enough for us to focus slavishly on crime itself and on prisons. It is about time we in this country became serious about looking at the causes of crime and ways of preventing crime.
Many studies have been done-and we do not need any more studies-showing the kinds of action which should be taken to prevent crime, whether that be community-based alternatives, a recognition that in too many cases poverty and crime are inextricably linked, or a recognition of the fact that programs to deal with abuse, sexual abuse and other forms of violence against young people, are completely lacking in our society. These young people who have themselves been involved in this kind of abuse get involved in violent crime. What about programs for detection of learning disabilities? One estimate indicates as many as 80 per cent of the prison population have learning disabilities. What are we doing to try and prevent those individuals from being involved in crime at an early age? Nothing, absolutely nothing. We have to look at far more effective allocation of our resources to deal with young people in conflict with the law. As it stands now, in too many cases we ignore the concerns of young people. If we as a community made more effort to deal with young people in conflict with the law, hopefully that would result in less crime at later stages.
For those who are incarcerated we have to recognize there are programs which can and should be used for rehabilitation. One program which was strongly recommended by the subcommittee and ignored by the previous Government and this Government is that of work. Is it such a revolutionary thing to suggest that prisoners in Canadian prisons should be working? That was one of the essential recommendations of the subcommittee report. Let us put prisoners to work, meaningful work, within the system. Not only will that assist us in rehabilitation, it will cut down significantly on the cost of prisons. This Government is concerned about the deficit, as we all are, so I would have thought that it would want to look at that recommendation for a national prison industry's corporation. But no, what does it do? It brings in a Bill which will increase the cost of our prison system and add to the overcrowding.

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
What about those prisoners in the system? I mentioned the importance of work. There are far too many in the system who are not working. For those who may be sex offenders, instead of dealing with meaningful programs to try and rehabilitate those individuals, what is this Government doing? It is cutting funds for programs for sex offenders in the federal prison system. The sex offender treatment program in Campbell River, British Columbia, was treating 12 people. It was very cost effective and reduced the likelihood of further offences. What happened to that program? It was axed by the Government. Therefore, when this Government talks about the safety of our communities on the one hand and on the other eliminates programs which seek to rehabilitate sex offenders, it is speaking out of both sides of its mouth and we in this Party reject that kind of approach. I have mentioned the problems of overcrowding in our prison system. I have mentioned the problems of arbitrary actions which give rise to frustration. These are things such as involuntary transfers, plucking an individual from one prison in the middle of the night and taking him to another prison. This adds to the tension, frustration, overcrowding, double bunking and so on.
In concluding my remarks, the point I want to make on this important Bill is that it is not the answer. The Government is conning Canadians in suggesting that by taking this approach it will in any way reduce the level of violent crime in our communities. In fact, if this approach is adopted the opposite will be the effect. We have to get that message out very clearly. Sure, the chiefs of police are anxious to have this Bill adopted but we have to take a broader approach, one which reflects the concerns of our communities for their safety. We have to recognize our concerns about basic rights within the prison community as well. It is for that reason we in the NDP reject this approach, and it is for that reason that my colleagues and I will be opposing this Bill and urging the Government to come to its senses and take meaningful steps to prevent crime. We have to introduce meaningful programs for rehabilitation within our prison system. Most important of all, we have to ensure that steps are taken to provide alternative to imprisonment so that our human warehouses, the prisons of today, will not cost us that much money and a program which has failed miserably will no longer burden Canadian citizens.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would like to advise the House that pursuant to Standing Order 19(4) Private Members' business will start today at 4.39 p.m.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to participate in this particular debate dealing with Bill C-67. I would like to indicate at the outset that we in the Liberal Party support this Bill. It is, for all intents and purposes, identical to that Bill which was introduced by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) and former Solicitor General. Unlike the NDP, we in the Liberal Party are concerned first and foremost with innocent law-abiding Canadians. We have to ensure that the utmost protection is afforded to those in our society who live according to the rule of law. I want to cite a few examples to indicate
why we in the Liberal Party support this Bill. A year ago last July an individual released on mandatory supervision after serving 14 years for rape went out into the community and killed four people in Brandon, Manitoba. The corrections people had no choice, that individual had to be released. I would like to ask whether the lives of those four individuals could have been saved if this Bill had been law at that time? There are other examples where individuals released on mandatory supervision have gone out and committed some very serious crimes. Another example, one I am sure Hon. Members will recall, was last year when a Woodstock man, once again released on mandatory supervision, killed a police officer in the Montreal area and then killed a student. I ask again whether the lives of those two individuals could have been saved had this legislation been in place?
My friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) indicates that this Bill will do a profound injustice to prisoners and those who are serving sentences in the community. The NDP have often claimed that they support the ordinary Canadian. Listening to the Hon. Member, one has to ask who the NDP is representing given their position on this particular Bill. Are they concerned about the safety of the public or are they advocates for the inmates? We, too, in the Liberal Party are concerned about rehabilitation. We are concerned about those who are serving sentences in our prisons. However, our primary concern is the safety of those citizens who live their lives according to the rule of law. This Bill is necessary and important. There are those of us in the Liberal Opposition who believe that other steps have to be taken to ensure the utmost safety for our citizens and I was pleased to hear the Minister indicate that his Department and the Department of Justice are continuing to monitor the situation and continuing to think of new proposals to ensure the utmost protection for society.
Now, what is mandatory supervision? The Minister and the Hon. Member for Burnaby explained what it was. However, I suspect that a lot of Canadians do not understand what it really means. I have to admit, as a lawyer and as a new Member of Parliament, I really did not know the distinction between mandatory supervision and parole. Parole, in my view, is far more successful than mandatory supervision. As Hon. Members know, most inmates become eligible for full parole after serving one-third of their sentences. An exception are those who are serving life sentences. Inmates are eligible for day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence. The National Parole Board considers each individual case, the crime the individual committed, and the prisoner's behaviour while serving his sentence, and determines whether an inmate can be released without being a threat to the lives of innocent people. For the most part our parole system is good because the Parole Board has discretion. It decides whether or not to release a particular inmate. Statistics indicate that 74 per cent of parolees are successful and that only a small percentage of those released on parole are eventually returned to institutions.
What is the case with mandatory supervision? In 1970 the concept of mandatory supervision was introduced. Prior to that
September 13, 1985

time there existed statutory remission through which the sentence of an inmate was reduced by operation of law. Under statutory remission an individual would serve his time in jail and then have no period of supervision in the community. Once the inmate had served his sentence he was thrown out into the community. It was widely thought that that was not fair to society or to the inmate. It was thought to be necessary to have some form of supervision, so we experimented with mandatory supervision. Under mandatory supervision inmates accumulate remission which is known as earned remission. For every month they serve in a federal penitentiary they get 15 days off for good behaviour. That resulted in the elimination of one-third of the inmate's sentence. The problem is that that inmate would automatically be released, notwithstanding the crimes he had committed or the threat he may present to the community. The authorities had no option other than to release that individual into the community.
We have heard horror stories about individuals who were released on mandatory supervision. I referred to the case of the individual in Brandon, Manitoba who killed four individuals, and to the man from Woodstock. These are the worst of the worst criminals. Those model inmates who have shown a sincere desire to rehabilitate themselves and have shown that they can live a law-abiding life are eligible for day parole after serving one-sixth of their sentence and for full parole after serving one-third of their sentence. The model inmates become eligible for parole. Those who are released on mandatory supervision are the inmates for which the authorities have refused parole. The authorities have concluded that these inmates should not be released, but because of mandatory supervision they were forced to release them. Attempts were made to reincarcerate some of these individuals and we had the problem of gating which was an attempt to reincarcerate those inmates who posed a very serious threat to the community. It became apparent over a period of time that mandatory supervision was not working.
I would like to cite some statistics which would corroborate that contention. The Solicitor General's Department undertook a study of mandatory supervision. The study is entitled Mandatory Supervision: A Discussion Paper. It is a report of the Committee on Mandatory Supervision which was released and tabled in early 1981. The statistics relating to inmates who were released on mandatory supervision between January 1975 and December 1979 are somewhat shocking. In that period of time individuals who were released on mandatory supervision committed 52 homicides, 31 murders, and 21 offences of manslaughter. Does the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the rest of the New Democratic Party think that if this Bill had been in force some of these lives could have been saved? It will be argued that crime is inevitable and that if these individuals were not kept incarcerated there would be no way to stop them from committing murders and other offences.
In that same period of time statistics show that inmates released on parole committed nine murders and nine offences of manslaughter. There were no cases of attempted murder by those released on parole while there were 11 such offences
Criminal Code Amendments
committed by individuals released on mandatory supervision. Ten individuals released on parole were convicted of rape while 25 inmates released under mandatory supervision were convicted of that crime. The list goes on. Four individuals released under the parole system were convicted of sexual assault while 23 individuals released under mandatory supervision were convicted of that crime. Seventeen individuals released under parole were convicted of assault while 153 released under mandatory supervision were convicted of that crime. With regard to kidnapping the figures are 6 versus 15 and with regard to robberies they are 127 versus 394. Mr. Speaker, res ipsa loquitur, the facts speak for themselves.
This is a good Bill, Mr. Speaker, and the Liberal Party intends to support it, but we also recognize that it is only a first step and that other action must be taken to ensure that society is safe. When a convicted individual is given a sentence the public believes that that individual will serve that sentence. However if an individual is convicted of a serious crime and given a sentence of 12 years, we know that that individual will not necessarily serve that period of time. Under today's sentences, the individual will serve anywhere from one-third to the full warrant when the sentence has expired. Indeed, very few individuals serve their full sentences today. It is true that this Bill may result in certain inmates being kept in for their full warrant. Our concern with respect to this legislation is that there must be a period of supervision in the community. We simply cannot release an inmate outright after serving a lengthy prison term. It is not fair to the community and it is not fair to the individual. There must be a transition period. My friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby laughs. I listened to the alternatives that he presented and I, on behalf of the Liberal Party, would like to make some suggestions.
He is suggesting that as part of that sentence there be a period of supervision during the duration of that sentence. If I understand the comments made by the Hon. Member, his Party supports the existing provisions with respect to mandatory supervision notwithstanding the statistics which clearly indicate that the concept is a failure to a certain degree.
1 will ask the committee to consider the possibility of reforming the sentencing procedure in Canada to include, at the end of a period of incarceration, a period of supervision required by law. For example, with respect to someone sentenced for a 12-year prison term and who is not released because that person is a threat to society, according to the legislation there would be a period of perhaps one to three years of supervision where the authorities can continue to exercise some control over the individual to ensure that that individual is able to begin living a normal life. That is an option that should be considered. Other options and alternatives should also be considered.
The previous Liberal administration was concerned about sentencing in Canada. I am sure Hon. Members will agree that a great percentage of Canadians believe that sentences are far too lenient. During this Parliament, Bill C-18 provided

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
for stiffer penalties with respect to drunk driving. That Bill too was introduced by the previous Liberal administration but died without becoming law. All Hon. Members, including those representing the New Democratic Party, supported that legislation because of the belief that Canadians wanted more severe penalties with respect to drunk drivers.
The previous administration was concerned about sentencing over-all in Canada with respect to the commission of criminal offences. Therefore, the previous administration established a commission-originally known as the Sinclair Commission-now known as the Archambault Commission. It is reviewing the whole sentencing procedure in Canada in order to determine whether sentences are appropriate in the circumstances for the various offences. It is determining what criteria and what principles ought to be used in sentencing.
We, as parliamentarians, have a duty to take into consideration the public view with respect to crime and sentencing. In some ways, the results of that commission will have to reflect a concern by the public that sentencing is too lenient.
The Liberal Party is also concerned about the population in our prisons. However, our paramount concern is the safety of the public. We believe that we must become more strict with violent offenders, those who commit offences against the persons by assault, rape, murder and manslaughter. It is with those individuals that we must become more severe and if it means spending more money to keep these individuals incarcerated when they pose a serious threat, so be it. We cannot put a value on human life. It is not possible to put a value on the lives of the four individuals who were murdered in Brandon, Manitoba by the inmate who was released on mandatory supervision. We cannot put a price on the 52 individuals who were killed by those released on mandatory supervision between 1975 and 1979. It is costly to keep people incarcerated and it is also costly to keep the public safe. If it comes to a question of spending more money or releasing violent offenders, we believe in spending the extra money to ensure the safety of our citizens.
Some people who are incarcerated should not be in prison. They are those who commit offences against property. One could argue that they should not be in our prisons and that sentences for those particular crimes whould be reduced and other methods of punishing these people should be used. Such punishment could include community service orders where these individuals could pay society back for their crime by working in the community or contributing in some other way to the community. We believe that other methods of punishment should be used for those individuals while maintaining the concept of deterrence and recognizing its importance in order to deter like minded people from committing similar crimes.
While we applaud the Government for looking for other ways to penalize those who breach the Criminal Code of Canada, we are concerned about the violent offenders. That is why we believe Bill C-67, while not the final step, is a tremendous step forward to ensure the safety of our citizenry.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby seems to be living in a cloud. He apparently suggests a utopia when talking about eliminating crime. While we can do much in an attempt to reduce the level of crime, my hon. friend seems to believe that by waving a magic wand or by using some magic potion, crime can be eliminated. However, we must accept the reality that crime in Canada will continue.
We are very fortunate in this country with respect to the level of crime and the safety of our citizens. One need only look south of the 49th parallel to realize how fortunate we are concerning crime. Our record of being one of the safest countries in the world is one of which we can be proud. How many people in the world can walk freely in their major urban areas without fear of being assaulted in any way? When we walk in downtown Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver, it is reassuring to have a certain degree of confidence in our police force and a confidence that we are safe. However, that is not the case in Detroit, New York and many other major cities not only in the United States but throughout the world.
We should count our blessings that we do have a very safe country. However, that does not mean that we can stop there. We can make it safer by ensuring that those individuals who show a clear risk of violent conduct and pose that threat to society will be kept incarcerated.
As the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) indicated, it costs approximately $40,000 a year to keep an inmate in a federal institution. It costs over $100,000 to construct one new prison cell. Although it is costly, I repeat that the money is well spent when ensuring the safety of the public.
This legislation, Mr. Speaker, will give the National Parole Board discretion that it did not have with respect to mandatory supervision. In many ways the National Parole Board will have the discretion it has under the parole system. I would like to reiterate that those candidates eligible for mandatory supervision are not model prisoners or those serving time for property offences. We are talking about the rapists, those who have committed serious assaults and we are talking about federal, not provincial inmates. All inmates in federal penitentiaries are serving at least a two-year sentence. These are the most serious offenders. The less serious offenders are dealt with in provincial institutions. Any inmate serving less than two years serves the sentence in a provincial institution.
This Bill will give discretion to the National Parole Board and it will establish criteria and procedures to retain in custody until warrant expiry, or place under strict residential conditions those inmates considered to pose a clear risk of violent conduct beyond a release date that would have been established by earned remission.
I took the liberty of calling some of those who adjudicate these particular cases from the National Parole Board. I took the liberty to call other experts in the field to ask their opinion with respect to this legislation. The overwhelming majority of those to whom I spoke considered this Bill a step forward and
September 13, 1985

considered any move to give the National Parole Board more discretion as a positive step toward creating a safer society.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Name names.


John V. Nunziata: I will indeed name names at committee.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Why not now?


John V. Nunziata: I look forward to that in-depth discussion of this legislation at the legislative committee. Yes, I want to hear from those who have presented arguments to the Hon. Member for Burnaby, those who were able to convince the Member for Burnaby of the New Democratic Party to challenge this Bill because of their concern with inmates and prisoner rights.
We in the Liberal Party want to hear those people. We would simply ask the NDP and the Hon. Member for Burnaby to speak to the families of those who have suffered because of a crime committed by individuals released on mandatory supervision. I would like the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the NDP to get rid of the blinders and to look at the full scope of the situation and to listen to the police for a change.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would the Hon. Member name a single group with whom he has consulted in the criminal justice community that supports this Bill?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, if I could just finish that train of thought-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Come on, John.


John V. Nunziata: I would ask the NDP to keep an open mind. Its Members are far too often closed-minded when it comes to representing the ordinary Canadians who they so often say they represent.


Svend Johannes Robinson: One group, John. One group.


John V. Nunziata: We will listen to those groups. Yes, I have spoken to Claire Culhane and I have spoken to inmates. As the critic for the Solicitor General in Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition, I have listened to inmates and I have spoken to them. I have also spoken to victims. As a lawyer I have acted for victims. I have been concerned with the level of violent crime. 1 commit myself and my Party to doing everything we possibly can to make our society safer. When we look at this Bill, we do not say that it will do a profound injustice to prisoners, but we in the Liberal Party say that if Members do not pass this Bill, and if they do not support it, they will be doing a profound injustice to the people they represent as parliamentarians. Members will be doing a profound injustice to the thousands and millions of Canadians who live a law-abiding life. I ask the Hon. Member and the NDP, who are they representing? Are
Criminal Code Amendments
they representing their constituents, or are they representing a very narrow interest group, as they so often do?
Getting back to the legislation, Mr. Speaker, it will allow inmates convicted of violent offences specified by the criteria one chance for release on mandatory supervision. As 1 indicated earlier, this will eliminate the revolving door syndrome. It is fair to give an inmate one chance. First, that inmate has to convince the National Parole Board that he or she ought to be released because the individual is not a threat to society. After having convinced the Parole Board of that, if the inmate breaches a condition of supervision or commits a further offence and is convicted of a further offence, then surely no one can argue that the individual be given another chance. That aspect of the Bill is a very substantial step forward.
The Bill would also establish procedural safeguards and criteria that would limit the application of the measures to only the most dangerous offenders. I am sure Hon. Members have reviewed the legislation and realized the offenders that we are dealing with in this legislation are offenders who are serving time in jail for manslaughter, attempted murder, causing bodily harm with intent, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, assaulting a police officer, sexual assault, including rape, et cetera. These are the individuals serving more than two years. They are the ones who have to be watched and who will be looked at. This legislation does not deal with those individuals serving time in federal penitentiaries for offences against property, for example. I think it is only reasonable we look at those who have committed serious offences to determine, using certain criteria, whether there is any likelihood or risk that they might go out into society and commit another serious offence. 1 think that is only reasonable, Mr. Speaker.
The Parole Board will first look at those individuals who have been denied parole. It will then make a determination whether reasonable grounds exist to conclude whether a person is likely to commit, prior to the expiry of his or her sentence, a violent crime that will result in harm. There are those who would argue the standard is not high enough, that reasonable grounds give the National Parole Board too much discretion. There are those who would argue that the standard is too low and that there should be a stricter standard as to when certain individuals should be kept in custody under a detention order.
There are those who argue that the onus should be on an inmate to show to the authorities, the National Parole Board, that they are likely candidates to be released and that they are not a threat to society. Under the legislation, it is up to the National Parole Board. There is a presumption that an individual after having committed a serious crime will be release after serving two-thirds of the sentence. There is a presumption in the law as it reads that that individual is to be released and the onus is on the National Parole Board or the authorities to apply the criteria and determine whether the individual should be kept in custody. Indeed, there are those people who argue that the onus should be on the accused and that the presumption should be that all inmates serve their full sentences because under the Criminal Code, if one commits a

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
particular crime, one can be sentenced up to a particular time in prison. There are those people who argue that a 12-year sentence means a 12-year sentence and that in some ways our federal statutes conflict. The Criminal Code indicates, for example, that one is to serve 12 years, yet other legislation indicates that if one earns a remission, then the 12-year sentence is no longer a 12-year sentence but an 8-year one. The proposed legislation will give that discretion to the National Parole Board.
The legislation goes on to indicate that even if an inmate does not meet the criteria with respect to the offences listed in the schedule to the Bill and if the Commissioner of Corrections has reasonable grounds to believe that the inmate is likely to commit, prior to the expiry of the sentence, a violent crime which will result in violent harm, he may refer the case to the Chairman of the National Parole Board for a detention hearing. This particular provision might cause some concern. It provides that those who are not serving sentences for crimes against a person may be subjected to a detention hearing before the National Parole Board. There are also those people who have suggested that perhaps in those cases the person should not be detained.
There are safeguards with respect to the legislation. For example, the Parole Act will be amended to entitle all inmates to an annual review of a detention order. It does not mean that once the National Parole Board makes a decision with respect to a particular inmate that that is the end of the case and the inmate is required to serve his or her full sentence. An inmate who is refused release on mandatory supervision will have the legal right to have his or her case reconsidered every year. If there is a material change in circumstances and the particular individual is able to show to the National Parole Board and to the authorities that he or she does not pose a risk to society, the particular inmate may be permitted a release in the future. We consider this to be a good provision.
The legislation also provides that three members of the board must be present when a detention hearing is held. We consider that to be a good feature as well. Three responsible individuals would be reviewing a particular case as opposed to a single individual, and that provides the system with a degree of more fairness. The National Parole Board is not only given the discretion to release a particular inmate, but it could also attach conditions to a particular release. That is also a good feature of the legislation. We need to have confidence that members of the National Parole Board will act reasonably and according to the best interests of society first and the particular inmate second.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby indicated in his submission that the legislation in some way will increase violent crime. I was somewhat surprised when I heard him indicate that that was the position of the New Democratic Party. He called upon the Official Opposition to provide the names of groups which have spoken to our Party. I note that my time is coming to an end, but in conclusion I would like to challenge the Hon.
Member for Burnaby and the New Democratic Party to provide facts with respect to their submission that more violence will occur. If the NDP took the time to read the report published by the Department of the Solicitor General, they may arrive at a different conclusion. I reiterate that the Official Opposition supports the Bill in principle. We welcome a full and complete discussion of it when it is before the legislative committee. We invite all interested groups and parties to appear before the legislative committee to put forward their submissions. If we approach the Bill in a reasonable way, I am sure Canadians can rest assured that we have done everything we possibly can as parliamentarians to ensure the safety of law-abiding citizens.


Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have an opportunity to speak on this Bill. I do not think I can let the remarks of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) just go by without passing comment. I think they were almost too intellectually dishonest and at times demonstrated a dangerous diversion from the principles of British and Canadian common law. His proposal for those who were sentenced by the courts to serve their full sentences and to have the Canadian penitentiary system, the police and courts tack on surveillance in the communities afterward is a very dangerous proposal which is not operative anywhere in the western world. Perhaps the Hon. Member might want to name a few police states where it occurs, but I am certainly unaware of any precedent or anyone associated with the criminal justice system who has ever proposed or supported such an intellectually dishonest and naive proposal.
I came to this House having been elected as a Member of Parliament from being a corrections officer, I have some relevant experience to lay before the House in relation to these proposals. I have had discussions with almost all my colleagues in the field, whether they be jail guards, national parole officers, probation officers in the provinces, prosecutors or police, regarding this kind of proposal for more than a decade. I must say that this approach is tragically narrow and will prove to be both dangerous and expensive. I will demonstrate in my remarks this afternoon the reason for that. I hope those Members of Cabinet who are here will pass on my views to the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) in the hopes that he will change the approach in this Bill.
As was demonstrated by the previous speaker, there is a real need for the House to inform itself fully of the penal and parole system in Canada before tinkering with it. For the Liberal Party to put up someone today who admitted before speaking that he did not even know what mandatory supervision was, demonstrates the lack of depth in that Party and why, for more than a decade, the very activities which he quoted were occurring. Whether it was the tragic murders in Brandon, Manitoba or elsewhere, that Government never responded to such activities in any meaningful way within the system of corrections that exists in Canada today. We have one of the highest rates of incarceration in the western world and, by a long shot, one of the most expensive.
September 13, 1985

I think we should deal with facts. Some very excellent evidence was given by the Canadian Criminal Lawyers' Association before the Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs of the Senate less than two years ago. I should like to refer to the evidence of two very knowledgeable persons in this field, Mr. David Cole and Professor Allan Manson of Queen's University. Speaking about the basic parameters contained in the Bill, I should like to quote from Mr. Cole's evidence:
It is our respectful submission that it is dangerous to tinker with one element of an integrated system because to do so creates new tensions, exacerbates pressures and raises unforeseen problems elsewhere in the system.
It is our submission that any response to violent offenders and recidivists which expects to be ameliorative must flow from a full and open inquiry which will permit Parliament to generate an appropriate systematic response based on a clear understanding and accurate perceptions.
Much like the Bill on prostitution with which we dealt on Monday, we are seeing the House charging down the road dealing with a very sensitive public issue. No one in this House wants a corrections or court system operating in which Parliament knowingly allows dangerous offenders to become involved in unpredictable activities in our communities. To a certain extent, this Bill will allow that to happen and I will demonstrate that.
Very much like the prostitution Bill with which we dealt on Monday, this Bill deals with a symptom of a very serious and chronic sociological disease that is systemic not only in our society but in every society that has existed since we began to organize ourselves some 4,000 or 5,000 years ago. This is a very complex issue and what is being proposed in the Bill before us today is tantamount to amputating a limb when a bone is broken and in fact requires a cast.
We can debate this afternoon and in committee ad nauseam the intentions of incarceration, punishment and the removal of freedom from men and women who are placed in institutions in order to protect society or whatever. However, we must understand that all inmates eventually return to live among us. This Bill and, I believe, the remarks of the previous speaker, demonstrate an incredible naivety about what actually happens, particularly within the maximum security institutions of this country. To claim that keeping someone who is serving a 10-year sentence incarcerated for the full 10 years makes him somehow safer when going back into the community than does releasing him after seven years with some kind of professional supervision from a parole officer and a federal system is incredibly naive. I predict that this will create a hot box situation.
I have spoken to jail guards, wardens and national parole officers. From having worked within the system, I have some understanding of what it means when we begin to hot box which is to say to tell an inmate that he is not getting out until the very last day. There is then no opportunity for any give and take within the institution. There is no reason for an inmate to do what a guard asks or to follow the rules of the institution.
Criminal Code Amendments
When an inmates is released early and is under mandatory supervision, there are certain things that 1 as a professional in the field can do for him. For instance, if he is not supposed to be in a beer parlour, I could go into the beer parlour to find him and send him back. If he did not keep his job, was not turning up on time, was not making restitution or family payments or was not doing a whole host of other things, there was some kind of control over that under a caring albeit professional system. At least the people coming out of institutions knew that there was some supervision there.
It is naive of the previous speaker and the Solicitor General to be moving this Bill forward. Many Canadians will agree that if someone is given a 10-year sentence, he should serve a 10-year sentence. However, we as a Parliament must have some kind of responsibility to integrate the concepts of the penal system and the parole system with the court system because if not, individuals will be more dangerous when they come out the other end.
As the committee will discover, there have been very few studies made around the world to see whether or not there has been a dramatic increase in homicides or crimes of that sort after parole because those things are incredibly difficult to predict. The National Parole Board is aware that it will be forced to make all kinds of subjective decisions based upon things like an argument with a guard or an inmate flipping his dinner on the floor. It will have to make all kinds of subjective evaluations related to whether or not that individual will be dangerous if returned to the community.
We are not taking the kind of approach that we should be taking to ensure to the maximum potential the safety of the community. I spent a great many nights worrying about people who were on mandatory supervision and were not where they were supposed to be. 1 would go to incredible lengths to try to locate them before taking the ultimate step of placing them back in an institution. That opportunity will no longer exist. We are talking about the most dangerous group of individuals within our society, individuals who will be touched by this legislation.
I plead with Members of the House to slow down and apply logic to this matter. We should not even ask to have a whole bunch of studies done. We should think it through. Is it safe to tell someone who has taken another person's life that he will have to serve every day of his sentence and will then be booted out the door of a security institution? Is it safe to have that individual who has been locked up night and day, 24 hours a day, for 10 years put back on the street without having any kind of an integrated return to the community? Sheer logic tells us that that is not the case. If there is not some kind of professional surveillance, there will be failures for worse than the four homicides quoted by the Hon. Member of the Liberal Party. The House must be very careful in condoning this type of approach.
It may be easy for Members to say that we passed a piece of legislation indicating that people will serve all of their time, but I have looked at the statistics, Mr. Speaker. For a very short period of time, a number of people who have been

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
dangerous in the past will be backlogged within the penitentiary system in Canada, but a few years down the road, a heck of a lot more than would ordinarly be going onto the streets at one time will be put on the streets of Canada. Then we will see the blip on the screen. I think Canadians will be shocked to find that this Parliament on this day did not deal in a more decent way with the situation. When it comes to correctional law, today really is Friday the 13th.
There are two key issues at which we must look with great care because they are the key components outside of the expansion of the National Parole Board and a number of other rather superficial issues dealt with in this Bill. There are two revolving-door syndrome and gating. Members have touched upon these matters, but I think it is important to remind ourselves of what has become known within legal circles as the revolving-door syndrome. This is when prisoners on mandatory supervision have their supervision revoked and are then returned to prison, and after serving more time, they again come out on mandatory supervision, a supervision which is again revoked. Dealing with that seems to be the first objective of this Bill and I think it is worth putting on the record a paragraph from the evaluation of this proposal done by the Library of Parliament. I quote from Part II:
Inmates of federal penitentiaries earn remission of sentence under s.24 of the Penitentiary Act. (Remission is applicable to all sentences except those for which there is a minimum time which must be served before eligibility for release, e.g. murder.)
For every month of sentence (or portion thereof) during which "he has applied himself industriously ... to the program of the penitentiary in which he is imprisoned", an inmate is entitled to 15 days remission of sentence (or a fraction thereof, where time served is less than a month). If an inmate earns all possible remission he or she becomes eligible for release after having served two-thirds of his or her sentence. (Most inmates "earn" all possible remission, because it is virtually vested, subject to removal for bad behaviour, on the commencement of sentence.) Before 1970, an inmate who was released as a result of remission left the institution free and clear of supervision, and the possibility of having to return to serve the balance of his or her sentence. In that year, however, the mandatory supervision programme was introduced.
Inmates released by reason of remission were to be subjected to the same type of supervision as paroled inmates; and, accordingly, were also to be subject to revocation of release because of misbehaviour while under mandatory supervision. Section 15 of the Parole Act governs mandatory supervision; and subjection (2) (inmates who are conditionally released by reason of a decision of the National Parole Board, usually after having served one-third of their sentence) thereof direct that those provisions of the Act dealing with suspension and revocation of parole to mandatory supervision as if it were a parole release.
The second point which needs to be clarified for those Canadians who want to focus their attention on an issue that is important in society is the matter of gating. That gives vast powers to the National Parole Board to designate that certain individuals be denied mandatory supervision until their sentence is complete. On that matter, I quote again from the Library of Parliament study which has the following to say:
On the basis of s.16, inmates deemed dangerous would be nominally released, but would have that release suspended and revoked as they reached the prison gate-hence the appellation "gating". Thus, there would be a technical release, which it was thought would enable the Board to use s.16.
Gating was immediately challenged in court. In various courts, there was some division as to whether this use of s.16 was appropriate. The issue was resolved on May 17, 1983 when the Supreme Court of Canada upheld the view of two courts of appeal that s.16 could only be used when there is a genuine release of the
inmate, and that it could only be invoked to re-commit the inmate based on post-release conduct. In effect, an inmate had to be given a chance "on the street" before his release could be terminated for misconduct.
Having dealt with the two key components, I think we have to look carefully at what type of image the new Government is attempting to create out there. There is no doubt that there is a real mood among many Canadians who have friends, family or someone who has been victimized by someone either on parole or mandatory supervision. I think it is responsible of the Government to respond; however, not to respond in a way which will create a more dangerous situation in the near future. It creates an image of law and order for many Canadians which, in fact, is just not the case. A government which will keep those convicted for every day of their sentence given by a court creates the image of safety. That is an illusion because, in fact, it increases the likelihood of dangerous behaviour from someone who is kept without any possibility of an early release.
The hot box in the prison system is something we have to look at. I hope the committee will do this because we are all too well aware in this House that it costs, on average, $40,000 a year to keep an inmate on the inside in this country. We are all too well aware that it costs in excess of an eighth of a million dollars for every cell constructed. Community supervision by a probation or parole officer costs between $3,000 and $5,000 a year. This cost varies from province to province.
The parole service evolved to assist in the transition of inmates back into the community. For those paroled after having served roughly one-third of their sentence, or for those on mandatory supervision after having served roughly two-thirds of their sentence, it provided an opportunity for them to deal with someone, whether it was by phone, coming into an office or dealing on the job site. This person could assist. 1 think many Members forget that if someone has been incarcerated for five, ten or more years, the simplest things often become the most complicated. 1 am speaking of setting up bank accounts, turning up regularly to work, buying new clothes, things that are simple. When the released inmate runs into something that is difficult he often tends to be very short fused if, for example, he has been told on the job site that he needs to get a different type of boot, or something of that nature. Often he thinks he is being picked on. Without some type of bouncing board, released inmates tend to veer off into unusual behavioural patterns. The Hon. Member for Burnaby has pointed this out. He is one of the few people in the House who has done more in working toward real legislation which would have a real potential benefit to the safety of communities than anyone else in the House. The Hon. Member comes from a community where there are a substantial number of inmates because they are actually housed there. There are few Members in this House who are more aware of the need for good, accurate and penetrating legislation which really deals with the problem rather than this type of illusory legislaiton which is designed for hot lines and mail-outs. It is not designed to deal with the problem.
September 13, 1985

Rumours are also rife now in the national parole service that the next move is to privatize parole. This is something which has been done in the United States and which has not been very successful. If this is to be the trade mark of corrections moves by the new Government, I will not doubt for a moment that we will see the privatization of parole, in part, with the argument that the dangerous inmates are now being dealt with inside the prisons as opposed to on the street because they are serving full sentences. It will probably be argued also that measures such as the dangerous offenders provisions of the Criminal Code are getting them out of the way.
We heard the Liberal Member quoting statistics related to parole and mandatory supervision demonstrating, once again, a preposterous naivety of who it is within each of those components and what the background of the whole issue is. I would like to hear from the Minister in this respect. I am sorry to say that he is not in attendance, although I am pleased to see the former Solicitor General here, who I think has a real interest in this issue. I would like to hear him list who in this country among wardens, guards, parole officers, judges, criminologists, sociologists or community resource groups endorse this approach. The role of institutions for male and female offenders must change. When society, through Parliament, determines that a person should be removed for two or more years from society for the committing of an offence, society should also know that this House is running a sound corrections and rehabilitation operation. That is just not happening. In fact, many of those avenues will be precluded if this Bill is passed unamended. I am confident that for a majority of those incarcerated we can operate secure facilities based on user-pay, as was touched on by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Why should we pay $40,000 per inmate per year, plus all court costs, family costs and restitution? We should be moving toward a system of reduced institutional violence by designing the operations to be productive, where inmates are involved to as high a degree as possible in producing the goods and capital costs of their own incarceration, restitution, court costs, and so on. Certainly, the prevention of crime, as touched on by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, is a crucial area we have to look at because the tendency in many provinces, certainly in British Columbia, is to cut back on those people who have all types of studies demonstrating that their work has prevented many people with learning disabilities, and so on, from getting into a life of crime.
I would like to finish by saying that the distinction of the historic role of parole in this country is an error of extreme proportions. My final example is that of a convicted killer serving 10 years with no mandatory supervision and no parole. The proposal being put forward by the Liberal Party is that that person should be dropped into society. I would tend to agree more with the new Solicitor General who does not propose the Liberal Draconian proposal which is without any court order, any kind of legal process, that people be placed under surveillance after the fact. Anyone who believes what the Liberal Member had to say is dreaming in Technicolor.
Criminal Code Amendments
We need changes to this Bill in the interests of Canadian public safety.	.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Questions and comments? The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member of the New Democratic Party who just spoke accuses the Liberal Party of intellectual dishonesty. I would submit that in his submissions he confirmed that the NDP has mastered the art of intellectual dishonesty. He indicated that we are dealing with, and I quote, "the most dangerous group". He admits that we are dealing with the most dangerous group. The legislation before us deals with the most dangerous group of inmates. What it provides is that this group will be kept incarcerated for the safety of the public. What the NDP is advocating is that the most dangerous group of criminals ought to be released on to the streets to commit other crimes. That is what the NDP is suggesting. Members of that Party are suggesting these people should be released. I am pleased that the previous speaker indicated his bias at the outset of his remarks. As a previous corrections officer, it only stands to reason that he does not want the most dangerous group in prison because it is a difficult group with which to deal. It is understandable why corrections people do not want these people in jail. They want to send them out on to the streets because they cannot deal with them.
The Hon. Member indicated that Canada has the highest rate of incarceration. That may well be the truth; but 1 suggest to him that Canada has one of the highest, if not the highest, rate of safety when it comes to crime and criminal offenders. As far as the Liberal Party is concerned, we would opt for a higher rate of incarceration for the highest rate of safety for our citizens.
The Hon. Member also misinterpreted-and I would suggest intentionally-the alternative which I suggested some people were arguing. I did not suggest that without legal authority there should be some supervision of inmates at the expiry of their sentence. Of course, you cannot do that. That is silly. You cannot do it under the existing legislation. If we provide the necessary legislation, you are darn right we can do it. We can provide for a sentence of incarceration up to a particular period of time, say 12 years, and then provide in the Criminal Code of Canada a period of supervision after that.
The Hon. Member also indicated that parole officers, corrections people, judges and so on, did not support this legislation, but I ask him if his constituents support this legislation? Has he canvassed his constituents to determine how they feel with respect to this legislation? I suspect, Mr. Speaker, that the previous speaker for the New Democratic Party and, indeed, the New Democratic Party itself, do not really care about what their constituents feel about this legislation. They are influenced by a very narrow interest group in society rather than with society as a whole.
I am somewhat concerned about the intellectual dishonesty of the New Democratic Party. However, I am grateful that the

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
intellectual dishonesty which it has mastered will not in any way preclude the passing of this particular piece of legislation which we all consider to be a tremendous step forward.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, anyone who reads those remarks will know that the Hon. Member who just spoke does not have a logical mind, to say the very least. What he is now proposing is that we now provide another act to tack parole on again. The sheer illogic of his remarks I believe were clear to everyone in the House today.
To say that because 1 was a correctional officer, therefore people who work in the penitentiary system do not want those inmates inside the jails, but want them back out on the streets, is ridiculous. In fact I was a parole officer and in fact worked on the streets, Mr. Speaker. I really do not think those kinds of poorly thought out, illogical and disturbing remarks require a response of any kind.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to comment briefly and then I would like to ask my distinguished colleague a question. First, I just wanted to note, Mr. Speaker, that we are talking about policy in the criminal justice area. I would suggest to my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), that he has indicated that if his constituents feel strongly on this particular matter, he has an obligation to parrot their concerns in the House. I seem to recall that that same Hon. Member has spoken out, to his credit, against capital punishment. I wonder how it is that on the one hand he can suggest that he listens to his constituents on this matter, but in the next breath, Mr. Speaker, he says he disregards them with respect to another matter in the criminal justice area. He cannot have it both ways.
I would like to ask my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), to perhaps comment for a moment or two, based upon his lengthy experience in the criminal justice area, about the effect within the present system of denying any hope of release, of taking away any possibility of earned remission. What effect will that have on the prison population, both from the perspective of prisoners and, equally important, from the perspective of those who work in that system?


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I would be pleased to respond to that question because I believe it is one of the most important things which we in this House and in committee are going to look at. I hope that the committee takes the time to hear submissions from wardens, guards and from groups associated with prisoners both on the inside and on the outside because it is going to "hot box" those institutions. That is a fairly common terminology for what occurs within the prison population when there are people who have nothing to gain by good behaviour. They have everything to gain in terms of control within the elements of the prison population by being what we could call "bad actors". If we had someone serving a 10, 15 or 20-year sentence who does not stand to gain any remission time, no matter what he does, then, if a guard asks him to do the simplest of tasks, there is going to be no co-operation. Over time, this kind of legislation can tend to turn the internal
operations, particularly of maximum security institutions, into an absolutely impossible situation.
I took the opportunity a few years ago when I was in Mexico to go into some of what we would describe here in Canada as "user pay" maximum security institutions. It appears pretty Draconian when one walks in. There are machine guns everywhere. One feels if they make the wrong move they are going to "get it". I am sure that is how they operate in the periphery of those institutions. However, it is intriguing when one gets inside. Other than for maximum security, dangerous individuals who are kept in what we would call here "solitary confinement", the majority of the inmates are in fact at work producitively providing the capital and operational costs for those institutions. I think we should look more carefully at that kind of operation where the inmates make hammocks, shoes, are growing all their food and making the clothing for the guards and themselves. They are making all kinds of goods which are sold in the market-place in Mexico. The majority of the actual costs in some of the states in Mexico for the operation of their institutions is covered by work done by the inmates. The costs which are actually paid out are the costs for some parts of the construction of the physical plant and the costs of the guards so that they avoid at least some possibilities of corruption. Here in Canada, Mr. Speaker, to use this kind of "hot boxing" legislation is going to drive some of the best people out of the national parole service. They are already leaving. It is going to drive some of the best guards out of the system and we will be left with what is known in the vernacular with inmates as the "knuckle draggers". We will be left with a very unpredictable situation-something I do not believe Canadians want to see-and that is the armed forces having to move in to circle the circumference of all kinds of medium, minimum and maximum security institutions.
I feel this is a piece of legislation which can be modified to achieve the real concerns of the Canadian public. To move forward with such a narrowly worded Bill, particularly on parole and mandatory supservision provisions on gating and the revolving door syndrome, is very wrong. I hope that Parliament will respectfully study this Bill much more carefully.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Resuming debate.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General of Canada):: Certainly at the outset, 1 want you to know that I do not share the pessimism of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and I find it very difficult to understand the statement made by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), when he said that crime would be increased by exercising greater control of the dangerous criminal.
It seems to me that it would be the exact opposite. That is one of the reasons I appreciate the support of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), on this Bill. We think it is a good Bill. It is one which the Canadian public are requesting.
September 13, 1985

My colleague, the Eton. Member for Burnaby, does not seem to understand that at the present time many of the penitentiaries are now getting into agricultural projects; for instance, Bowden and the one in Prince Albert. They are starting to produce their own vegetables, dairy products and their own beef so that they will become self-sufficient and will not be an increasing burden on society generally. Perhaps we can cut down that $40,000 per year per person cost. I agree with my colleague, the Elon. Member for York South-Weston, when he said that many of our people do not necessarily need to be in prison because of the fact that they are not dangerous.
I believe that in that case, those who are convicted can pay their penalty to society by community projects. Therefore, they would not necessarily be a burden on society generally. That is why I am pleased to speak in favour of the passage of Bill C-67 and Bill C-68. Both are directed to bringing about necessary improvements to our system of criminal justice.
One of the major issues in our society today is to adequately protect from criminal activities the innocent person. There are far too many people who are frightened about their well-being because criminal activity is increasing in our society. There may be various reasons for this but, nevertheless, we have to accept it as fact. I am sure we can all agree that crime is a terrible thing. One way or another every Canadian is affected during his lifetime by criminal acts. Many become victims of crime and we all must bear the growing cost of police, courts and correctional programs. While it seems that crime may never be completely eliminated in a free society, it should never be tolerated. Canadians must be offered the best possible protection from crime at a cost we can afford. Therefore, the Government is committed to making our system of criminal justice as effective as possible rather than simply expanding its parameters and costs. The Bills now before the House are part of this process.
Those who have advocated the abolition of mandatory supervision with apparent disregard for the cost of such a move make a very erroneous assumption. They contend that the program is based on leniency but nothing could be further from the truth. In Canada, as in virtually all western nations, inmates have been allowed to earn remission of their sentence for over a century. Good time, as it is often called, has been a part of our system since 1868. For most of that time inmates were simply released when the remission date was reached as though it was the actual end of the sentence. In 1970, mandatory supervision was introduced. From then on every penitentiary inmate who was not paroled earlier was subject to the control and direction of a parole supervisor after being released due to remission. These additional conditions applied to approximately 70 per cent of released inmates who formerly went out free and clear.
It is important to emphasize that half of those who have their mandatory supervision revoked and are returned to penitentiary may not have committed a new crime. They are returned because their parole supervisors believe their behaviour indicates a risk of re-offending and this preventive step is
Criminal Code Amendments
in order. Before mandatory supervision existed they would have gone on to commit the crime before being apprehended. On the other hand, many of those who do not commit a new offence do not do so because their positive re-adjustment to community life has been assisted by their supervisor. Ultimately, the vast majority of inmates will return to the community, whether it is on full parole, mandatory supervision or simply because their sentence has expired. The best long term protection that can be offered in these cases is their successful return to a law-abiding lifestyle. For most this is far more likely with a gradual re-entry during which assistance and control is provided. The extra surveillance provided by this period also makes it more likely that developing problems will be foreseen and preventive action taken.
With experience, however, two major defects have become apparent with this program. Even where the need for preventive action is clear before release, we are compelled to release inmates on mandatory supervision when the release date arrives. Secondly, even where inmates demonstrate their inability to profit from mandatory supervision and it is revoked, they continue to earn remission in penitentiary and we are compelled to release them again, sometimes repeatedly, until they reach the end of their sentence. I am very happy to say that Bill C-67 will correct these defects where inmates who have committed crimes of violence are concerned. 1 hasten to point out, Mr. Speaker, that some will say that this Bill will abolish earned remission. That is not the case. Inmates will continue to earn remission as before as long as they behave. However, earned remission has never meant the shortening of the sentence imposed by the court. What this Bill does is remove the automatic right to release as a result of having earned remission. It creates in its stead a presumptive release subject to review by the National Parole Board. The Board is empowered by this Bill to withhold this release only if it can determine after a fair and exhaustive process that the inmate is likely to commit a violent act while under supervision. This becomes a case of reverse onus.
Because the inmate has earned remission and therefore been given a presumed release date, he will be released until it can be determined that he or she will be a danger to society. I would argue that this retains the impact of earned remission which some feel is important to maintain institutional order, but removes the most illogical part of the present arrangement, the automatic nature of the release without the exercise of any judgment. The corrective measures being proposed will by no means end violence perpetrated by former inmates. Unfortunately, the behavioural sciences are not yet at a point where human behaviour can accurately be predicted, but they do allow us to intervene in those cases where there is good cause to perceive a threat to the public. This will provide an additional measure of protection in a responsible and cost effective fashion.
I would now like to turn briefly to the difficult question of predicting violence. The Hon. Member for Burnaby has pointed out that no study anywhere has shown it is possible to predict violence. He has also stated that studies carried out in

September 13, 1985
Criminal Code Amendments
the Department of the Solicitor General have recommended against the use of methods of prediction in relation to violent crime and he is absolutely right. It is exactly for these reasons that we have moved away from the prediction of violence to the assessment of risk. A small number of inmates have so many characteristics pointing to violent behaviour that in our opinion it is more acceptable that a few inmates suffer some loss of freedom rather than letting the public carry the risk of an extremely violent or fatal crime. We agree that science cannot help us out of this problem but the lack of scientific certainty does not eliminate the fact that Parliament has a responsibility to decide who is going to be protected, the inmates or the public. This is a very important point in this Bill. This proposed legislation does not protect the public at any price, nor does it protect the inmate at any price; it represents a balanced protection of both sides.
In order to fully understand the critical point of balance, I have to explain that what you have in front of you will not stand alone. We are now developing carefully formulated regulations which clearly outline what kind of inmates will be detained until the expiry of their sentence. The regulations will also contain all the procedures to safeguard the inmates' rights in this respect. The criteria will be so stringent that there will be little danger of abuse by the National Parole Board. We are far from lending the Parole Board any sweeping powers. If anything, the Parole Board's discretion in this area will be more limited than in any other. The people we want to keep in prison are those serving a sentence for a crime of violence which has caused death or serious harm to the victim. In addition, we will require a persistent pattern of violence in the offender's past or clinical assessments which conclude there is an imminent risk of highly violent behaviour if the offender is released. Finally, the new regulations will allow us to prevent automatic release when we know that the inmate is planning a murder or a crime causing serious harm. It is these three groups of violent people that we are talking about and none other. I am convinced that the small number of offenders that we have in mind are not going to add to our overcrowding problem, nor will this legislation create institutional unrest. The inmates will know how few will be affected.
As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, if we can keep some of those people who are not dangerous to society out of prisons and let them pay their penalty through community projects, we will move in a direction which will be to the benefit of society generally. Even if the application will be narrow, the increase in public protection will be substantial. We count on our colleagues in all Parties to give their best advice during committee work in order to obtain the best possible protection for all Canadians and the highest degree of fairness to inmates.
This Bill is far above political manoeuvering. It is too important to play politics with because we are talking about the protection of the public and the well-being of those who have been convicted. I am pleased to say that we have already received expressions of support for these measures from a
number of community groups and individuals, including an organization of victims of crime. This support is very welcome since we are increasingly aware of the needs of victims and the importance of the views of groups such as this. Victims have long been the silent and forgotten participant in the criminal justice system, but those days are at an end. The Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) has recently helped fund several conferences of victims' groups and such efforts will continue so that the interests of victims will be more clearly expressed and listened to.
We are equally concerned about potential victims, Mr. Speaker. With the leadership and assistance of the Ministry of the Solicitor General, a number of crime prevention and crime awareness initiatives have been undertaken around the country with demonstrably positive results. These initiatives will continue.
We are also concerned that those charged with the onerous duty of dealing with convicted offenders on a day-to-day basis be given the tools they need to do the job. Bill C-68 is a modest beginning to modernize the correctional law an eliminate technical obstacles to understandable and efficient correctional programs. The amendments contained in this Bill will help modernize and streamline legislation bearing on both federal and provincial correctional systems and will be welcomed by correctional workers in both jurisdictions.
In view of the positive and needed features of both of these Bills, I recommend their speedy passage to members of the House. In the few minutes remaining for debate today, I hope that Members will see fit to give this Bill second reading in order that it can go to committee have we will have the opportunity to question witnesses who are interested in better control of criminals.


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the previous speaker to comment on a point which he, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), and the Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) touched on. Under the present system some people are released who may commit violent crimes and, in fact, some of them have done so. Under the proposed system those people would be kept in for the full term of their sentence. If we begin this system in the fall of 1985 an inmate with two or three years yet to serve will be held back for that period of time. As the previous speaker said, society will be protected from him for that time, but eventually he will get out. In fact, he will be released at the same time as a number of other people. There will be an extra surge of people being released at the same time and they will be no less violent than they may be now. If they would be inclined to commit violent crimes if released on mandatory supervision now, they will be so inclined then.
Will the Hon. Member explain why he thinks they will be less violent when released at that time? Even if he does not agree that there would be a surge because of the change in timing, he cannot deny that there would be the same potential for violence after release. If anything, that potential will be increased by the frustration of denial, perhaps even in a person who was not previously considered potentially violent. Why does the Hon. Member believe that society will be protected
September 13, 1985

against violent people who will go directly out on to the streets?


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the correctional system is working toward the rehabilitation of people who are going back into society. These people must be prepared, but one of the real problems in our society today is that as a result of mandatory supervision people are released against the wishes of the Parole Board. The Board knows full well that those individuals will return to a life of crime since they have not learned the discipline which is required of individuals in order to stay out of the correctional system. Therefore, this will give the Parole Board an opportunity to exercise control over those people who, it is felt, cannot return to society for a definite period of time. That is why this Bill will give more security to society generally.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 4.39 o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   PUBLIC SERVICE ADVISABILITY OF GRANTING RIGHT TO POLITICAL PARTICIPATION
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, April 15, consideration of the motion of Mr. Cassidy:
That the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates be empowered to study the question of granting to federal public employees the full political participation enjoyed by other Canadians and, that the Committee report its findings to the House no later than June 28, 1985.
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I started this speech on Monday, April 15, 1985 and at that time had an opportunity to do nothing more than introduce the subject. I appreciate the opportunity to resume the discussion. I appreciate that the motion may appear to be stale-dated, but I understand that it is going to be up-dated after I am finished. I suggest the debate can continue on the theory of whether or not this goes to a committee, without worrying at this time about the date "June 30, 1985".
My remarks mainly concern the implications of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the time honoured tradition of impartiality in the Public Service. As the House knows, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms guarantees freedom of expression, freedom of association, the right to vote and the right to be qualified for membership not only in the House of Commons but in a legislative assembly of one of
Public Service
the provinces or territories. This right is guaranteed to everyone, including employees of the Public Service of Canada.
I believe we are all aware that if there are to be any limitations to these rights and freedoms, it must be demonstrated that they are reasonable limits that are justifiable in a free and democratic society in which we live.
Historically, our Public Service at all levels has operated on a non-political and impartial basis within the Canadian political and administrative context. Merit was the wole determinate of whether or not one is employed or advances. This concept has certainly evolved in recent decades and we are now at the point where there is a tradition of non-political bias and non-partisanship within the Public Service.
In the interests of an impartial, efficient and professional Public Service, there have been restraints placed on the capacity of public servants to take an active part in the public partisan politics and to express themselves publicly on matters of government concern. The Chair will know that the Supreme Court of Canada has presently reserved its decision on the appeal to the Federal Court of Appeal in Fraser versus Public Service Staff Relations Board. This appeal, brought by a former public servant, addresses exactly what participation is allowed and whether it impairs his or her ability to carry out their duties.
Partisan political activity of public servants is dealt with in Section 32 of the Public Service Employment Act. It states that no employee shall engage in, work for, on behalf of or against a political party or a candidate for election. It permits public servants to attend political meetings, make contributions to a candidate or political party. Public servants can also seek nomination as a candidate for election if they receive a clearance or leave of absence from the Public Service Commission. When the charter was proclaimed, it brought into question the nature and the application of any restraints on the rights of public servants to freedom of speech and freedom of association with respect to political activities. We were all aware that when the Charter was implemented it would give rise to a challenge to the traditional view, as it should, of the rights of public servants. That is the challenge we are concerned with now. Not only is the House of Commons dealing with this issue, the provinces and the territories are considering it from different perspectives. The first is to balance the ability of a person to have that freedom of association with the need to ensure that we maintain a Public Service that can serve in a neutral and impartial manner. Therefore, we must examine the restrictions that exist and make sure that we can justify them in our society.
Our democratic system is designed to serve people in their best interests. Therefore, no matter what political party is in power, we need a Public Service which can administer the programs of the Government of the day in a professional and neutral manner. We need a Public Service that can provide impartial advice and information to whatever political party is in power.
The question that this raises is one of perception. If we allow the Public Service to participate in the political activity-

September 13, 1985
Public Service


Mr. Boudria:: What do you mean "if'?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: All right. I will substitute "when" for "if'. However, when picking on semantics, let us not lose sight of the principle which I believe the Hon. Member from the Liberal Party, the Member from the NDP and certainly our Party want to respect. That is the principle of perception-the reality and perception of a neutral Public Service. There is an old saying in our business that in politics, the perception is the reality. We have to be as worried about the perception as the reality because very quickly that perception becomes the reality. I am sure my hon. friend would agree with that.
Our Government does not want-either by perception or action-to be seen as doing anything which undermines that tradition in which the Public Service should be seen to be neutral. We would not want to bring into question in any way the neutrality or the suggestion that advancement in the Public Service in any way depends upon which Party a public servant may be connected with.


Michael Morris Cassidy: Are you backing away from your election promise?


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: I say to the Hon. Member from the NDP that we are not backing away from any election promise.


Don Boudria: It sure sounds like it.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: There is a difference. When we make an election promise, we know that we will get elected and keep that promise. The NDP has always been able to promise the world, knowing full well that not enough Canadians support their philosophies to put them in office. That is the difference. Do you wish to continue heckling or continue debate? The advantage of the House is that when you speak, my friend, I will have a chance to heckle.


Don Boudria: "You" is the speaker.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You may say "he is the speaker" but not "You is the speaker". 1 don't know where you took your grammer.


Don Boudria: We always address ourselves to the Speaker.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: But I never heckle the Speaker. You may heckle the Speaker, but 1 never heckle the Speaker. I always treat him with great respect. This is not Queen's Park, my friend. We work on a different plane. Once you have been here for awhile and appreciate that, you will be able to participate fully. I notice that you have not participated much this week.
In any event, in keeping with the traditions and demands that we have political neutrality, we set up some protections for public servants with which I believe we all agree.
I am not talking about tangible protections but such things as protection from unwarranted dismissal. Great improvements have been made in the Public Service Commission to ensure that there is no harrassment in any way because of one's opinions. There is also protection from what is called capricious career decisions and a guarantee that advancement
is based on merit, which is a guarantee that is fundamental to this debate. These guarantees give public servants protection that they can serve without any concerns that their job might be based on political partisanship. We are very serious about maintaining those guarantees, just as we are serious about maintaining the perception of neutrality.
I want to close by saying that the public perception is justs as important as the realization that public servants act in an impartial and neutral manner. I can tell the House that the matter which is the subject of this motion is the subject of active debate by the Government and is being considered. We treat our election promises very seriously and we do not in any way back down from them. We would not wish to back down from any promise or suggestion made during an election campaign. As the Member who defected from the provincial Liberal Party well knows, as Mr. Peterson well knows, we are not abolishing Ontario hospital premiums and we are not able to buy beer and liquor in corner grocery stores because things do not happen overnight. This matter is under active consideration. For that reason when my friend with whom 1 have had some consultation rises to amend the motion, he will find that myself, as a private Member, will be in support of the motion to change the date from June 30, 1985, to June 30, 1986, so that more people can be heard.
I know the Liberal Party has suppressed rights for public servants for the last 16 years and it has not given them any opportunity to enter these debates, having ruled out consideration of this matter on a serious basis, but 1 do hope the Liberals will go along with this amendment about to be proposed so we can have a proper debate. The one Member from the Liberal Party who is here may or may not be disposed to give his assent. 1 hope as a sort of break from the past and from character he could elevate his thinking and, in a sort of magnanimous gesture of perhaps seeing the light, see his way clear after consultation with the rest of his colleagues to support the amendment.


Mr. Les Benjamin (Regina West):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate on the resolution by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). At the outset, I want to compliment him for the resolution and for the many years he has fought for the political rights of public servants, both at the provincial level in Ontario and at the national level in this House. It is to his credit and also to the credit of many other Hon. Members in this place and in provincial legislatures across the country who have fought for that principle.
I want to say to my friend, the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), yes, I will move a minor amendment to the resolution at the closing of my remarks. There have been discussions and I understand all three Parties are disposed to accepting the amendment because it is purely a matter of detail in terms of the House dealing with the resolution.
It has got to the point where, at the federal level and in the case of a few of the provinces that the people of Canada, the
September 13, 1985

Constitution and the Charter of Rights are now way ahead of this House of Commons. Political right is always supposed to have been a right. That is exactly what it means and that means a right is indivisible.
I will endeavour to be very non-partisan in this kind of a debate because it has been obvious for the last several years that all three political Parties, and Members in this Chamber from all Parties, support the security of the political rights of members of the public service and employees of federal Crown corporations.
I must say that under the first Premier of a democratic socialist Government on this continent in 1945, among the first half a dozen things it did as a new Government in my province was to enshrine in the statutes of that province not only a provincial Bill of Rights, but the rights of the public civil servants and the Crown corporations to organize, to join a union, to have collective bargaining rights and to have full political rights. That was in 1945 and I am proud of that. I am sure my colleagues in the other Parties will understand and forgive or appreciate my pride in that. Subsequent to that, I think at least four other provinces of other political Parties adopted similar or the same kinds of provisions in their jurisdictions. There is no longer any point in arguing as between political Parties or on a partisan basis about the necessity to make certain that federal public servants and Crown corporation employees have and may exercise at their discretion their political rights. It is an academic discussion now with the Charter of Rights in place.
I need only to quote the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) when he was Leader of the Opposition-I accept his word and I believe the Hon. Member for Simcoe North and that is why I say it is no longer a partisan issue-who said:
We believe that this matter should be addressed by an all-party parliamentary committee in consultation with public service organizations-
That is exactly the purport of the resolution by my colleague, the Member for Ottawa Centre. To continue with the quote:
We believe the situation can be quickly resolved.
The then Leader of the Opposition went on to say that restrictions on public service political activity:
-are unnecessary and may not be justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
It is no longer a case of may not. They are not any longer justifiable under the terms of our Charter of Rights and Freedoms. This Parliament, and whoever happens to be governing, is now faced with the certainty that if an individual public civil servant or Crown corporation employee or their organization takes the Government or the Public Service Commission to court-and all they have to do is wave the directive sent out almost annually about political activity to all public service employees-the Government of the day and the Parliament of Canada will lose.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Read Clause 1.
Public Service


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: There will be some who may say after I sit down that "well, this matter is now before the courts; and this matter is now part of the collective bargaining process between the Government of Canada and the Public Service Commission". On this issue there is no bargaining. The fundamental rights of citizens and the matter of who employs them-and that includes political rights-are not negotiable. I submit that there are no limitations to political rights. I appreciate that 99 per cent of the time senior public servants who are appointed by Order in Council will not exercise their political rights because of their positions. However, that decision should be the decision of the senior public servant involved.
The Hon. Member for Simcoe North talked about political neutrality. He referred to the promise of his Party prior to entering the election dealing with the political rights of public servants. I believe him. I accept it. I agree that my hon. friends and colleagues in the Conservative Party are sincere in that promise. However, I wonder whether the Hon. Member, who is Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Treasury Board, has any updated information on the initiatives taken by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) to implement the promise made by his political Party regarding political rights.
Mention was made of the British Public Service. We all have to admit that it is much more professional than ours. Their public servants at the middle and senior levels make it a practice to be fully informed on the political policies of each Party. Whenever one of them takes power, senior public servants, deputy ministers and what not are able to approach the new Ministers to tell them about the policies and to give them several options on how to go about dealing with them. In that manner they act in a neutral fashion, but that does not gainsay that they have not exercised their political rights in their hours off duty.
The same applies here in Canada. A public servant, or for that matter an employee of a private corporation, may exercise his political rights in his own home, on his own property or in his own hours off duty. In fact, I had this experience as an employee of Canadian Pacific. I am sure Hon. Members understand that there is no particular love lost between CPR and the New Democratic Party. However, in my years of employment with that corporation, I carried out my duties in my hours on duty and after, when off duty, I went out and opposed its policies. I spoke on public platforms and was a candidate. I always received a leave of absence and always returned to my job. Perhaps the voters were too smart; I lost the first two times I ran! I always returned to my job. There was no harassment. The same applies to public servants.
We had better move fast on this because if we do not the courts will be ahead of us. We all know that. It is now academic in terms of the arguments which take place in this Chamber. The resolution of my colleague and my Private Member's Bill, which was debated in 1981 and again in 1984, apply to the same matter. I urge the House to adopt this

September 13, 1985
Public Service
resolution so that the committee can begin to study it. I am quite prepared to withdraw my Bill from the Order Paper, and the Government House Leader can include an Order referring the subject matter of my Bill to the same committee which will deal with the resolution of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre. This means that the waterfront would be covered this fall and early winter. Then we could return to the Chamber for an all-Party or unanimous approval of the matter of political rights for a certain segment of our society. We are on very shaky and loose ground when we deny a fundamental right to one group while other groups have it.
In conclusion, I should like to move the following amendment, seconded by the Hon. Member for Humboldt-Lake Centre (Mr. Althouse):
That the motion be amended by deleting the year "1985" and inserting the year "1986".
I do that to bring the Order Paper up to date. It is merely a detail; it changes one number from a five to a six. If the House approves the resolution and it is referred to the appropriate committee, members of that committee will have until the end of June next year to examine this matter in consultation with concerned public servants, their organizations, Members of the Government and members of the Public Service Commission, and then report back to the House with draft legislation or recommendations or whatever. I think they can accomplish that well in advance of the end of June, 1986. In any event, I understand from the discussions I have had that the amendment is acceptable and will not require any debate.
In closing, I urge my colleagues on all sides of the House to keep in mind that all of us have some responsibility to catch up to what is now the law of the land. Everyone knows that federal public servants and Crown corporation employees must have political rights. I hope this matter will receive quick passage and be referred to the appropriate committee.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the amendment.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. Is it my understanding from the Chair that this amendment requires unanimous consent to be placed on the floor?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: No, it is not.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: We will now debate the motion as amended? It was my understanding from discussions with the Table earlier that this freshened the list. I would like to be sure of that at this time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: We will now be debating the amendment, and that means the list will start over again.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We will be debating the motion as amended.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure to participate in this debate this
afternoon not only as a former public servant but, more important, as a servant or employee of the House.
This issue is a very important one for people who are called upon or choose to pursue occupations wherein they work for the Government of Canada, an agency of the Government or a Crown corporation. Of course this issue has been raised many times over the past number of years. I should like to draw the attention of the House to Chapter 11 of the so-called d'Avig-non Report which is better known as the Report of the Special Committee on the Review of Personnel Management and Merit Principles. That particular chapter refers to political participation. I must say that during the election campaign many public servants lobbied me to find out whether 1 agreed with the recommendations contained in that particular report. I must say that having been in the situation myself as an employee of this House in an administrative capacity, a capacity in which I was not called upon to work on a direct basis with members of various political Parties, I wished many times that I could have participated more fully in the political process. Obviously, as 1 am sure you have guessed by now, Mr. Speaker, I still did participate. Otherwise I would never have become not only a municipal councillor but a provincial Member as well as a federal Member if I had not commenced some kind of political activity while I was a member of the staff of the House of Commons.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the regulations that apply to public servants generally do not necessarily apply in all cases to the staff of the House of Commons. At least they did not when I worked here. There was some leeway given to me or rather some things were tolerated regarding the political activities in which I engaged as carefully as I could at the time.
In speaking to many friends who work in the Public Service, I find there are many things which public servants wonder about in relation to their rights. They wonder just what they are permitted to do at the present time as a federal public servant. Is it permitted for a public servant to erect a political sign on their lawn at the present time?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It should be.


Don Boudria: Of course it should be, as the Hon. Member has said, and no one is disagreeing with that. However, at present there is a tremendous amount of fear felt by some public servants. In the case of a couple, one of whom works for the Public Service and one of whom does not, I suppose the case could always be made that the sign belongs to the individual spouse who does not work for the Public Service. People who live alone or people who live together but both happen to be public servants have more difficulty at the present time.
What about public servants knocking on doors? Are they or are they not permitted to knock on doors for a political
September 13, 1985

candidate at this time? That question has been raised by various people. There have been various interpretations of the issue. People are really unsure about where they stand. When people are unsure, particularly in an era of high unemployment, they do not take a chance. People do not take a chance because they do not want to be fired and lose their jobs. That is the sad case of public servants at the present time.
Undoubtedly, the laws must be clarified. Individuals have to be given their rights. In so doing, it must be explained in a very clear way just what it is that they are permitted to do. For instance, the British system is composed of what is known as tiers. There is a certain category of individuals on which there are no restrictions, another category on which there are restrictions that can be removed by request and, as I understand it, another category of public servants who are prohibited from participating in the political process in a similar way that all public servants in Canada are prohibited. The three-category system in Britain may not be perfect, but it is certainly a long way away from what we have now.
Perhaps I could mention a specific example. What political implication could there possibly be and what prohibition should there be for someone who works as a truck driver for the Department of Supply and Services knocking on doors for a political candidate in the evenings? Obviously there is no political implication in that case. That should be properly recognized.
I would like to refer to the comments made by the Hon. Member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis). The Hon. Member indicated that it was his Party that had promised during the election campaign to find a solution to this particular problem and to lift restrictions from public servants in this country. A letter from the now Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), the then Leader of the Opposition, was sent to Mr. Jack Donegani of the PIPs group of public servants in which he said that the PC Party believes that the present restrictions on political activities are unnecessary and likely not justifiable under the terms of the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. While the rights of some senior public servants must be restricted in order to prevent conflict of interest, we feel that this issue could be addressed without disenfranchising over 200,000 public servants in the process.
It has been over a year since the Government was elected. That was one of the promises that was made along with a number of others. I have here my little booklet which I have shown to you upon occasion, Mr. Speaker. This booklet is entitled 338 Tory Promises. The Hon. Member for Simcoe North said that the promises could not all be kept in the first year. I agree with him, but I have calculated that at the present rate, it will take until the year 2026 before all the promises are delivered.


Mr. Gurbin:: We'll be in Government that long.


Don Boudria: I would venture to say, notwithstanding the fact that the Government cannot deliver everything on the first day, that it could at least accelerate the process somewhat and attempt to deliver on the promises that were made to the
Public Service
people of Canada. I am sure the Hon. Member for Simcoe North will recognize that and I am sure he will do his best to ensure that the Prime Minister lives up to the campaign promises that were made.
It would be my hope that Conservative Members from the Ottawa area including the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) would jolt the Prime Minister into doing something about this issue. I hope that things will not again be arranged in such a way so that this particular issue falls at the bottom of the Order Paper only to return four, Five or six months hence for another one hour of debate.
By now, I think all political Parties have had a chance to air their views on this subject. We can have a more complete debate in committee. I think now is the time to move on by bringing this debate out of the House and into committee so that the people will see that the Government has somewhat of an intention of going ahead with its promises.
I would like to indicate to the Government that if, by the end of this day, this matter does not go to a Parliamentary Committee, I can only assume that this is another one of the promises that if not broken will at least be delayed intentionally for a very, very long time. Members of the Conservative Party should remember this. They should speak briefly on the Bill and allow it to proceed. They should demonstrate whatever-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: It is not a Bill.


Don Boudria: They should speak on the resolution, then, so that the issue can go ahead to a parliamentary committee.
In conclusion, I urge all Members of the House to support this initiative on the part of the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy). It is an initiative that was supported by our Party when the matter was debated on April 15 and one in which the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) has also participated extensively over the years. I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate him as well as the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre for bringing these issues forward on different occasions. I hope that the Government will demonstrate its good faith, and for the moment, I will assume that it has some good faith.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick).


Michael Morris Cassidy: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is my understanding that the motion to amend the resolution to make it refer to 1986 was accepted by the House. Under the circumstances, I believe that since the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) has previously spoken in this debate that he would not have the right to speak again. I would not want to think that he is trying to talk this resolution out and, therefore, I felt I should bring that point to your attention, Mr. Speaker. In fact, we can dispose of this matter if he is the only member on the Government side who still wishes to speak.

September 13, 1985
Public Service


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The amendment has not been adopted. We are debating the amendment now.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Because of discussions held among all Parties, may I request. Sir, that you put the question. I think you will find that there is unanimous consent for the amendment to pass. We can then debate the resolution as amended.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton has the floor on debate on the amendment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to speak once again on this matter which has come up on a number of occasions. I believe the amendment-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the point has been made by my colleague from Ottawa Centre (Mr. Cassidy) that the hon. gentleman has already spoken on this resolution.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: If I understood the first point of order put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin), he asked the Chair to put the question in order to see if there would be unanimous consent to have the amendment adopted. I gather there is not unanimous consent since the Hon. Member for Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) wants to speak on the amendment.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I think the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) is quite familiar with the procedure in speaking to amendments. In fact, I have seen the New Democratic Party use that procedure as a means of filibuster for days and days and weeks and weeks on end.
The essence of allowing a review by the Government and a report back by the Government between September 1985 and June 1986 with respect to whether or not public servants should have full political rights is an important issue. I have no difficulty with the general thrust. I spoke on the issue when it was put forward by the Hon. Member for Regina West, I believe, back in the fall. On that occasion I believe the Hon. Member was extremely pleased. In fact, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) came into the Chamber during Private Members' Hour. As the Hon. Member for Regina West pointed out, in his 17 years of being in this place it was the first time he had seen a Prime Minister come in and sit through a debate during Private Members' Hour. It can be noted that he picked the debate on full political rights to public servants as the debate to which he wished to listen.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I got a nice note from him, too.


Paul Wyatt Dick: I know you did. I know that the Prime Minister is serious in the commitment he made during the campaign. Although the previous speaker indicated he believed political promises or commitments would not be implemented, I believe I can honestly say that we have implemented more political commitments than the federal Liberal Party ever did. What I can say is that we have not had the temerity to stand up, as did
one of the senior people in the provincial Liberal Party and say, as Robert Nixon did-he just left and abandoned it- "We will not be able to fill our political promises now." That is what he said at the first opportunity he had when he was addressing some of the issues after he became Treasurer. We have not said that. We believe we will be able to fill our political promises during the four or five years of our mandate. I think this is one which will be carried out.
It is important to note that there have been some detailed discussions on a number of matters going on with the public service unions. Those matters have not been concluded. We hope they will be concluded prior to June 30, 1986, However, they were somewhat delayed after some initial announcements last April dealing with master contracts and about four different topics dealing with pensions and so on. At that time, they said one of the items which was on the table but not yet being discussed was the issue which is a substantive part of the motion before us; that is to say, public servants have full rights.
This is, by and large, a non-partisan issue, as long as it is dealt with prior to the next election.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: That long?


Paul Wyatt Dick: It will not have much of a meaningful effect as long as it is done before the next election.
I would like to see them given the full opportunity of defining the ramifications of this point within the negotiations. For example, in the United Kingdom, which 1 had the opportunity to visit earlier this year, I asked how they defined the situation. They have broken the Public Service in the United Kingdom into three tiers.


Don Boudria: Only three tiers?


Paul Wyatt Dick: Unfortunately, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) is always barking. We hear him so frequently. He is like a mad terrier. 1 guess he does not like to hear other people's thoughts. He likes to hear only his own voice. So be it.
As I was trying to say, in England they have broken the Public Service into three tiers. The First tier has absolute full political rights. The second tier, which is more or less the middle-management tier, has limited political rights but more political rights than what we have in Canada under the present legislation. The top tier, which includes deputy ministers, assistant deputy ministers and associate deputy ministers, does not have political rights.
I think it only appropriate for the discussions to continue with the various public service unions in order to define the ramifications. Hopefully, in the next few months they will get over their discussions on master contracts. Hopefully, they will have dealt with the discussions on indexation of pensions and how they should be indexed. I hope they will move on to these two topics which are on the table but which have not yet received full discussion. I feel confident that they, in their
September 13, 1985

wisdom, might come up with a solution which will be acceptable to all parties.
The Hon. Member for Regina West has indicated that the courts will decide this matter for us. It may well be that there will be a decision in the Fraser case which will decide the issue by and large. However, there are some things, such as Section 1 of the Charter of Rights, which allow for certain limitations. I think the court will have to make a decision on whether or not this is a reasonable limitation. Indeed, if the court was so well convinced right off the cuff that it was just, it would not have reserved its decision. It would have announced its decision from the bench on the occasion of the adjournement of the hearing. However, it has reserved because there are a few more matters to deal with other than the granting carte blanche to everybody of free political rights, whether they be a Deputy Minister or a unionized person who is a clerk.
Having said that, it would be helpful to see whether the Government, as the employer, and the unions on behalf of the employees, can perhaps appropriately define this issue. I suggest we have limited time in which we can deal with the issue. If they fail to address the matter within the next year, then I imagine this will become a bit of a hot potato. I imagine the matter will be spoken to by various people with some meaning, dedication and conviction.


Michael Morris Cassidy: It's a long time away.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Well, we don't seem to be having a federal election tomorrow.


Don Boudria: A provincial election, too.


Paul Wyatt Dick: They promised you are not going to have a provincial election for two years. So I don't see any election to worry about.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You made a deal.


Don Boudria: Yes, but surely there's more than one province in this country.


Paul Wyatt Dick: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Lanark-Ren-frew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) has the floor.


Paul Wyatt Dick: The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell likes to hear his own voice. The Liberal Party of this country was in power for 16 years and could have done this. They did not do it. And that Liberal Member from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell tries to bark and yell and scream his way along; all he is a whiner in this House. He whines every day, interrupts every Hon. Member, always. It would be a lot better if he were more appreciative and sat back and listened to other people for a change. If he wants to seek the floor he can seek the floor and stand up and speak for his allotted time. Until then, maybe he should learn to shut up.
Public Service
I think this is a very sensitive issue; it is a partisan issue. When we were in opposition we called for full political rights. During the election campaign we called for full political rights.
I feel very strongly about it because I was a public servant who was fired from his job because I sought a political nomination back in 1972. I felt that I was improperly disenfranchised. I should say that I was not disenfranchised because I insisted on exercising my franchise, but I felt afterwards that I was improperly fired from my job as a public servant because I took the action I thought was appropriate.
No doubt there are people on all sides of the House who feel very strongly about this issue. I just caution all Hon. Members, that rather than using rhetoric to inflame the issue, give the Government proper time. There was a delay in the negotiations from April on because one of the largest public sector unions had an election in June and there was some difference of opinion leading up to that election as to what they had agreed to in April. I believe that has been resolved and the union is now back bargaining with the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) on behalf of the Government as the employer. I believe they will be moving on this. If they do not resolve it, then I believe it will become a hot political issue, and it should become so. I am hoping they will resolve this. I do not believe the courts are going to rule ahead of us, but if they do, so be it. The next federal election is about three and a half to four years away. The next provincial election is-


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: May we quote you on that?


Paul Wyatt Dick: And we intend to implement our promises during the period of time we have.
As to the next provincial election, we have been promised by the bed mates, the New Democratic Party and the Liberal Party in the Province of Ontario, that there is not going to be one for two years. There may be other areas which are interested in this. I live in Ontario. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell who is squawking over there could have addressed this issue during his speech a few minutes ago. He decided not to. I think we have to keep calm about it because it is an emotional topic for many people. It can be inflamed so easily by rhetoric, with everything being put off track. I just hope that does not happen.
If it is apparent towards the end of the Government's term in office that we have failed to come through with it, then I believe we are open for every attack in the world. In the meantime, I hope we will try to let the employers and employees work out in an amicable fashion the demarcation lines, where exactly this should begin, and the extent and how far up the scale within the Public Service they should go for full political rights. I believe they should go very far up the scale. I do have problems, perhaps, with Deputy Ministers, Assistant Deputy Ministers, and so on, but I feel this is open for negotiation.
I want to thank you very much, Mr. Speaker, for allowing me to make this contribution. I must admit that I do not agree with the date the Government set to report back, June of 1986.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, no, the committee.

September 13, 1985
Public Service


Paul Wyatt Dick: Because it may be completed in September of 1986 or at some other stage. I just do not think we need a time limit. 1 do think that if we have not produced before going into an election campaign. It should then become an issue which we will have to defend. However, we can defend something we have promised to do.


Mrs. Claudy Mailly (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak on the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin). I agree it is time to stop debating this issue. Everyone agrees that our public servants should have the same political rights as their fellow citizens.
We have also discussed at length the whole complexity of the kind of solution we should seek. I agree with my hon. friend from Lanark-Renfrew-Carleton (Mr. Dick) that we should not set a deadline, since negotiations are being held. On the other hand, I do not think we should leave it up in the air. I feel we should really consider some way of, for instance, having the issue brought before a committee of the House, while making it quite clear when the proposal is made to do so, that the process should not prejudice the negotiations taking place between the unions and Treasury Board. This is not a frivolous matter, it is indeed a very serious one, because I am particularly interested in the depoliticizing of public servants and of the public service.
I have been in Parliament for only a year, Mr. Speaker, and I have already had some experience, unfortunately, of the far too politicized state of our public service. In projects that were
really necessary and that were supposed to contribute to the development of certain industrial sectors and regions, some public service employees, who were used to working with certain people in the community, seem to want to retain a certain decision-making power that is not really theirs. So it is extremely urgent to depoliticize the public service.
As far as the merit principle is concerned, every week I get calls or letters from public service employees in my riding who write: Mrs. Mailly, I was a CR-2, or I was a CR-3, I could have had a promotion, I had a very good performance appraisal report, but someone else was appointed who was slipped into the system. There is favoritism within the public service, a situation that probably started at one time as a result of political pressure and which today has become firmly rooted in the public service.
I think this is very bad for the rights of employees and for a public service that claims to serve the public. Mr. Speaker, I say let us stop looking at all the angles of this subject, let negotiations between the unions and the Treasury Board proceed, but please, let us not wait another year to solve this problem! I think that the date suggested by my hon. friend from Regina West is not soon enough.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hour allotted for Private Members' Business has now expired. Therefore, this House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 5.39 p.m.

September 13, 1985

[Stage Direction]
CABINET COMMITTEE MEMBERSHIP*
Communications		Government Operations
Chairman	The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn	ChairmanVice-Chairman	The Hon. P. Beatty	Vice-ChairmanMembers	The Hon. T. McMillan The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. S. Mclnnes	MembersEconomic and Regional Development	Chairman	The Hon. S. Stevens	Vice-Chairman	The Hon. P. Carney	Members	The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. D. Mazankowski The Hon. J. Fraser The Hon. J. Wise The Hon. J. Murta The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. C. Mayer The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. T. McMillan The Hon. A. Bissonnette The Hon. S. Blais-Grenier The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. R. Layton The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. G. Merrithew	Legislation and House Planning Chairman Vice-Chairman MembersForeign and Defence Policy	Chairman	The Right Hon. J. Clark	Vice-Chairman	The Hon. E. Nielsen	Members	The Hon. D. Mazankowski The Hon. J. Fraser	The Hon. S. Stevens The Hon. J. Wise	Priorities and PlanningThe Hon. P. Beatty The Hon. H. Andre	ChairmanThe Hon. W. McLean The Hon. T. McMillan	Vice-ChairmanThe Hon. P. Carney The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. M. Cot6 The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. G. Merrithew The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes	Members
*N.B. The Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Treasury Board and Minister of Finance are ex officio members of the Cabinet Committees on Economic and Regional Development, Foreign and Defence Policy, Government Operations and Social Development. All Ministers are free to attend meetings of these Committees.
The Hon. R. de Cotret
The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn
The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. D. Roblin The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. A. Bissonnette The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. Merrithew The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes
The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn
The Hon. D. Roblin
The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. E. Nielsen The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. J. Fraser The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. J. Murta The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. A. Champagne The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. R. Layton
The Right Hon. B. Mulroney
The Hon. E. Nielsen
The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. D. Mazankowski The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. J. Epp The Hon. J. Fraser The Hon. S. Stevens The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. M. Cdte The Hon. M. Masse
[Stage Direction]
September 13, 1985
Public Service Chairman Vice-Chairman Members
Security and Intelligence Chairman Vice-Chairman Members
Social Development Chairman Vice-Chairman Members
Special Committee of Council
Chairman
Vice-Chairman
Members
Treasury Board Chairman
Vice-Chairman
The Hon. M. Wilson
The Right Hon. B. Mulroney	Members
The Hon. E. Nielsen
The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Wise
The Hon. R. de Cotret	Alternates
The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. W. McLean
The Hon. P. Beatty The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. G. Merrithew
The Hon. B. McDougall 1st Alternate
The Hon. J. Wise
The Hon. T. McMillan
The Hon. M. Vezina
The Hon. S. Mclnnes
The Hon. C. Mayer
The Right Hon. B. Mulroney

[Stage Direction]
The Right Hon. J. Clark
The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. E. Nielsen The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. P. Beatty The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. P. Carney
The Hon. J. Epp
The Hon. J. Crosbie
The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. P. Beatty The Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. W. McLean The Hon. T. McMillan The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. A. Champagne The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. M. Vezina
The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn
The Hon. J. Crosbie
The Hon. D. Roblin The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. A. Bissonnette The Hon. S. Blais-Grenier The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. Merrithew The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes
The Hon. R. de Cotret
Certified to be a true copy of a Minute of a Meeting of the Committee of the Privy Council, approved by Her Excellency the Governor General on the 23 August, 1985
The Committee of the Privy Council, on the recommendation of the Prime Minister, advise:
1.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of his office
(a)	the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen or in the event of his being unable to perform the functions of the office of the Prime Minister, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A who is in the National Capital Region and is able to perform the functions of the Office of the Prime Minister,
be authorized to act for the Prime Minister;
2.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of a Minister whose name is set out in Column II of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
3.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns II and III of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of both of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of the item be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of the item;
4.	that in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns II, III and IV of an item of the Schedule B, or in the event of all those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office,
(a)	the Prime Minister,
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of the Prime Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office,
September 13, 1985
[Stage Direction]
the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(c) in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or in the event of both of them being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the next Minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A, who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the said functions,
be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of that item;
5.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item;
6.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Minister whose name is set out in Column III of that item, or in the event of that Minister being unable to perform the functions of the Office set out in Column I of that item, the Minister whose name is set out in Column IV of that item be authorized to act in the Office of the Minister whose Office is set out in Column I of that item; and
7.	that, where an Office set out in Column I of an item of Schedule B is vacant, in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Ministers named in Columns III and IV of that Schedule, or in the event of those Ministers being unable to perform the functions of their Office,
(a)	the Prime Minister,
(b)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister or in the event of the Prime Minister being unable to perform the functions of his Office, the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or
(c)	in the absence from the National Capital Region of the Prime Minister and the Deputy Prime Minister, the Honourable Erik Nielsen, or in the event of both of them being unable to perform the functions of their Office, the next minister named in order of priority in the list of Ministers set out in Schedule A, who is in Ottawa and is able to perform the said functions,
be authorized to act for the Minister named in Column II in respect of the Office set out in Column I of that item.

[Stage Direction]
The Hon. E. Nielsen The Right Hon. J. Clark The Hon. F. MacDonald The Hon. J. Crosbie The Hon. D. Mazankowski The Hon. E. MacKay The Hon. J. Epp The Hon. J. Fraser The Hon. S. Stevens The Hon. R. Hnatyshyn The Hon. R. de Cotret The Hon. M. Wilson The Hon. P. Carney The Hon. M. Cote The Hon. M. Masse The Hon. G. Hees The Hon. R. La Salle The Hon. J. Wise The Hon. D. Crombie The Hon. H. Beatty The Hon. J. Murta The Hon. H. Andre The Hon. O. Jelinek The Hon. T. Siddon The Hon. C. Mayer The Hon. W. McKnight The Hon. W. McLean The Hon. T. McMillan The Hon. A. Bissonnette The Hon. S. Blais-Grenier The Hon. B. Bouchard The Hon. A. Champagne The Hon. J. Kelleher The Hon. R. Layton The Hon. B. McDougall The Hon. G. Merrithew The Hon. M. Vezina The Hon. S. Mclnnes
[Stage Direction]
September 13, 1985

[Stage Direction]
Column I
[Stage Direction]
Column II
[Stage Direction]
Column III
[Stage Direction]
Column IV
[Stage Direction]
Office
[Stage Direction]
Name
[Stage Direction]
Acting Minister
[Stage Direction]
Second Acting Minister
[Stage Direction]
1.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Agriculture
[Stage Direction]
J. Wise
[Stage Direction]
C. J. Mayer
[Stage Direction]
G. S. Merrithew
[Stage Direction]
2.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Communications
[Stage Direction]
M. Masse
[Stage Direction]
B. Bouchard
[Stage Direction]
T. E. Siddon
[Stage Direction]
3.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs
[Stage Direction]
M. Cote
[Stage Direction]
R. R. de Cotret
[Stage Direction]
T. M. McMillan
[Stage Direction]
4.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Employment and Immigration
[Stage Direction]
F. I. MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
W. F. McLean
[Stage Direction]
W. H. McKnight
[Stage Direction]
5.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources
[Stage Direction]
P. Carney
[Stage Direction]
R. E. Layton
[Stage Direction]
D. E. Crombie
[Stage Direction]
6.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of the Environment
[Stage Direction]
T. M. McMillan
[Stage Direction]
J. A. Fraser
[Stage Direction]
J. Wise
[Stage Direction]
7.
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State for External Affairs
[Stage Direction]
C. J. Clark
[Stage Direction]
J. F. Kelleher
[Stage Direction]
M. Vezina
[Stage Direction]
8.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Finance
[Stage Direction]
M. H. Wilson
[Stage Direction]
B. J. McDougall
[Stage Direction]
R. R. de Cotret
[Stage Direction]
9.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Fisheries and Oceans
[Stage Direction]
J. A. Fraser
[Stage Direction]
J. C. Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
T. M. McMillan
[Stage Direction]
10.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development
[Stage Direction]
D. E. Crombie
[Stage Direction]
J. Epp
[Stage Direction]
P. Carney
[Stage Direction]
11.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Justice and Attorney General
[Stage Direction]
J. C. Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
J. F. Kelleher
[Stage Direction]
H. P. Beatty
[Stage Direction]
12.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Labour
[Stage Direction]
W. H. McKnight
[Stage Direction]
F. I. MacDonald
[Stage Direction]
A. Champagne
[Stage Direction]
13.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of National Defence
[Stage Direction]
E. H. Nielsen
[Stage Direction]
H. Andre
[Stage Direction]
C. J. Clark
[Stage Direction]
14.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of National Health and Welfare
[Stage Direction]
J. Epp
[Stage Direction]
O. J. Jelinek
[Stage Direction]
D. E. Crombie
[Stage Direction]
15.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of National Revenue
[Stage Direction]
E. M. MacKay
[Stage Direction]
M. Cote
[Stage Direction]
B. J. McDougall
[Stage Direction]
16.
[Stage Direction]
President of the Privy Council
[Stage Direction]
R. J. Hnatyshyn
[Stage Direction]
E. M. MacKay
[Stage Direction]
J. A. Fraser
[Stage Direction]
17.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Public Works
[Stage Direction]
R. La Salle
[Stage Direction]
S. Mclnnes
[Stage Direction]
D. F. Mazankowski
[Stage Direction]
18.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion
[Stage Direction]
S. M. Stevens
[Stage Direction]
A. Bissonnette
[Stage Direction]
J. B. Murta
[Stage Direction]
19.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of State for Science and Technology
[Stage Direction]
T. E. Siddon
[Stage Direction]
S. M. Stevens
[Stage Direction]
M. Masse
[Stage Direction]
20.
[Stage Direction]
Secretary of State of Canada
[Stage Direction]
B. Bouchard
[Stage Direction]
A. Champagne
[Stage Direction]
O. J. Jelinek
[Stage Direction]
21.
[Stage Direction]
Solicitor General of Canada
[Stage Direction]
H. P. Beatty
[Stage Direction]
J. C. Crosbie
[Stage Direction]
R. J. Hnatyshyn
[Stage Direction]
22.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Supply and Services
[Stage Direction]
S. Mclnnes
[Stage Direction]
R. La Salle
[Stage Direction]
D. F. Mazankowski
[Stage Direction]
23.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Transport
[Stage Direction]
D. F. Mazankowski
[Stage Direction]
S. Blais-Grenier
[Stage Direction]
J. Wise
[Stage Direction]
24.
[Stage Direction]
President of the Treasury Board
[Stage Direction]
R. R. de Cotret
[Stage Direction]
M. H. Wilson
[Stage Direction]
H. P. Beatty
[Stage Direction]
25.
[Stage Direction]
Minister of Veterans Affairs
[Stage Direction]
G. H. Hees
[Stage Direction]
E. H. Nielsen
[Stage Direction]
H. Andre
[Stage Direction]
Monday, September 16, 1985