1986-06-06

STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, Environment Week is coming to an end and all we have heard from the Government is public relations and advertising schemes. There has been no action of substance, such as reinstating the Guelph Toxicology Centre, reinforcing the Canadian Wildlife Service, rebuilding the Environmental Protection Service, expanding our National Parks system, strengthening scientific research in the environment, giving renewable energy and recycling new life, restoring freedom of speech to Environment Canada scientists, keeping the promise of a national destruction strategy for PCBs, removing lead from gasoline before 1992, and equalizing gas prices at the pump to stop misfuell-ing. At the end of Environment Week the Government shows a sad record and earns an F- on its environmental report card.


U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, like all wars, the Mulroney-Reagan trade war is producing a daily casualty list. As of 4 p.m. today the shake and shingle tariff casualties from Mission, British Columbia, include Mr. Buck Atkinson, Mr. Balbir Sidhu, Mr. Bob Crouch, Mr. Ray Johnson, Mr. Jim Webber, Mr. Lloyd Wilson, Mr. Guy Stewart, Mr. Brian McRae, Mr. Calvin Adams, Mr. Ward Creassy, Mr. David Knott, Mr. Ab Clauson, Mr. Gary Burke, Mr. Andy Papp, Mr. Wes Neats, Mr. Conrad Hilton, Mr. Ken Cruso, Mr. Gary Bundisan, Mr. Ron Vears, Mr. John Tufts, Mr. Alec Clarke, Mr. Arno Mons, Mr. Jack Brown, Mr. Phil Fitzpatrick, Mr. Gary Creassy, Mr. Bill Gouche-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


TRANSPORTATION OF DANGEROUS GOODS
Mr. Bill Tupper (Nepean-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians have a growing concern about the transportation of hazardous goods on our highways. Constituents have recently brought to my attention that the load limit for road transportation of nitroglycerin dynamites has been reviewed by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Nitroglycerin dynamites are currently restricted to 200 cases, 5,000 kilogram truckloads on Canadian roads. Pressure is now coming from dynamite manufacturers to accept 20,000 kilogram truckloads of dynamite.
Changing restrictions on dynamite for purely commercial reasons would be regressive and would needlessly heighten public exposure to the hazards of an explosion. Tractor trailers are inherently harder to control in panic stop situations and are more frequently involved in upsets than trucks used for 5,000 kilogram loads. Their cargo is thus subjected to multiple impacts, possible fires and explosions.
Industries in Canada have been constantly moving toward more safety and less exposure, and to permit nitroglycerin dynamite to be transported-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, over the last two days Ministers responsible for the status of women from the federal, provincial and territorial Governments have been meeting in British Columbia to discuss a number of issues of vital concern to women. Among the important items on their agenda are discussions of wife battering, child care, and the development of a strategy for women's labour force equality.
Ministers have also been focusing their attention on the particular needs of native women, immigrant women, and visible minority women, which marks an important step forward in considering the special concerns of these three distinct groups of women.

June 6, 1986
As this meeting enters its final hours, I am sure I am joined by Members on both sides of the House in wishing the Status of Women Ministers success in their important deliberations on behalf of Canadian women.

[ Translation]


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Last Tuesday, Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Laval (Mr. Ricard) referred to my presence at meeting of young Quebec Liberals where they passed a resolution to recognize the Palestine Liberation Organization as the chief spokesman for the Palestinians.
Had the Hon. Member had the thoughtfulness of calling me before I would have told him about a release issued on Monday, June 2, in which I dissociated myself from this resolution and explained that I was not present when that debate took place.
The resolution is particularly clumsy because it does not require the PLO to forgo violence and terrorism.
I might remind the House that recently Mrs. Thatcher made a statement to the effect that the PLO would have a role to play if were to renounce violence, otherwise other legitimate spokesmen would have to be found.


EXPO 86 CANADIAN PAVILION-LISTING OF CANADIAN WINES
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, Canadian wineries are on lay-off. Import wines are grabbing an ever increasing share of our domestic market, and not for reason of quality.
Can you imagine a United States pavilion, or that of France, Germany or Italy at a world trade fair or exposition promoting Canadian wines? No, you cannot. Canadians are the world's poorest promoters and salespersons. The Canadian Pavilion, Expo 86, built and paid for by Canadian taxpayers, lists only one Canadian red and one Ontario white wine in its restaurants, a few more host province wines, but a much wider range of the United States and European import products.
Was this not a show to sell Canada to the world? It is not too late yet to redraft George Hees, who once did just that. Canadian products are good. You can have confidence in them. Try them, and then you will buy them.


U.S. TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES- EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT IN BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, the countervail action has been given the green light by President Reagan. At midnight tonight the B.C. shake and shingle industry will be sacrificed on the altar of free trade protectionism. A $250 million cedar industry will be ruined.
Our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), now known as the mouse that roared, leader of the banana republican party of Canada, has learned that being a patsy to the whims of the White House is bad for Canada.
On June 2 our Prime Minister wrote to President Reagan and said, "Dear Ron: I accept your apology for the communications breakdown respecting shakes and shingles. I appreciate it because this was damaging to me personally and to my Government". He said: "This incident will not alter our personal relationship. Our personal relationship is too valuable to be diminished by occasional misunderstandings."
[DOT] (mo)
Well, what of the workers, the families, and the communities in British Columbia? Where is any mention of concern about softwood? Nowhere.
Our Prime Minister never phoned the President to stop the 35 per cent duty on shakes and shingles and did nothing to protect our softwood lumber industry. Thanks a lot, Brian. Canada is sorry for voting Tory.


WAR CRIMINALS
Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) made an important announcement on the Deschenes Commission. Due to the illness of Justice Jules Deschenes, the Commission has been extended until September 30, 1986, when the final report will be submitted to the Government.
The Deschenes Commission will not be going to the Soviet Union or to any Eastern Bloc countries to gather further evidence. The Deschenes Commission outlined six prerequisites before it would accept an invitation to obtain evidence in the Soviet Union. The Soviets would not agree to the principle of allowing witnesses to be interviewed under Canadian rules of evidence. Justice Deschenes quite rightly refused the invitation and is now in the process of completing his report.
I commend the Commission for its pre-conditions that Canadian rules must apply for obtaining evidence for a Canadian justice commission. The Government has been generous with its time limits and looks forward to the completed report. Canada and the Deschenes Commission have acted honourably and with the highest regard for justice.
June 6, 1986


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, environmental damage is one of the greatest threats to our health and safety. We urgently need a national program to monitor and advise on the effects of toxins in our environment.
The National Research Council called for the establishment of Canadian toxicology centres at Laval, Toronto, Guelph, and Saskatoon. These would assess environmental damage caused by contaminants such as industrial waste, pesticides, and radioactive materials. The centres would also advise on the effects of exposure to various toxins, and conduct research to find solutions.
The toxicology centre at the University of Saskatchewan in my constituency is under construction. Federal assistance is needed to complete this vital facility. However, cuts to toxicology funding announced in November, 1984, jeopardize the future of Saskatoon's toxicology centre, and all other centres in Canada.
I am all for reducing the deficit and restraining Government spending, but if the cost of deficit reduction threatens our environment I must urge the Government to rethink its costcutting measures.


CANADA PENSION PLAN
Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Epp) sent us a press release announcing changes in the Canada Pension Plan. Unfortunately, while the Minister announced premium increases for both employees and employers, he did not raise premium levels. Furthermore, the Government failed to announce any changes with respect to the amounts owed by the provinces to the Canada Pension Plan. The provinces' debt to the Plan totals nearly $30 billion. Ontario's share is $15 billion and Quebec owes $115 million.
Mr. Speaker, I hope that before this legislation is passed, all Members of this House will make sure that the changes in the Canada Pension Plan will benefit employees and stop the provinces from living off the employees of this country.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the House today to defend the interests of the workers
in my riding. Since my constituency is right on the Ontario border, hundreds of mainly forestry workers, who live in Quebec, carry out their trade in the province next door, and over the years many have unfortunately had accidents at work which often disabled them for the rest of their lives. They have therefore become totally dependent on the Ontario Workmen's Compensation Board and its decisions.
Mr. Speaker, these workers feel they are being treated like second-class citizens, without any consideration whatsoever. Often, their files and correspondence with the Board are in English only, and the decisions it makes are unsatisfactory.
Mr. Speaker, speaking on behalf of these workers who are helpless and do not know where to turn, I would urge the Ontario Minister of Labour to treat these people with a little more dignity and justice. These people have sacrificed a part of their lives and their health in Ontario and are claiming the legitimate right to be considered on the same level as all other citizens of this country. And I would like to say to these workers that they can always count on their Member to defend their interests.


THREAT TO CANADIAN LUMBER EXPORTS TO UNITED STATES
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on November 23, 1985, I wrote the Prime Minister (Mr. Mul-roney) urging him to go to whatever lengths were necessary to protect our lumber industry from actions of the U.S. Congress. I received an acknowledgement but, of course, no response.
It appears that rather than taking some form of action the Prime Minister relies upon his personal relationship with the President of the United States, putting all his eggs in one basket. His actions have clearly failed us.
Over a thousand jobs in Kenora-Rainy River are at risk. McKenzie Forest Products in Hudson exports 90 per cent to 95 per cent of its product to the United States. Great Lakes Forest Products in Dryden exports 95 per cent to the United States. Boise Cascade Stud Mill in Kenora exports 75 per cent of its product to the United States. Countervailing tariffs being initiated in the U.S. on forest products will cost far more lumber jobs than the forest fires presently raging in Northwestern Ontario. The Government has to undertake a trade information campaign in the U.S. and take our case directly to the people of the United States. Why will the Prime Minister not get on the telephone now and-

June 6, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Sixty seconds.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD

[Stage Direction]
Government intend to take? Will the Minister immediately take this case to the international trading system? Will he make an application under Article 22, Article 23, or Article 24 of GATT so that under the international trading rules this matter can be investigated and looked at by our other trading partners, being that it represents as much threat to them as it does to us because it substanatially undermines the GATT rules relating to matters of countervail-
['Carried and so ordered.']
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.



Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Today our worst fears were confirmed. The United States Congress Department has now accepted the petition of the U.S. lumber industry which can only be considered a very serious act of provocation against Canada's trade relations.
In the self-serving letter sent by the Prime Minister to the President on June 2, why did he not at least mention, or make an appeal to have the softwood lumber petition rejected? Why did he totally ignore the interests of the softwood lumber industry and workers, as he has obviously done with respect to shakes and shingles? Why did he not make some effort in that letter to try to get some reaction from the U.S. President on this very serious action?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, when I was informed in advance, by U.S. Secretary of Commerce Baldrige, of the decision which was going to be taken on countervail, I expressed Canada's very deep regret that the processes in the United States led the administration to take that decision.
The Hon. Member has suggested that it is a provocation. He should know better because he would know that in 1983, when he was a member of the Government of Canada, exactly the same process was triggered, following exactly the same rules and, in our judgment, dealing with exactly the same evidence.
The challenge for Canada now is to ensure that we work together effectively to defend the Canadian case in a process which has been started. The process was started today. It will not be concluded for some time. There is an opportunity for Canada to make a calm, strong, case. I look forward to cooperation from everyone in making that calm, strong, Canadian case.


Lloyd Axworthy: Well, Mr. Speaker, the Minister is right that the case was presented in 1983, but it was a provocation then as it is a provocation now. At that time we were successful in offsetting it.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION UNDER GENERAL AGREEMENT ON TARIFFS AND TRADE
Lloyd Axworthy: I want to ask the Minister to tell us the specific steps he and his


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, I think, is more aware of the GATT rules than his question lets on. There is a remedy open to Canada under the GATT. That certainly is a remedy we will follow if other approaches do not succeed. Certainly, I would not want to follow a course, if that is what the Hon. Member is suggesting, of abandoning the importance of making a very strong Canadian case in this process in the interests of just going to the GATT.
Certainly, we will be prepared to go to the GATT if, among other reasons, the United States chooses to change unilaterally the definition of some of the questions which are at issue.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, my question was posed in the light of not only approaching the matter in the United States but also in the international forum.


LENGTH OF HEARING ON U.S. INDUSTRY'S PETITION TO HAVE COUNTERVAIL DUTY IMPOSED
Lloyd Axworthy: Miss Paula Stern, the Chief Commissioner of the ITC, said yesterday that they expect to be voting on this matter in the week of June 23, which is only three weeks away. Are we now prepared to make that case in that incredibly short time of three weeks, or will we be asking the United States to make a major extension of the hearing so we, as well as our industry, have the proper time to make a case against that petition?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have already raised with Secretary Baldrige the importance of there being time enough for Canada to make a very strong case. I do not know from where the Hon. Member got the date of June. He is citing a report I have not seen.


Lloyd Axworthy: An interview yesterday.


Charles Joseph Clark: An interview yesterday I have not seen. In my conversation with Secretary Baldrige two dates were mentioned. One was a date in mid-August and one was a date in October. I indicated our preference for an October date.
June 6, 1986


INQUIRY WHY PRIME MINISTER DID NOT SEIZE OPPORTUNITY TO DEFEND CANADIAN INTERESTS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs has failed to answer the first question my colleague directed to him. My colleague wanted to know why, in his letter dated June 2 to the President of the United States, he had not raised neither the issue of the softwood lumber, nor that of the lost jobs in Canada. Why, then, did not the Prime Minister seize this opportunity to defend the interests of Canadian workers instead of merely patching up, so to speak, his personal relations with the President of United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is right. I had forgotten the first part of the question directed to me by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry, something for which I apologize. The answer is as follows: We are faced here with a quasi-judiciary system in the United States. Under the American legislation, it is impossible for the President of the United States to get involved in this process. That is why we have not made reprentations at the political level through the Prime Minister concerning a situation about which the President of the United States is not allowed to intervene.


TEXT OF PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER
Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, of course we know that the Secretary of Commerce could have rejected the petition.


Mr. Gray (Windsor West):: He had the discretion; he could have said no.


Donald James Johnston: Beyond that I would like to know two things. First, did the Secretary of State for External Affairs approve the text of the obsequious June 2 letter? Second, does the Minister agree with us that it was singularly inappropriate and more concerned with refurbishing the personal relationship between the Prime Minister and the President of the United States rather than protecting the interests of Canadians?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the letter was better written than some books I have read.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Nelson Andrew Riis: Make a joke of it, Joe.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Up yours, Joe.


Charles Joseph Clark: As I understood it, the particular question had to do with why the Prime Minister did not make
Oral Questions
a specific representation, a political representation, to a President who is prevented, precluded, by his country's law from intervening in this kind of case.


Mr. Broadbent:: Do you approve of the letter?


Charles Joseph Clark: That action was taken because the President is precluded from intervening in this kind of case. The Government of Canada has followed, to the limit, all of the options that were open to us. We made very clear the concern of the Government of Canada. We made the legal case.


Donald James Johnston: Did you approve the letter though?


Charles Joseph Clark: We made the diplomatic representations. We went to the unusual lengths of having the Ambassador of Canada go into-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member for Oshawa.


CONTENT OF PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has just given his whole argument away when he tried to contend a minute ago that it was a judicial process and therefore the Prime Minister should not intervene. He knows that up to 2 per cent of these decisions had been turned down before by the Secretary of Commerce. He knows that our own Ambassador has made an appeal within the last 48 hours. My question to the Minister is this. In this incredibly self-serving letter written by our Prime Minister to the President of the United States four days before the decision was made, why does the Prime Minister complain about personal injury to himself instead of going to bat for the 300,000 Canadian workers in this industry?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am sure it is not deliberate, but the Hon. Member is misstating the facts with regard to the countervail process in the United States. It is true that a very small percentage-I think the Hon. Member said 2 per cent- have been set aside. They are set aside on legal grounds. It is a quasi-judicial proceeding. Canada made our legal case through the appropriate officers. We took the extra step of sending the Ambassador in, who is, as the Hon. Member will know, a very skilled international lawyer as well as being our Ambassador, to make that case again. That was the limit of what it was possible for us to do under the system.
We also took the opportunity, on several occasions and in general terms which are allowable under these procedures, and which would not backfire on Canada, to express our political concern. We have done what the system allowed us to do.

June 6, 1986
Oral Questions


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, to use the
Minister's own word, the "system" permits the Prime Minister of Canada in correspondence with the President of the United States to express Canadian concerns. It is then up to the President of the United States to take the appropriate steps.
I wish to return to the central concern which is why the Prime Minister did not act on behalf of Canadian workers. Would the Minister tell us why the Prime Minister, who wrote complaining about the unfortunate political impact a previous decision had on him, did not say in the letter: "Mr. Reagan, 300,000 Canadian workers can be affected by this decision. Will you take appropriate steps within your political system to protect those jobs?"


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is now too long.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, this is of course a repetition of questions that were asked yesterday.


John Edward Broadbent: But we have a decision today.


Charles Joseph Clark: The answer is the same now as it was yesterday. The answer is that the Government of Canada has used every appropriate means to make Canada's political concerns known, but we did not want to take an action that would have had the effect of being a political intervention in this quasi-judicial process, an intervention that might have backfired on Canada in a way that would have prejudiced the case of the workers in British Columbia. The Leader of the New Democratic Party may be interested in playing that kind of political game with the workers of British Columbia. We want to protect their interests, not put them at risk.
[ Translation]


REQUEST FOR EXPLANATION FOR OMISSION OF PARTICULAR SECTOR FROM LETTER TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, surely the Minister can understand that if he wanted to, the Prime Minister of Canada could write a letter to the President in the interest of Canadians. He has every right to.
The Minister is certainly aware that in the province of Quebec, this industry which employs 21,000 workers is selling 60 per cent of its production to the United States. Why has he failed to mention this industry in his letter to the President?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one answer is that he was writing a letter, not an encyclopaedia.

But the other reply is to the effect that the Canadian Government has indicated to the United States on many
occasions the political concern and interests involved here, as well as the interests of Canadians workers affected here.
The problem is that we are faced with a quasi-judiciary system in the United States. If the Government of Canada had taken a position which could be interpreted as an interference in this system, this could have resulted in major problems for the workers in Quebec, British Columbia, and the rest of Canada. That is a fact, and that is the reason why we acted as we did.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. For almost a year now the provinces have opposed her training proposals because they offer less money and they are too bureaucratic. Only three provinces have signed agreements. Considering the recent memo of her Deputy Minister, why is the Government now withholding job-creation funds using the unemployed as hostages to pressure the provinces to sign unacceptable training agreements? Is this an example of the new federalism put forward by the Government?
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, training agreements have already been signed with the Province of Ontario, the Province of British Columbia, and the Province of Newfoundland. An agreement will be signed next week with the Province of Prince Edward Island. Negotiations are well under way with other provinces.
It is true, of course, that tough negotiating is going on because the provinces would like more power and more authority. I am working out negotiations with them so that I may have the fairest possible programs from the federal Government's point of view.


Mr. Allmand:: Mr. Speaker, the Minister did not answer the question.


FUNDS FOR JOB CREATION-QUEBEC-GOVERNMENT POSITION
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allman (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, what does the Minister make of opposition in Quebec, where Ministers Ryan and Paradis continue to oppose the federal policy on manpower training because of cutbacks totalling $54 million?
Does the Minister intend to deny Quebec access to job creation funds as she does in the case of New Brunswick?
June 6, 1986
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, it is true that in the direct funding to provinces there will be less money. However, I can also assure the Hon. Member that through the Canadian Jobs Strategy training that will go to provinces and community colleges indirectly, the provinces will be able to acquire more moneys provided they make their systems relevant to the needs of people who want to get into the job market.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS-CANADIAN POSITION
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I was in Washington on Wednesday and our Ambassador, Allan Gotlieb, argued both the political and legal aspects of this case before Secretary of Commerce Baldrige. You cannot have it both ways. If our official representative of Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Ross Fulton: The Minister, I am sorry.


Mr. Speaker:: Thank you. Will the Hon. Member now put his question through the Chair, please?


James Ross Fulton: The Minister cannot have it both ways. He cannot tell the House that his Government cannot argue the political case when our own government representative has. Why has the Government not argued more effectively the political case, particularly in the Prime Minister's letter?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, what the Opposition is alleging is that there has been an indifference by the Government of Canada to the-


Some Hon. Members:: Right on!


John Edward Broadbent: By the Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: -interests of Canadians affected by this case. The facts prove that wrong. There has been a number of representations made by the Minister of Finance, by myself, by the Ambassador, as the Hon. Member just admitted, and by a number of people-


Some Hon. Members:: Where is the Prime Minister?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. In fairness, Hon. Members who put questions should at least listen to the answers rather than simply shout at Ministers. The Minister may want to conclude his answer.


Charles Joseph Clark: What the Opposition is asking the Prime Minister to have done is to have intervened improperly
Oral Questions
in a quasi-judicial matter in the United States. That would have been wrong and that would have prejudiced the case of Canada. That is why we did not do it. We believe in following international law, and we believe in advancing the interests of the people of Canada, not putting them at risk.


POLITICAL CASE
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. This is an outrageously hostile act by the U.S. administration, and I want to get some clarification from the Minister. It is clear-


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


James Ross Fulton: My question to the Minister is: Why, if it is appropriate under U.S. law for our Ambassador to argue the politics of this, did the head of state of Canada, the Prime Minister, not argue that, either in the June 2 letter or prior to today's announcement?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let me clear up a couple of things. First, it is not an outrageously hostile act.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Caccia:: What is it, then?


Charles Joseph Clark: Second, the Prime Minister is not the head of state of the country. Third, there are many cases where political issues are raised by representatives of the Government of Canada. That is entirely appropriate. What opposition Members have been asking for, until they slightly changed their case today, is for the Prime Minister to intervene improperly in this case.


Some Hon. Members:: Come off it!


Charles Joseph Clark: This Prime Minister is not going to do that.


DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the conduct of her Department. Yesterday we were told that she did not receive a memo from her Deputy Minister for 55 days. I now have a secret letter from the Deputy Prime Minister to her, criticizing her for not writing her own letters or signing her own letters. In the letter the Deputy Prime Minister says: "You know as well as I do"

June 6, 1986
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is becoming a very long preamble. Is there a question, please?


John V. Nunziata: "You know as well as I do that in politics perception"-


Mr. Speaker:: Just a question, please.


John V. Nunziata: I should like to ask the Minister a question. The reality and the perception in respect of her running her Department are that she has lost control, that she is not in charge, and that she does not know what is going on in her Department. Who is in charge of her Department? Who is running the show?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to head a Department with 27,000 employees who are working for the benefit of other Canadians. I would say that that shows in the work they are doing and in the way in which jobs are being created in Canada.


REASON FOR SENDING LETTER
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I want to ask him why he wrote this letter to his colleague. Why did he criticize his colleague in this letter?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: I am sorry, Mr. Speaker, but my electronic device was as intermittent as the Hon. Member's question, and I did not hear the entire question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may repeat the question. [Translation]


John V. Nunziata: I'll say it again, Mr. Speaker, slowly. I want to ask the Deputy Prime Minister: Why did he write this letter to his colleague? Why he criticize his colleague in this letter? Doesn't he trust him?


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, I have every confidence in the Minister of Employment and Immigration and, search as I might, I cannot discover any element of the remainder of that peripatetic question which might address itself to my ministerial responsibilities in any capacity.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS-U.S. INDUSTRY'S PETITION FOR IMPOSITION OF COUNTERVAIL DUTY
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, does the Secretary of State for External Affairs still stand by
his description of the move against Canadian softwood lumber as double jeopardy? Does that not, therefore, justify political action being taken by the Prime Minister against this action before the decision was taken today?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I know the Hon. Member would want to be honest to the facts, and he would know that when I used the phrase "double jeopardy" I was citing one of the legal arguments. It is a legal argument which was put by Ambassador Gotlieb to Secretary Baldrige the other day.
With regard to the leadership which is required now, I think it has two elements. First, I think it requires an atmosphere of calm on the part of all parties. For example, it is not helpful to have the New Democratic Party characterizing this as "outrageously hostile", when it knows that it is the sort of thing which has occurred before in Canada-U.S. relations and is within the legal purview of the United States.
Second, I believe it is very important that we immediately bring together representatives of the provinces, the federal Government, the industry, and the labour unions, to ensure that we have the best possible means of defending the Canadian case. It is for that reason that I am convening a meeting in Vancouver of the provinces, the federal Government, industry, and labour, a week today, to ensure that Canada will be in a position to put forward a consistent, calm, strong case and win again as we won in 1983.


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just a week too late, as usual, with this Government. Could the Prime Minister not have put into this letter that argument about double jeopardy in respect of softwood lumber which he himself has made? Would that not have taken a much stronger case to the United States than the one which was taken?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Opposition is asking that the Prime Minister make the legal case because the Prime Minister would add political clout to the legal case. That is precisely the point. We are dealing with a legal matter. A political intervention would backfire on Canada and would cost Canadians jobs. We made the legal case. We made it several times. We made it in all the appropriate ways. We did not make it in an inappropriate way, because to make it in an inappropriate way would have run risks for Canada which were not necessary and could have put in jeopardy a case we expect to win, if we get the cooperation of Members of the House and of others in the community across the country.
June 6, 1986


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. It concerns the deathbed repentance press release of earlier this morning. In part it reads:
"By the time I saw the memorandum on April 14", said Bill Musgrove, Chief of Staff to the Minister, "I judged it to be irrelevant".
Is it the policy of the Government to have chiefs of staff interfere with communications between a Minister and her Deputy? Is it not time to put the policy of government by political commissar to an abrupt end right now?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I get some 55,000 individual letters and memos each year. We have staffs in place who are there to assist us in looking at which ones are particularly necessary to come to my attention and those which can be handled by others. I have faith in my staff that they can do the job they were hired to do, and that is what Mr. Musgrove, my chief of staff, was doing at that time.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that the Minister receives much correspondence. We get some of it on our desks.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


ALLEGED PARTISANSHIP IN DEPARTMENT
Don Boudria: Here is my supplementary, Mr. Speaker. I want to ask the Minister: When is she going to put an end to the partisan patronage politics we see in her Department? Or is she just imitating her colleague, the Minister of State (Youth), and competing for the incompetence prize?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, yesterday I was asked about a memorandum which had been directed to me by the Assistant Deputy Minister. I said then that I would be asking that official as to the intent of the letter. I demanded and I got an explanation from the Assistant Deputy Minister which I consider acceptable. He informed me that he intended no partisan interference, and that has been spelled out in the press release I issued today. I said in the House yesterday that I would not accept any advice if it was of a partisan nature coming from officials, and I stand by that.
Oral Questions


Mr. Gauthier:: You protesteth too much.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. W. R. Bud Jardine (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Associate Minister of National Defence. Members of the Armed Forces receive a review of their pay and benefits package on an annual basis effective April 1 each year. Can the Minister advise when the announcement will be forthcoming this year, and could he confirm that when it is made it will be retroactive to April 1, 1986?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Certainly, Mr. Speaker, any pay raise when it is announced will be retroactive to April 1. Defence Department officials are currently in discussion with Treasury Board officials on the amount of increase because it is our feeling that defence employees, military people, have been lagging behind what they ought to have. We are in negotiations which I hope will be completed soon.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Does she accept the third paragraph in the press release sent out this morning, an explanation to yesterday's questions, that it is reasonable that the Associate Deputy Minister should believe it proper to speed up the implementation of the much needed Community Futures Program only if the province would agree to speedy negotiation of an entirely different program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned yesterday that I would be discussing this matter with the Assistant Deputy Minister. Indeed, in the context in which he described it to me, I understand that there could be other interpretations put on it. He has given me his word that he did not intend any partisan interference to be drawn, and I have accepted that explanation.

June 6, 1986
Oral Questions DEPARTMENTAL POLICY


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I am not asking about the partisan nature, I have my own opinion on that. Is it appropriate when the need for a program is identified, and there are growing lay-offs occurring, to offer assistance only in that area if the province will agree to speedy negotiation of some other program unrelated, separate, and apart?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, approval for the planning stages of the Community Futures Program in the Acadian peninsula was announced in February of this year, long before that memo was ever written. Since that time, I may tell the Hon. Member that total funding going into the Acadian peninsula under the Canadian Jobs Strategy is some $1,339,000 and that 270 individuals are taking part in it. We are moving forward on those programs.


INQUIRY WHY PRIME MINISTER DOES NOT DO MORE TO DEFEND THE INTERESTS OF QUEBECERS
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Yesterday, in Quebec City, the Prime Minister announced that as a result of his Government's dramatic drop in the ratings, he would try and do a better job of selling his "salade" to Quebecers. Could the Minister explain why the Prime Minister, in the letter he sent to the President of the United States, did not do a better job of defending the interests of Quebec workers in the softwood and lumber industries? Why did he prefer to sell his "salade", his image, instead of selling the interests of Quebec workers?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I don't want to talk about "salads" with the Hon. Member, because he is far more experienced than I am in talking about these matters.
As far as the so-called content of his question is concerned, I think it is quite clear that thanks to the policies of this Government and our Prime Minister, we have seen unparalleled job creation, in Quebec and elsewhere, and in a manner far more effective than was the case under the Government that more or less enjoyed the support of the former Member.


Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, as far as the word "salade" is concerned, I was merely quoting what his Prime Minister said yesterday in Quebec City.


DEGREE OF CONFIDENCE IN THE GOVERNMENT
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister explain, now that we know how often this Government and this Prime Minister have been defeated since the beginning of the talks on free trade, how he
expects Canadians to have confidence in a Prime Minister who claims to be an expert negotiator, when his record has been a disaster since the beginning of these talks?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, speaking of these talks, perhaps I may mention an area where problems have been particularly acute here in Canada, and I am referring to relations between the federal Government and the provinces. Under the previous Government, this was a total disaster. Under the Government of the Prime Minister, the Hon. Member for Manicouagan, we have had one success after another. This week, we managed to reach a consensus with all provincial premiers and all Canadian parties on continuing negotiations.


PRIME MINISTER'S LETTER TO UNITED STATES PRESIDENT
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Could he explain to the House and to the people of Canada what the purpose of the "Dear Ron" letter was that the Prime Minister sent to President Reagan earlier this week?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, assuming the letter were to be tabled and published, the Member could-


Nelson Andrew Riis: It is published.


Charles Joseph Clark: It has been published, excuse me. The purpose of communications between the Chief of Government of Canada and the Chief of Government of the United States is naturally two-fold: to advance specific issues and to maintain a relationship that has been very important to this country.
Some specific issues are raised in other fora. The question of the grave concern of Canada about the softwood industry was raised in other fora. Some questions are not appropriate to be raised in a letter from the Prime Minister to the President. For example, the Member's colleague suggested that the Prime Minister should make a legal case, not because he is a good lawyer, which he is, but because he is a political figure. The NDP is asking that a political case be made that would prejudice Canada-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is a long answer. A supplementary question?


CONTENT OF LETTER
Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Considering what the Minister just said that the communique is an opportunity for the Prime Minister of Canada to raise important issues with the President of the United States, would the Secretary of State for External Affairs not agree that perhaps the most important issue this week facing Canada is the softwood issue, and if he was writing a letter this week he should at least have referred to that topic in the letter?
June 6, 1986


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, let us be very clear about what is being proposed by the New Democratic Party. The New Democratic Party is not saying that a legal case has failed to be made by Canada. The NDP knows that the legal case was made by Canada. The NDP is saying that that legal case should have been made by the Prime Minister, not because of his legal skills but because of his political skills-


Ian Deans: Just because he is Prime Minister.


Charles Joseph Clark: -as the Member for Kamloops- Shuswap has just said. The Member is asking the Prime Minister of Canada to ask the President of the United States to do something which the President of the United States is prohibited by American law from doing. That would be improper. It would backfire on Canadians, and the first people to suffer would be the lumber workers of this country.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Donald Paul Ravis: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Science and Technology. In a press release issued by the Minister he stated:
I want to put Canadian science and technology and Canadian research and development back on track.
How does the Minister intend to move toward a permanent framework for science and technology further to assist the country out of its current industrial crisis, and what is the time frame?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, a number of initiatives have been taken by the federal Government, including two federal-provincial ministerial conferences and a number of round table discussions with the science community throughout the country. All of this will culminate in a national forum on science and technology this coming week in Winnipeg in which all the stakeholders will participate. I am hopeful that by the end of this year we will have something to lay before the House.


David Berger: Supplementary, Mr. Speaker.


VIEWS OF RESEARCHERS
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, would the Minister answer the concerns of researchers as expressed in an article in today's papers, and on many other occasions, who are skeptical of the Government's plan for matching grants? Indeed, some of them say that the Government will be blaming
Oral Questions
industry and universities for a scheme which was doomed from the beginning. How does he answer those criticisms?


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, unlike the Hon. Member I happen to have great faith in the private sector. Everyone knows the private sector has to play a more prominent and significant role in putting the country in a position to build its future economic strength on research and development. I just happen to have more faith in the private sector than he does.


NORTH ATLANTIC TREATY ORGANIZATION
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, during the last election campaign the Conservative Party promised a 6 per cent real increase in the national defence budget, but that has simply become another broken Tory promise. Can the Minister of National Defence tell us what our NATO allies' response was at the recent ministerial meeting in Brussels to the fact that he has not even come close to meeting the longtime NATO agreement of a 3 per cent real increase per year? According to the last Budget brought in by the Minister of Finance, he will fail to honour Canada's financial commitment to NATO for the total life of this Parliament.


Erik Nielsen: The short answer to that question, Mr. Speaker, is that the force goals presented by Canada were accepted by all of our NATO allies.


POSITION OF ALLIED NATIONS
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, Canada's national defence budget grew by more than 3 per cent in every year of Liberal budgeting following the 1979 commitment. The Government has not met that yet and it does not intend to.


Mr. Mazankowski:: What about before that?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Did our NATO allies request assurances that Canada will get back on track and adhere to the-


Mr. McDermid:: What about from 1968 to 1979?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: -3 per cent real growth commitment? What did he tell them other than the fact that the Minister of Finance's Budget projects this Government's total failure to come even close to meeting the 3 per cent target during the entire period of this Parliament? You have failed entirely to meet it.

June 6, 1986
Oral Questions


Erik Nielsen: Our NATO allies do not share the very gloomy view which the Hon. Member puts forward. As a matter of fact defence expenditures, with respect to this Government's activities, are the one area that is rapidly growing.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration and deals with her explanation of the memo from her Associate Deputy Minister. The Minister admitted in her statement today that the Community Futures Program was needed in the Acadian community of New Brunswick. How does she explain the twisted logic which suggests that program would only go into Acadian New Brunswick if the province would speed up its negotiations with her Department for the training program?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: The convoluted logic comes from that Hon. Member, Mr. Speaker. I have already indicated that the agreement to go ahead with the planning stage of the Community Futures Program was signed in February of this year. It is already under way. The fact that in negotiations the provincial Government might state, as the Associate Deputy Minister said, that its priority interest was in more job creation in the Acadian peninsula, and the federal Government might state that the priority interest was in getting job training for the whole of the province, is not a conflict. We are going ahead with both these measures for the benefit of the people of New Brunswick. Indeed, we have already put $1.3 million into the Acadian peninsula this year because that area has 24 per cent unemployment, and we will not stop helping people there.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


JOB TRAINING AGREEMENTS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has admitted she has training agreements with only three provinces. Will you not admit that what happened in this particular instance with New Brunswick is that you are playing poker with all the other provinces and holding up needed employment funds so you can get a training agreement with the provinces? Why are you holding the unemployed up to ransom?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows that questions go through the Chair.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we are presently spending some $450 million in job training and employment programs. We are not holding them up. They are not frozen. They are going ahead.


INCOME TAX
Mr. David Daubney (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Revenue Canada's shorter and less complicated tax form, the T1 Special, does not include an area for the deduction of medical expenses. Given the possibility that this might leave some people, particularly low-income seniors who tend to have high medical expenses, with the idea that the deduction is no longer available, would the Minister consider adding a line to the form to deal with this possible problem?


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interest of the Hon. Member in improving the tax form. I will certainly take his representation very seriously. If it is feasible to change this particular type of tax form, we will look into it.


ENVIRONMENT CANADA
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. At a time when Canadians are expecting more action from, and more responsibility to be exercised by, the Department of the Environment, why did the Deputy Prime Minister order the Desfosses study on ways to reduce or even dismantle the Department of the Environment? This initiative has had a devastating effect on the morale of the fine officials in the Department and has profoundly preoccupied the public across the country.


Erik Nielsen: What the hon. gentleman says is simply not true. There was a need for a follow-on study as a result of several other study teams coming forward with options affecting that Department. However, it is totally untrue to say that the follow-on study made any recommendations with respect to expenditure reductions. That is false. So are most of the other conclusions I have seen in the press and which obviously have been picked up by the Hon. Member and now asserted here as fact. They are simply not true.
June 6, 1986


MINISTER'S KNOWLEDGE
Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, we would not be speculating if the studies were made public. We can only go by what we can learn. However, the Deputy Prime Minister could tell the Opposition whether the study we are referring to, even if we are not defining it as precisely as he would like, was conducted with the full knowledge of the Minister of the Environment?


Erik Nielsen: The fact that it was being conducted, Sir, was in the public domain last Friday. The hon. gentleman will recall that I tabled 21 such reports here in Parliament and I see no reason why the follow-on studies should not be tabled as well.


SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS-U.S. INDUSTRY'S PETITION- CANADIAN REPRESENTATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. A few moments ago he said it was totally inappropriate for the Prime Minister to raise the matter of the softwood decision that was made today in the U.S. with the President. In reply to a question in the House on the very day the Prime Minister was writing his letter the Secretary of State for External Affairs said, "Mr. Speaker, that question, among others, was raised by me in my meetings on Friday with Secretary Shultz in Halifax". If it is appropriate for the Minister to raise this question with the Secretary of State in the U.S. why could not our Prime Minister have done the same thing with the President of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, it is time to call a stop to what the rules of the House require me to call inadvertent misrepresentation by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. What I raised with Secretary Shultz, and what was raised by a number of Canadian representatives, was our great political concern about the implications to Canada of this decision.
What the Member from Windsor was asking me to do earlier when he referred specifically to the double jeopardy argument was to have the Prime Minister of Canada make a legal intervention in his political capacity, thereby intervening politically.
What they were asking us to do is have the Prime Minister ask the President to do something which is forbidden under American law. Of course we were not going to do that, and those facts should be understood by the people of the country and not misrepresented by the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
Privilege


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: On Wednesday, June 4, 1986, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) raised a question of privilege relating to the comments of the Right Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs as recorded by the electronic Hansard and an apparent discrepancy as to how those comments are recorded in the printed Hansard. First, the Chair must say that, having now reviewed both the Hansard and the taped proceedings, I cannot find any matter of privilege in this case. This issue raised is more akin to a point of order. What was said by the Right Hon. Minister and what can be viewed and heard on the electronic Hansard is the following:
-even to the point of having his assistant down now working with one of the leading opponents in the U.S. Congress of acid rain legislation, legislation that would be helpful to Canada.
What was reported in the printed Hansard at page 13902 is the following:
-even to the point of having his assistant now working with one of the leading opponents in the U.S. Congress on acid rain legislation, legislation which would be helpful to Canada.
The obvious omission in Hansard is the word "down". The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry feels that this is an omission of substance. The Chief Editor of Hansard has reported to me that this was an error on the part of Hansard and that the usual erratum will be printed. Indeed, such an erratum would have been printed on June 5 but, because the Chair had taken the matter under advisement, the Chief Editor deferred the erratum, which will now be printed in the next issue.
The Chair must also make it clearly understood that there was no intervention by the Secretary of State for External Affairs and no alterations of the "blues" by him or members of his staff.
The larger issue surrounding the point of order that the Hon. Member has raised is the status of the electronic Hansard. Unfortunately, the House has never defined the status of the television tape. Speaker Jerome, while ruling on a similar point on November 28, 1978, clearly identified the dilemma:
An examination of the record through these electronic recording devices is being resorted to by more and more Canadians all the time. Therefore, additional strain is being put on the reporting staff who have enjoyed this editorial licence in the past. They now find themselves under the constraint of matching their records exactly with the language used on the radio and television.
Speaker Jerome went on to say that such a task was not an easy one for the Hansard reporters and it will continue to be difficult until the House clarifies once and for all the official status of the electronic Hansard, and defines clearly what margin of inevitable discrepancy it will tolerate.

June 6, 1986
Business of the House
Therefore, it is my belief that there are enough cases on the record since 1976 to warrant an examination of this issue by the Standing Committee on Elections, Privileges and Procedure.
*
* *


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (President of the Privy Council):: 
Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is unanimous consent for the introduction of those orders.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: There being such consent, shall the motion carry?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Carried and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
National Transportation Act so as to reform economic regulation in order to encourage innovation and enterprise.
Some have claimed that transportation safety may be at risk because of our economic regulatory reform initiatives. I want to assure you and all Hon. Members of the House that safety will not be compromised. My reform proposals deal only with economic regulation.
Our commitment is that we will neither propose nor permit any economic regulatory reform that might be detrimental to safety standards. Safety programs will continue to be strengthened to achieve improved levels of safety in each mode.
You are also aware of the Government's commitment to a comprehensive expenditure reduction program designed to eliminate duplication of services and to reduce administrative overhead. Resourcing for safety, however, has been increased, while other reductions have taken place. For example, over the last two years, 220 new person years have been added in the areas of transportation of dangerous goods, aviation safety and highway safety.
Canada's safety record is very good across all modes; air, marine, rail and highway. Canada has an excellent transportation safety record of which we can all be proud. In the air mode between 1981 and 1985, reported accidents declined by 37 per cent. Reported fatalities declined by 62 per cent. During this same period the number of registered aircraft increased by 10 per cent and the number of passengers flown increased by 2 per cent.
In the last four years Canada's national and regional airlines, which carry the bulk of our passengers, flew over 87 million passengers with minimal loss of life.
Looking at the marine mode, there has been as well a continued reduction in loss of life, despite having over 25,000 commercial and fishing vessels operating in Canada.

Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to make an important statement on transportation safety. I know Canadians are vitally interested in the safety of their transportation system so today I would like to outline my current initiatives and future directions in transportation safety. Since taking office I have made a strong commitment to improving transportation safety in Canada.
Achievement of the best possible level of safety in each mode is the most fundamental component of my legislative mandate. As I have said many times in this House, levels of safety are not being and will not be compromised in order to achieve any other transportation or government objective. Safe transportation is our most important product.
Consistent with this Government's commitment to eliminating obstacles to growth and to reducing Government intervention, one of our key transportation objectives is to revise the
Between 1981 and 1985 fatalities on Canadian highways have been reduced by 25 per cent, while the number of accidents have dropped by close to 10 per cent. The number of registered Canadian vehicles increased by 8 per cent over the same period, and the number of licensed drivers rose by 18 per cent. Recent data suggests that Canadians are driving more, and consequently the risk of mishap is increasing. This reinforces the need to look for new opportunities for improvement.
Rail safety has also been improving over recent years. For instance, from 1981 to 1985 the number of accidents decreased by 25 per cent while the number of fatalities decreased by 17 per cent. With the recent tragedy in Hinton, where 23 people lost their lives, the actual and perceived safety of railways has been brought to the forefront. I have already taken steps, pending results of the current inquiry, to reduce the possibility of this type of accident occurring in the future.
June 6, 1986

Despite our excellent Canadian transportation safety record I believe there is still room for improvement. Therefore, our Government has taken a number of new initiatives to improve transportation safety in Canada.
With respect to air, passage of the amendments to the Aeronautics Act last summer was a fundamental step toward improving aviation safety. It gives Canada its most effective aviation safety legislation in 60 years. Extensive new technology is being introduced to modernize our air traffic control radar and aircraft landing control systems over the next ten years. The Air India disaster of last June and the recent attacks of international air terrorists have shown that we must use every means, both human and technological, to upgrade airport safety and security.
The anniversary of the Air India accident is June 23, and I am sure all Members of this House still feel the same sense of sadness and sorrow at the loss of those 329 passengers, most of them fellow Canadians.
With the attack in Narita on CP Air Flight 003 and other aircraft bombings, an age of innocence has gone forever. To address the threat of international terrorism we have taken a number of steps. We have strengthened considerably airport security and screening procedures. We have established a task force which now has reported to determine how best to strengthen training programs for airline security personnel. We have provided some additional $10 million to acquire and put into operation state-of-the-art screening equipment and technology in this fiscal year. We have increased the frequency of monitoring and testing airport security procedures to perfect crisis management techniques and responses. We have instituted, with other security agencies of the Government, security threat and risk analysis procedures to determine adequate levels of security protection in air, as well as in other transportation modes.
Today, I am announcing a further commitment of an additional $34 million this year and $26 million over the next two years to further improve physical security at airports, as well as training of personnel and public education.
In June, 1985 Canada took a leading role in encouraging the International Civil Aviation Organization to introduce a number of measures among member states to implement security measures which ensure control of transfer and transit passengers and which protect aircraft, baggage and goods against unauthorized access. All of these steps must be taken within the co-operative element of all member countries that subscribe to the International Civil Aviation Organization.
While security measures at Canadian airports already exceed these additional security specifications, and many improvements have been initiated in the past year, I will be further enhancing aviation policing and security programs.
Statements by Ministers
With respect to marine transportation, to enhance marine safety the Government is now proposing a number of major safety initiatives as part of the amendments to the Canada Shipping Act. The Canada Shipping Act amendments will significantly improve the requirements for training and certification of Canadian seafarers. This area has long been recognized as a major contributing factor to accidents at sea. The Canada Shipping Act amendments also bring us in line with international marine safety conventions to improve commercial navigational practices.
Steps are also being taken to improve navigational safety and technology by providing higher standards for controlling the movement and handling of dangerous cargo; to formalize requirements for officers and crew to make proper use of up-to-date navigational charts and other related publications; to improve routing of ships through hazardous areas; and to enhance the effectiveness of vessel traffic control without adding to its cost.
In response to the recommendations of the Royal Commission on the Ocean Ranger marine disaster, my Department immediately introduced interim standards imposing enhanced safety requrements for mobile offshore drilling rigs and their support vessels. Design and equipment requirements have also been improved. As well, the training and qualifications of marine personnel employed on rigs have been prescribed to meet applicable recommendations of the Ocean Ranger Royal Commission. Eighty-five per cent of the Commission's 136 recommendations, which address a wide variety of offshore safety matters, have been implemented in whole or in part.
Let me turn to highway transportation. With motor vehicle deaths consistently accounting for more than 90 per cent of all transport-related fatalities, we must continue our efforts to improve road safety. In order to do so, we must improve driver awareness and attitudes towards safety.
To reinforce the need for care in driving, as well as to minimize injuries in accidents, we are continuing to promote the need for the increased use of seatbelts. To date, as a result of our efforts in working with the provinces, 58 per cent of Canadians now regularly "buckle up". This has produced a significant safety improvement upon which we can build.
Another area of improvement being pursued is a requirement for automatic daytime running lights on new vehicles sold in Canada, to become effective September, 1988.
In the area of trucking safety, we are working with provincial governments to draw up a national trucking safety code. This code will contain standards and practices governing the vehicle, the driver, hours of work, road security and company requirements for accident reporting and records keeping. Our goal is to establish a uniform safety standard right across the country.

June 6, 1986
Statements by Ministers
Looking at rail safety issues, of the 123 rail fatalilties in 1985, 58, or 47 per cent, were at level crossings. To address this problem, a total of $25 million is currently earmarked for federal contributions toward the cost of new grade separations. This is to be matched by provincial participation. It is recognized that there is still much more to be done in this area and the current funding levels will be used to address the priority safety projects.
Where crossing improvements such as lights, gates and bells are concerned, the CTC currently has responsiblity. In this connection, the CTC has been spending about $10 million annually with additional contributions from the railways and municipalities, and has plans for improvements such as modern reflectorized arms for gate barriers, flood-lighting at high-risk crossings, and more powerful signal lights.
Another major safety initiative will be to modernize the legislative framework for the rail sector, replacing outdated rules and encouraging the introduction of modern safety practices and technology. Consultation has now begun with industry and labor in accelerating this initiative.
This will involve a complete review of the many safety provisions contained in the Railway Act. It will be important, for example, to update safety regulations focusing on performance standards, to permit the introduction of modern practices, and to encourage the use of state-of-the-art technology in the rail mode.
We also look forward to receiving the findings of the inquiry into the February 8 crash at Hinton, Alberta. Mr. Justice Foisy's objective is to determine steps which can be reasonably taken to reduce the risk of reoccurrence of such a tragic accident, and to provide recommendtions to improve over-all rail safety in Canada.
Let me deal with the transportation of dangerous goods. To improve the safe transportation of dangerous goods, we introduced the first regulations under the 1980 Transportation of Dangerous Goods Act. The federal regulations came into effect on July 1, 1985. By February, 1986 nine provinces and one territory had adopted for and put into place these regulations.
The objective of the federal program is to ensure that a uniform set of standards is in place across the country, applicable to all modes of transport.
Under the program, employees must be trained in respect of their responsibilities and the products which they may be handling or transporting. In addition, shippers of certain types of dangerous goods are required to present plans as to how they will provide immediate assistance at the site of any accident involving their products. Further components of this program are being developed to deal with issues such as the adequate design, manufacture and use of packagings, containers and tank vehicles.
In order to assure compliance with current regulations, the federal Government has estabished a new force of approximately 40 dangerous goods inspectors from coast to coast to work with provincial officials to enforce these regulations.
Recently, I established a special task force to examine the flow of dangerous goods by rail through the Toronto area. With a full report expected within two years, I have asked that the task force report as to whether it is feasible to re-route transportations services carrying dangerous goods and whether additional dangerous goods rail safety requirements are needed.
On May 22 I announced approval of the task force's recommendation to accept CP Rail's offer to voluntarily reduce the speed of all trains carrying dangerous goods on CP Rail's north Toronto-Galt subdivision-special dangerous goods freight trains from 56 kilometres per hour to 40 kilometres per hour, and other dangerous goods trains from 80 kilometres per hour to 56 kilometres per hour.
As well, I am presently discussing with the Province of British Columbia and local municipalities the feasibility of establishing a group to examine and make recommendations respecting the transportation of dangerous goods in and around the Vancouver-Lower Mainland area, and to and from Vancouver Island.
Of major significance in the area of transportation safety will be the separation of accident investigation in the rail and marine mode from the current regulatory bodies. This would remove any conflict of interest and ensure an independent examination of all system components, regulations, and equipment during an investigation. A proposal is now being considered for the separation of these functions, including the possibility of combining air, marine and rail accident investigation into a single, independent multi-modal accident investigation board.
In summary, the Canadian transportation system has an extremely good safety record. Accidents will happen, but I have under way a comprehensive set of initiatives to ensure that this record is maintained and enhanced.
Safety has been and continues to be the number one priority of my mandate as Transport Minister. I will not compromise when it comes to the safety of Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, First let me say to the Hon. Minister that I apologize for not being in the House for the major part of his statement. However, I did have an opportunity to read it beforehand. I am responding really because the Transport critic of our Party is not in the city today and has asked me to respond for him.
I want to fully endorse, underline and support the basic priorities for safety established by the Minister. There is no question that in the multitude of responsibilities of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) safety is undoubtedly first and foremost. Safety is the major preoccupation of Canadians. I think the Minister will agree that it is a matter of increasing concern and anxiety. A number of incidents both in this country and abroad have focused the interest of Canadians very much on their ability to travel.
June 6, 1986

I would further say that this concern held by many Canadians, and shared by others, perhaps poses one of the most dangerous threats to the whole notion of international and national commerce and the exchange of people and ideas. One of the great advantages of the modern world is its interdependency. That has been brought about primarily through our transportation modes which are now under threat. We have seen the first signs. Tourists are nervous about travelling to Europe and that anxiety is spreading to the point where people are increasingly anxious about the safety of themselves, their families and loved ones, whether they are on a highway, an aircraft, or whatever it may be.
Some of the measures which were put forward in the Minister's statement are very familiar. They were matters which were under active consideration and decisions by the previous Government, such as the modernization program for radar, the Aeronautics Act amendments, and so on. I am not saying that other than to put on the record that those are efforts we want to make.
However, I do want to draw attention, if I may, to a couple of the proposals made by the Minister and some concerns my own caucus has raised. First, with respect to air safety, one of the doubts often raised about deregulation of the economic system is what impact it may have upon the safety of the carriers. There has to be an equal and parallel effort made to ensure that as we go forward in reducing the regulatory handicaps which face the airline industry, as well as other transportation industries, there is no sacrifice to safety.
Recently there has been disturbing evidence produced in the United States regarding the impact of the deregulatory system upon safety. It has certainly been a matter put forward during the course of various hearings of the Commons committee across the country. The question is whether the carriers can be expected to properly meet the continually high standards set by the Department of Transport, and others, which puts a very strong onus on inspection and on the ability of the Government itself to improve and enhance its regulatory system on the safety side while at the same time deregulating on the economic side.
I want to emphasize to the Minister that before he presents to the House his proposed legislation, it is equal very important to present the kind of measures and steps he intends to take to deal with the problem of safety as a consequence of deregulation over the next four or five years. We would simply want to serve notice that that would be a very important requirement.
On the question of the transportation of dangerous goods, I cannot think of any area which plagues Ministers of Transport more than that particular issue. Ministers of Transport are faced with an awful dilemma. We know a modern industrialized society depends on the incredibly important movement of all kinds of products, chemicals and others, throughout this country in order to survive. We know the railways themselves, as primary movers of those products, have to do so within a proper economic range. Yet, we know the probabilities of serious accidents grow each day as more and more products come on line and the volume of traffic increases. I am pleased
Statements by Ministers
the Minister will establish a task force, but there have been other task forces in the past.
I can recall when I was Minister of Transport bringing in the heads of the major railways to tell them I wanted to see clear evidence as to why the speed of trains going through urban areas should not be reduced. I do not know if the Minister has received that kind of report from them as yet but I think it is clearly time for some action to be taken to reduce the speed. Ideally, I suppose, the only real answer to that problem is to ultimately remove that kind of traffic from heavily urbanized areas.
I think the Minister would be very interested in the proposal put forward recently by the Federation of Mayors and Municipalities, the big city mayors, for a major infrastructure program in our urban areas. Part of it would be major relocation of railway yards and lines to outside areas so they would not endanger an urban area. I would hope the Minister would be a major supporter of that program. It would need a large amount of federal assistance to go ahead and I know that money is a preoccupation of this Government, However, in my own judgment, the increasing danger of the movement of dangerous goods will not be eliminated until there is a major program of relocation and removal of railway lines and yards from the urban areas.
There have been mounds of regulations passed. I recall with some horror seeing the volumes on my desk after they were properly administered. That was effective in terms of what happens when there is an accident, that is, reporting, responding and identifying. But, in terms of the root causes of what kind of major tragedy could befall us, the regulations say very little. Therefore, I think it has to be tackled ultimately at the source, that is, simply the sheer probabilities of further tragedies taking place.
I would also like to emphasize something which has disquietened me, as it has the Minister, and that is the modernization of the railway system itself. We were both involved, as were other Hon. Members of the House, in the extensive debate on the Crow rate. Part of the discussion was about the ability to get money into the railways' hands in order to modernize. I have looked at their budgets since then and it seems to me that for other economic reasons there is a cutback in a number of those areas. I feel it is the responsibility of the Minister to sit down with the railways, one of which he is the chief shareholder-in fact, the only shareholder-and ask what methods of modernization incorporate the most up-to-date efficient and effective safety system. That is a very clear question. I do not pretend to be an expert, and I will not try to lecture the Minister on the techniques involved, but there has been enough expert commentary to suggest there are improved methods being used in other parts of the world in terms of signalling, transmission and communication. Those methods should be part of the modernization program, and not just in western Canada. We have very heavy volumes in the central Canada core, as the Minister well knows.
14060

June 6, 1986
Statements by Ministers
It would seem to me that it is a major investment question and goes back to an area in which the Government does have some control. We know that Air Canada is facing a major problem of capitalization. We know that CNR is facing the same problem. Until those capitalization problems are solved and an answer found, their ability to respond to safety problems which are caused by deregulation will be hindered and handicapped. Therefore, until the Government addresses the question clearly- and I would hope there would be an answer-as to how the Government will ensure a proper financial base for our major carriers, especially those in the public domain, some of the safety problems will not be addressed.
I could go at some length, but unfortunately it comes back to matters of money. It comes back to a question of who pays and from where will the money come. We welcome the $60 million for airport security. There is no doubt about that. However, we know the problem is much larger and must, over the next four or five years, be addressed. The longer we put off addressing the problem, the more likelihood of serious accidents taking place. I am not here to provide warning or to scaremonger. I am simply saying it is a matter of reality which I think all Hon. Members of the House should share, and it is our job to bring that reality and that warning to bear.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


An Hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for that round of applause.
I want to begin by saying that, like the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), I am pinch-hitting. I do not pretend for one moment to have the knowledge to be able to give the Minister the answers to all of the problems. However, I do want to say something to him through you, Mr. Speaker.
On this side of the House the Minister enjoys a great deal of respect for the effort which he puts in. I say that on behalf of my colleagues. I know that our transport critic would have wanted to say that in any event. No one doubts his sincerity when he comes forward to make a statement such as the one he made today. However, we do have some concerns that I will express.
I do not think there is anyone in the country who does not share the Minister's sincere desire to increase the standards of safety. At one time or other we have all experienced or come into contact with people who have experienced problems with safety in all aspects of transportation. Again, I do not doubt that the Minister is committed to improving the safety standards in transportation. However, I think it would be appropriate at some later date for the Minister to make another statement, perhaps outlining more clearly some of the new technology which is being used by the various carriers
which operate within the transportation system. I think it would be helpful for all of us if we could get a firm grip on the degree to which carriers within the transportation system are in fact modernizing with an eye to a safer system and what constitutes that modernization effort.
In his statement the Minister assured us again, as he has done in the past, that safety will not be compromised as a result of economic deregulation. To the extent that one can be successful as a result of making such a statement, and by repeating it over and over again, the Minister is at least meeting with some degree of success in getting other people to take it up as the battle-cry. He may be aware of the situation which I am told existed in the Transport Committee when it was examining the document entitled "Freedom to Move" produced by and for the Minister. Apparently when either a member of the Opposition or a member of the public raised the potential dangers of economic deregulation in terms of safety, I am told it was not unusual for members of the government side to respond by saying: "The Minister assures us that there will be no detrimental impact on safety as a result of economic deregulation". That was said without any analysis, without any background being presented. It was said as an article of faith. Because the Minister says it then it must be so. I hope he is right. I think most Hon. Members hope that he is right. I cannot afford, if the Minister will allow, simply to take that as an article of faith. I cannot simply accept, because the Minister says that things will be improved from a safety point of view and will not be detrimentally affected by the economic effects of deregulation, that that is necessarily so. I make that point to the Minister in conjunction with my earlier request that he consider making another statement at another time, perhaps in the fall, with respect to the whole question.
I also wish to suggest to the Minister that when the committee of the House examines the new national transportation legislation, that he place a political emphasis on the need to ensure that the safety aspects of the changes which will result will be paramount in the minds of the government Members of the committee. They must understand that the Minister is requesting them to make that a priority in their considerations. They must require the carriers who may well appear before them to make representations to present their programs for improved safety as they make their arguments for or against the deregulation process which is being suggested. Of course, this is something the Minister can suggest to Government Members who sit on the committee. We will obviously do the same for our own Members. In our opinion it would be tantamount to neglect if that is not done. I think the Minister would want that done, just as we want it done. However, it might be overlooked, as I think it was overlooked in the considerations leading up to the "Freedom to Move" document, if the Minister does not make it clear that he wants it to be a priority. So I would ask him to do that.
June 6, 1986

I now wish to deal with the statisical information that was contained within the Minister's statement. The statistics with respect to deaths and injuries were sort of read into the record almost in the same way as an insurance salesman would explain a rate structure. It is good that the Minister can find some solace in declining accident rates and other matters which are contained in the statement. I do not think that we should develop a safety strategy around the statistics alone. It is very important that we recognize the reality of the current situation.
The Minister knows full well that there are in fact problems in all modes of transportation which can and do have an affect on safety. I submit that lay-offs in the rail industry by both major rail companies result in questions being asked about the standards of safety the remaining employees are able to maintain. Without going into great detail, the example I would give is that I have had it reported to me on a number of occasions, and I have no reason to doubt this, that as a result of the reduction in manpower there is not the kind of inspection taking place of bulk rail vehicles in the Sarnia area that is necessary. I am told that the inspections which should be undertaken of all the various aspects for safety purposes is not taking place now because there are fewer employees and therefore the movement is more frequent in proportion. I am told that the actual physical inspection requirements are just not being met. I submit that can and will result at some point in time in a major accident. It may not result in a derailment, and one hopes that it will not. However, at some point somewhere between Sarnia and Toronto there will be a major leak develop in a rail carrier. I ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this point.
I also suggest to the Minister that we in this House know of the problems respecting security staffing at airports. The Minister has paid recognition to that fact and has made additional moneys available. It boggles the mind, if I can put it that way, when one thinks about how we provide the security. We pay people the minimum wage and, yes, we provide additional training to them. However, we know that staff turnover runs at about 10 per cent a month. This means that at the end of the year the people who started at the beginning of the year are no longer there. If I might be allowed to say this, the process is really in the hands of amateurs. Not only is it in the hands of amateurs when it comes to the actual people on the job, no doubt doing the best they can with an adequate pay scale and adequate conditions, but it is a little unusual when one finds that a group of people who have no licence, no assets, no insurance and no bonding can apply and get a $2.5 million security contract for an airport. We wonder if that is the standard of safety we are prepared to accept.
As the Minister well knows, this has happened. A contract was let to people who were related to the industry through marriage, if I recall correctly. However, the company that submitted the tender proposal, as far as I am aware-and the
Statements by Ministers
Minister can respond to this-was merely a shell of a company. When the company got the contract, it was a shell operation, and clearly it became somewhat more than a shell after the contract was granted on May 6 of this year to Metropol Airport Security Ltd. I do worry that that might occur again.
I would suggest that in my judgment security at airports has to be professionalized if it is to be satisfactory. I suggest to the Minister that he make sure that that occurs. In this day and age, there is more likelihood of an incident at an airport than there has been at any time in history. I would submit that there is more likelihood of an incident at an airport than there is on the streets. We pay, train and provide for our own protection on the streets through police forces with members who are adequately and properly trained; yet at an airport we provide security people who, quite bluntly speaking, are simply passing through the system. I do not think that that is enough, and I think the Government probably shares that view. I would ask the Government to take a serious look at that matter.
I thought the Minister might have announced today further review of a decision taken with regard to lighthouses. We know that the Government has directed that lighthouses will now be operated on an unmanned basis without any personnel on site. In other words, lighthouses have been computerized. I suggest that the role of the lighthouse keeper is a far larger role than one of simply turning lights off and on, and I think the Minister agrees with that. If there is a need for computerization, as I do not doubt there might be, then computerize the lighthouses, but the job of lighthouse keeper goes far beyond simply making sure that between dusk and dawn the proper lighting is available.


Mr. Skelly:: There needs to be a public inquiry.


Ian Deans: As my colleague from B.C. has said, he would like to see some kind of a public inquiry into the appropriateness of the action that is being taken by the Government. I would suggest to the Minister that he pay at least some heed to that suggestion because it makes some sense. I would suggest that the function of a lighthouse keeper is one that is not only necessary because of identification but is also necessary in that it provides navigational aids and help with search and rescue operations. It is therefore too important to simply let it pass.
I will say very little more. I do wish to say that the layoffs at CN announced just last week will, I submit, cause a problem for safety. If CN is going to undertake layoffs, it should present a proposal to deal with the maintenance of safety standards with fewer personnel before the layoffs become effective. Quite clearly, I can understand the economic problems that are faced, but I am not satisfied that the economic problems should be solved with the possible result that safety is affected. I think it should be part of the Minister's demand that as CN and CP consider the possibility of downsizing their workforces, they present to us how that will affect safety and what actions they propose to take to offset whatever effects it will have. The Minister will recall, of course, as he points out-

June 6, 1986
Petitions


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I must ask the Hon. Member to conclude.


Ian Deans: I appreciate that, Mr. Speaker. I am in fact concluding.
I think the Minister knows that we share his concern. I think the points I have raised are debatable, and I am prepared to conceded that. I believe our interpretation is worth consideration and that our concern for the over-all safety of the transportation system is no less than the Minister's. We are willing to co-operate with him if, as I said earlier, he takes some steps to make sure that all aspects of the transportation system are reviewed, and that safety be the paramount consideration during that review.


PETITIONS
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I have the responsibility and duty of presenting a petition signed by many constituents of Kamloops, British Columbia, who are protesting the change to the Unemployment Insurance Act which saw pension income used as earned income for unemployment insurance purposes, and they call upon the House to reverse this iniquitous provision in the Unemployment Insurance Act.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour and responsibility of presenting a petition on behalf of many individuals from the coast of British Columbia who are concerned about the automation of a number of lighthouses. They point out that lighthouse services are important for search and rescue, communications and weather reporting, and that they are extremely important for both aviation and marine transportation on the coast of British Columbia.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I have a second petition that deals with the unemployment insurance problem experienced by many individuals. This particular petition is from teachers who have mentioned that early retirement has almost been eliminated as a possibility for many people because of the arbitrary changes in the unemployment insurance regulations.
I have a third petition that deals with the concerns of fishermen on the coast of British Columbia over arbitrary
changes in the unemployment insurance regulations and their effects on those people in that industry.
My final petition is from members of the armed forces who are very upset with the changes in the unemployment insurance regulations and the effect on their lives as retired members who have served this country for many years.



COMBINES INVESTIGATION ACT


John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill C-288, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (promotional coupons and savings stamps).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to prevent a person or corporation from offering coupons in respect of a food product as a method of promoting the sale of the food product. I believe that any reduction as a result of coupons should be a direct reduction in the price of the item, rather than to create a whole generation of coupon clippers.


John V. Nunziata: Could I withdraw my name as seconder because I am a coupon clipper?


Mr. Speaker:: Only with unanimous consent of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


John R. Rodriguez: for leave to introduce Bill G-289, an Act to amend the Combines Investigation Act (loss-leadering).


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the Hon. Member shall have leave to introduce the Bill?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to prohibit retail sale of a food product in a food store at a price lower than the purchaser production cost incurred by the seller of the product.
June 6, 1986

In the Sudbury basin which I represent we have experienced loss-leadering being used by large chains to force out small entrepreneurs or small-businessmen. Once they are forced out, the price goes sky-high and they have a controlled market.


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

M. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, I suggest that all the other questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: May I inform the House that because of the ministerial statement and responses, Government Orders will be extended by 42 minutes beginning at 1 p.m.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications) moved: that Bill C-95, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, "of all our national treasures, the Archives are the most precious. They are the legacy of one generation to another, and the quality of care we give them testifies to the quality of our civilization". This was said more than 50 years ago, by a former Dominion Archivist, Arthur G. Doughty. I am reminded of these words now that I am about to introduce new legislation for the Archives of Canada. If a people is not aware of its past, it has no identity. It suffers from amnesia. It does not know its strengths , it does not know its weaknesses and cannot build on its experience. It cannot leap forward because it lacks the starting block of history. It cannot legitimize its institutions or identify their responsibilities, anymore than it can determine the rights of individuals and groups.
The original identity of our country, which we defend and strengthen, each in our own way, is partly reflected in our institutions and our present day way of life, but also in the roots of the present which we can find through the archives. These, according to Doughty, are the soul of a people, its
Archives of Canada
collective memory. They are essential to a people's understanding of itself, its past, its present vitality and its aspirations for the future.
It is because archives are so important to this country, for the Government and to our developing self-awareness, that I am introducing legislation that will make the Archives of Canada better able to respond to present and foreseeable needs. I would first like to recall the purpose, function and clientele of the Public Archives of Canada, and then indicate why the existing legislation is no longer adequate in today's context and why new legislation is required and, finally, I review the main characteristics of the Bill now before the House for second reading.
First of all, the purpose and function of the Public Archives. The Public Archives of Canada have been in existence since 1872. At the time they were already referred to as the Canadian Archives. Historical records of all kinds were collected in Canada, and records concerning Canada were copied in France and in England. In 1903, the Archives were assigned the task to preserve the Government's historic records. In 1912, the Public Archives of Canada Act made the institution autonomous and gave it a mandate for collecting records of historic interest, because in addition to the Government's records which had to be preserved indefinitely for legal reasons, for the protection of rights or for administrative purposes, there were also the records of the public and private sector, individuals, families, associations, and commercial, industrial and financial businesses, which were to be preserved in order to promote research and constitute what was already referred to as the "memory of the nation".
Today, with a budget of $42 million for the year 1986-87 and nearly 800 employees, the Public Archives provide, in essence, three major services. The collection and conservation of significant historical archives, both public and private; since 1945, the organization, management, and disposal or preservation of current records from various departments and Government agencies; and finally, although still on a modest scale, assistance to the Canadian archival community and cooperation on the international scene.
The first function, of an historical nature, remains the best known and the oldest one. Indeed, the mandate of the Public Archives is to select records from the Government of Canada that are of permanent interest, to document the history of the various departments and the Government itself and to build up the necessary recollection of these organizations, and also to assist in recreating this country's history. Once they are no longer needed for administrative purposes, those records having an ongoing value are transferred to the historical Archives. There they are stored whatever their format. The Archives also acquire private records of significance. They make them available, subject to legal requirements, not only to researchers but also to the general public, as through exhibitions and publications for example.

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
Finally, conservation is an essential process to the archives. With it records of every nature, on whatever support, can be preserved for long periods of time. In certain areas, public archives have developed world-scale, state-of-the-art techniques-bulk de-acidification of printed records, conservation of ancient photographs, research on possible applications of optical discs, etc.
To that traditional function of Public Archives in respect of historical archives was added in 1945 an increasing responsibility, delegated by Treasury Board and the Cabinet, for active and semi-active Government files. Between 1945 and 1966, various orders and Treasury Board decisions gave the Archives the responsibility for a number of advisory, control and service functions in order to achieve economical and efficient management of official files, and this is one of their responsibilites. By giving the Archivist the right to veto any destruction, the guarantee was secured that historical records would be protected and regularly turned over to the Archives, through the use of conservation schedules while records of a transitional value would only be kept during their period of usefulness.
In addition to its training, consulting and evaluation services, record management has developed a whole network of semi-active depositaries for departmental use-it controls seven centres in Ottawa, Halifax, Montreal, Toronto, Winnipeg, Edmonton and Vancouver, which involve a total
400.000	metres of shelving loaded with written records, plus
200.000	computer tapes and 325,000 reels of microfilm. Those depositaries received last year not less than 1,423,242 requests for files from various departments, which in most cases were met within 24 hours.
That second responsibility, although less conspicuous, is nevertheless vital: it looks after the classification and conservation of tomorrow's historical records, as well as the destruction of files without any permanent value, which represent over 95 per cent of the documents of all kinds produced by the Government of Canada. This function results in considerable savings for Canadian taxpayers, assessed at over $20 million for deloped year 1985-86, through rationalization of the management of Government documents. It is now provided with a well the system making it possible to find more quickly the desired information and ensuring to the Archives that documents of permanent value are transferred at the appropriate time.
Finally, the Public Archives, like all other archival repositer-ies throughout the world, are faced with a major problem: the identification, acquisition and preservation of archival documents recorded on a computerized base. According to still incomplete estimates, the various government departments would handle over between 2.5 million and 3 million computer tapes which contain at least ten times more data as compared with printed records. Unfortunately, because of the scope of the problem and the scarcity of resources, 2 or 3 per cent of these tapes at the most are submitted to record management and, eventually, in the case of those with a permanent value,
are being transferred to the Archives of Canada. Unless solutions are found and implemented soon a type of "memory blackout" in the picture future history of our time, the disappearance of a great many data which more and more are stored only in computerized banks.
Because of their strategic position and their relative wealth of human, budgetary and material resources, the Public Archives have played a major role in the Canadian archivistic community during the last 30 years. This aspect of the role of the Public Archives should become even more significant in the future, for instance with the recent creation of the Canadian Archives Council following a federal-provincial agreement. This decentralized and flexible system will respect the autonomy of archivistic institutions while giving all Canadians access to their complete archivistic heritage. In addition, the Public Archives have instituted numerous international co-operative programs.
Why do we need new legislation? Mr. Speaker, people will probably ask me why I should introduce a new Archives Act at this time in view of the major achievements of the Public Archives and their central role both in Canada and abroad. The fact is that the present Archives Act was passed in 1912, at a time when typewriters, for instance, were just beginning to be in common use. No one could then have foreseen the world of computers and televised archives, nor the range of individual and collective rights which would be recognized in the following decades.
First, the Act of 1912 no longer corresponds to the present range of activities of the Canadian Public Archives, especially as regards the new types of archives support systems. Second, the Act is completely silent, which is to be expected, about the document management policies and practices developed since 1945 in response to the increase in size and complexity of the Canadian Government. Third, the Act does not take into account the public use of the collections-in fact, it does not even contain the word "access"-and could not have foreseen the very large increase in the number of users and their places of origin, as well as the decentralized needs of these users. Fourth, it does not deal with the documents of the many Government institutions created during the last 70 years. Fifth, it does not take into account concerns such as those imposed by the Access to Information and Privacy Acts. Sixth, it does not take into account the new storing and information transfer technology (records and tapes of all kinds) which, on the one hand, runs the risk of erasing historical information, but on the other, allows for a more effective and economical management of the archives. Seventh, it does not deal with the leadership role which must in fact be played by the Public Archives in terms of providing concerns professional, technical and financial support for the archivistic community, nor the requirement that it cooperate with the provincial archives. Eighth, it does not provide the Public Archives into the authority to play the major role they require on the international scene.
June 6, 1986

We have been aware of these deficiencies for a long time and many organizations have asked the Government to correct the situation by preparing a new Archives Act. Thus, adoption of a new Archives Act was recommended by the Glassco Commission in 1962, by the Symmons Commission on Canadian studies in 1975 and by the Federal Cultural Policy Review Commitee in 1982. In 1983, a document proposing a new Archives Act was prepared and sent to various departments and agencies. After many interministerial consultations, this document was amended to respond to the concerns and needs expressed at these meetings. Finally, at the request of Cabinet and following a proposal of the Minister of Communications, in December, 1984, the Department of Justice undertook preparation of a new Archives Act. This is the bill for which I am now moving second reading.
What are the major characteristics of this Bill? Mr. Speaker, allow me to describe them briefly. Under the new legislation, the Archives of Canada will be responsible for conserving private and public records of national significance and facilitating access thereto. They are to be the permanent repository of records of government institutions and of ministerial records. The Bill provides that they will play a leading role in the management of government records and encourage archival activities and the archival community.
Under the new statute, the Archivist will have two special powers. Except in certain cases, no record under the control of a government institution and no ministerial record shall be destroyed without the consent of the Archivist. It also provides that the records of government institutions and ministerial records that, in the opinion of the Archivist, are of historic or archival importance are to be transferred to the care and control of the Archivist.
The Bill also provides that the mandatory deposit with the Archives of Canada or certain audio-visual recordings does not constitute an infringement of the Copyright Act.
Finally, the Bill establishes the Archives of Canada as a branch of the public service under the direction of the Archivist of Canada. Under the legislation, the federal archivist is appointed to that position, and the records and staff of the Public Archives are transferred to the Archives of Canada.
We believe that these provisions will benefit the Government and all Canadians. The conservation and operation of permanent public archives and important private archives will be more efficient under the new statute. The concept of heritage access will be clarified. Finally, the legislation confirms the leadership of the Archives of Canada in the establishment of a Canadian archival system which, while respecting for provincial jurisdictions and the independence of private institutions, will be able to guarantee to all Canadians that the records which constitute their heritage are preserved.
Archives of Canada
Ever since Bill C-95 was tabled in the House of Commons last February 12, I have been delighted by the positive response of provincial representatives, associations of archivists, university circles, and interested parties from the general public. I am also very pleased to note the consensus of all groups concerning the fact that the Public Archives Act of 1912 is outdated and must be reviewed by Members of Parliament.
The Saskatchewan provincial archivist stated, and I quote:
In the past decade or so, most of the provinces have adopted archival legislation as an aspect of public accountability. Such a role for the Public Archives of Canada was only dimly foreseen in 1912 and the current federal regulations in this field should now be supported by a solid legislative base.

He even affirmed that the new Canadian legislation will be beneficial for the whole Canadian archival system.
As to the Association des archivistes du Quebec, it insists on the need for the Canadian Government to implement a legislation that will be more in keeping with the modern needs of archival management. This is what they wrote:
"Considering the leadership role of the Public Archives of Canada, we cannot overemphasize the benefits of the earliest possible implementation of that legislation."
The Association of Manitoba Achivists has also sent a letter to the Prime Minister urging him to have the legislation passed as quickly as possible.

This legislation has long been overdue, even though of vital importance to the systematic preservation of historically significant-records-

Some teachers from the Department of History of Laval University also wrote in support of Bill C-95.
There is an urgent and important need to update and clarify a legislative framework which dates back to 1912. It was also of vital importance to streamline the mandate of the Archives of Canada.
Some of the people and associations who sent us letters of support to this Bill highlighted possible areas of improvements. For example, there were questions on the independance of the Government of Canada in a situation where foreign governments may seek to have documents involving them destroyed.
The Social Science Federation of Canada agrees with the need to review the 1912 Public Archives Act and suggests amendments to the Bill to make it:

-more attuned to the spirit of access to information and the needs of the users of archives.

The same approach is shared by Mr. Desmond, Morton, a professor of Toronto University, who wrote:

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada

-small blemishes on an otherwise excellent bill, but why not press for perfection?

Mr. Speaker, I believe that the support received for this Bill is very satisfactory. I hope the House will very shortly refer Bill C-95 to committee, so that users of the services of the Public Archives of Canada-academics, journalists, genealogists, legal experts, film producers and archivists-will be able to show what parts could be improved, and a date can be set for adoption of this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, in concluding, I wish to invite my colleagues on both sides of the House to support this urgently needed legislation and thus serve the interests of the Government and the Canadian people.
First of all, new legislation is necessary to clarify the mandate of the Public Archives regarding the necessary destruction of an enormous mass of records (more than 95 per cent of the records produced by Government agencies) and the identification and subsequent transfer, conservation and accessibility of the remainder, judged to be of permanent value and constituting the "memory" of the Government and the Canadian people. It is also necessary to improve the Government's management procedures, to reduce administration costs throughout the departments and to preserve for future generations a legacy we believe it is essential to transmit to them, regarding our time and our past. It is also necessary to provide an economic means of storing the semi-active government records for a limited time, prior to their destruction or transfer to the historical archives.
I think we all agree it is important for the Government to have a central and permanent depository for records, so that we can follow the evolution and decision-making process of the various Government departments, and thus understand the past, our present problems and future challenges. Furthermore, the Government must respect the law and provide Canadians with information requested under the access to information and privacy legislation. The Archives offer all these services and do so economically by providing a central location for accessing these records.
Perhaps I may broaden my perspective to include all Canadians. Everywhere in Canada, people are now talking about cultural sovereignty, closer economic relations with the United States, and so forth. Actually, the new act will enable the Public Archives to play a still more decisive role in the understanding and development of our cultural identity. This country has been enriched by diverse contributions from every continent and every culture. Bilingualism, multiculturalism, the parliamentary system, public institutions, respect for various customs, the rights of native peoples, those and others are features that make us Canadians different from other nations.
The same is true of the extraordinarily complex network of communications this country has built up over two centuries, despite barriers that seemed insuperable. That saga, the word
is not too strong, should fill every Canadian with excitement and pride.
With an increased access to their archives, Canadians will be able to better understand the richness of their past and of their present challenges. This is why today I am suggesting that we improve our collective "memory", widen our pespec-tive of the Canadian experience, encourage the development of the Canadian Archives, with among other things a more appropriate legislation and a Canadian system of archives which alone will make this whole heritage available to Canadians. With this legislation, it is my hope that we will not only be consolidating our achievements, but also providing the infrastructures needed for preserving and making available those archives to researchers and the entire population as a unique cultural resource that is the true image of Canada.


Mrs. Sheila Finestone (Mount Royal):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset I would like to congratulate the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) for a very warm, thoughtful and well presented perspective on the reasoning for the need for the new archives Bill. When you look at and read the old Bill from 1912, with its very few narrow paragraphs, you realizes the urgency and can respects his observations in this regard, notwithstanding the need for the open hearings of our committee so we can make the changes necessary due to the slight, but serious imperfections we find in this Bill.
Mr. Speaker, that being said I am pleased today to rise to speak to Bill C-95, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and the records of government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act on second reading.
The Archives of Canada Act would replace the present Public Archives Act, which dates back to 1912. Since 1912 the Public Archieves of Canada has freely interpreted the single unrevised statement of its mandate or mission, that is, to collect and preserve historical material of every kind, nature and description as authority for its contemporary activities. These activities should now be more authoritatively defined in a complete revision of the Public Archives of Canada Act, which not only reflects the scope of its current archival collections and the methods of their preservation, but also other duties and activities in which the Public Archives now is involved.
The Public Archives is a vital heritage custodial institution similar in purpose to the National Museums of Canada. The importance of archives was admirably delineated in a brief to the Applebaum-Hebert committee by the Public Archives, and I quote from that brief:
If the archives of nation, a Government or an organization are not preserved, then the history of that nation, Government or organization will be forgotten, and the price which a people pay for the loss of their history is a misunderstanding of their roots, a confusion in their identity and the misrepresentation of the nature of their country.
June 6, 1986

Within the mission of the Archives I also want to underscore and underline how important it is to reflect the multicultural, multilingual background which is the tapestry and the design that forms the background of this beautiful landscape, and the historical record of our society. It is from these very societies that we must collect and preserve this historical documentation so people see themselves reflected through their roots in our own archives, which are the archives of all the peoples of Canada regardless of when they arrived on our shores.

Mr. Speaker, it is generally recognized that this statute, three quarter of a century old, should be updated. It is the opinion expressed in two recent reports produced for the Federal Government, namely that of the advisory group on the Canadian Archives, in 1980, and that of the Federal Cultural Policy, Review Committee,the so-called Applebaum-Hebert Committee, in 1981. In the opinion of the former group, an amended legislation would provide a sound legal base for the future expansion of the Public Archives of Canada. As for the Applebaum-Hebert Committee, it states that it would make it possible to coordinate the national planning, and to maximize the cost efficiency of our resources in this area.
The Bill, which incorporates a number of suggestions contained in these two reports, provides for a number of significant changes.
First, it replaces the designations "Public Archives" with "Archives of Canada" and "Federal Archivist" with "Archivist of Canada".
Second. It includes specifically in the definition of "Records" which the Archives may acquire the types of documentary material reflecting the technological changes which have occurred since 1912, including sound recording, video and computer tapes, films and microforms.
Third, it expands the mandate and functions of the Archives of Canada which, under the 1912 legislation, were limited to the simple acquisition and conservation of documents. Henceforth the official functions would also be to allow and facilitate access to the records, subject to the Access to Information Act provisions, to provide information, consultation and research services, to encourage the archival community, and to offer other services to both federal institutions and Canadians generally.
Fourth. Clause 5 of the Bill specifies restrictions to the access the archivist may have to records of government institutions and ministerial records, particularly pursuant to the Access to Information Act. This clause does create some difficulties and will have to be examined with a fine tooth-comb, so to speak.
Fifth. It gives the Archivist access to sound and video recordings made public in Canada.
Sixth. It empowers the Minister responsible for the archives to establish an advisory board to advise the Archivist in carrying out his functions. The board is not mandated, it
Archives of Canada
advises only, and I think it is important that it be given a mandate.
The Bill therefore confirms the changes that have occurred since 1912 with respect to the work done by the archives and the means at their disposal. It implements most of the suggestions made in the aforementioned reports and lays the official foundation for financial assistance from the archives to the Canadian archival community. There are still some concerns and I hope they will be dealt with very thoroughly when witnesses appear at the committee public hearings.
The present legislation does not take into account the considerable changes which have occurred since 1912 concerning-

History is a story created out of the evidence that has survived. People go to the archives in search of a wide variety of topics, people such as Members of Parliament who have to make a report in this House, teachers, lecturers, students, historians, the general public, scholars, other archival institutions, researchers in various media, government researchers and genealogists as well. Canadians are becoming increasingly interested in their genealogy. Perhaps this came about from the impact of the film Roots resulting in Canadians wanting to take a good look at where they came from.
Many probably wonder what the Archives really is. Many see it as just an institution that has a huge collection of papers. It is much more. It is charged with the acquisition, conservation and management of historical records, as well as the management of federal Government records. Its mandate includes the provision of administrative, financial, personal, exhibition and conservation services to the National Library of Canada. It is a vital link to our past. The Archives is an important cultural depository for our country, something our ancestors realized when creating this wonderful institution in 1872.
Let us just for a minute look at the value of census records. When an individual's life is touched every ten years the highs and lows of his life can be pinpointed. The few facts entered on a census schedule can bring an obscure name in a family bible back to life. For example, 1871 census documents show that in that year Jacob Levy, a 43 year old German Baptist, was living in a tiny Nova Scotia fishing village, working both the land and the sea. Sixteen years earlier his English wife, Susan, had her first child at age 13. Both were uneducated, but their toil provided for and fed six children, four boys and two girls. The younger four, age 7 to 13, attended school. No physical or mental infirmities were reported. We can trace this 10 years later to find that Jacob still lived in Tancook but his three oldest, two men and a woman now, had moved away. The two boys still at home considered themselves fishermen.
This basic story was derived from only three hours spent at the Archives. I personaly handled those record books, with

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
their hand-written ledgers, carefully recorded in a writing style that reminds me of the beautiful calligraphy that we study and try so hard to achieve in today's society. It was a moving experience and I suggest that if you have already not done so, Mr. Speaker, you should look at those musty files and take joy in the kind of precise nature and care with which our information was documented.
Through the Archives we are still uncovering vital pieces of our cultural and historical past. For example, everyone thought that our first Prime Minister, Sir John A. Macdonald, was born in Glasgow on January 11, 1815. This is what is stated at page 10 of The Young Politician by Donald Creighton. But that has been proven wrong. He was actually born on January 10. How do we know? Because a few years ago the Archives discovered Sir John A. Macdonald's birth certificate and it gave the date of birth as January 10. What difference does one day make? Absolutely none in reality. It is just the principle of the accuracy of the historical record. It is a footnote to history.
Many are aware of Sir John A.'s reputation as a drinking man. Many think that his favourite refreshment was brandy. That is not so. Particularly in his darkest hours, Macdonald preferred rum. How do the Archives know? It is simple. It has his old hotel bills which show that he ordered more rum than brandy. That is not world-shaking information, but it is an interesting detail that can be found in the documents when we produce the file on our heroes, not those of other countries.
Back in the colonial days, when the Bank of Canada was investigating French currency, it found that when the French could not print money quickly enough to keep up with demand, they cut the corners of playing cards and used them instead. I wonder if there will be a new Bill in the next Budget by the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson)-aces high or aces low?
An enormous amount of space is required to store more than a billion items, including 11 million photographs, maps and plans, and 365 million pages of federal Government documents that the Archives owns.
At present, the Public Archives' holdings are scattered among seven different buildings throughout the national capital region, in addition to the main building which it shares with the National Library on Wellington Street. Not only are these spaces insufficient, but the conditions within them, which I am sure the Minister knows, pose serious threats for the longterm preservation of the collections of historical record, information and knowledge about our cultural heritage. They are the background documents which define us as a distinct and proud nation. The stacks are overflowing in buildings which are not protected against humidity, theft, vandalism or water damage. As each day goes by, a lot of data, part of which is significant to our history, is being erased and is disappearing. It is not because the archivists do not care, it is because they do not have the resources to do their job properly.
I hope the Minister provides the needed funds along with the needed change in law for the Archives.
Added to this is the fact that storage space is being shared with other organizations, which also poses control and security
problems. Because holdings are spread among several locations, the records frequently have to be moved about. This repeated handling is another cause of damage, as are the changes in atmospheric conditions and contamination by insects. I sincerely hope that we can do something about this because the consequences of such a situation are disastrous.
During the last four years there have been no less than 45 emergencies. In some cases these were major floods causing irreparable damage and loss. In other cases it was a simple leak or recurring leaks that damaged the collections. Over the long term, the documents in the Archives are attacked by mildew, oxidization, dust, and unnecessary wear and tear.
Another threat is that of a major disaster like the fire that devastated the Archives of Concordia University a few years ago. The archival holdings were stored in a building that was also inadequately monitored and protected and which was shared with other services. Several years and millions of dollars were needed to restore those documents which were not lost. What happened so dramatically at Concordia University is happening here too at the Public Archives, but over a longer period of time. If it cannot be prevented, the result will be the same-the loss of our heritage about which we are so concerned. Therefore, it is not only important to have a new Bill, it is also vital to provide the kind of safe, humidity controlled environment, with a proper fire suppression system facility for the Public Archives.
Added to this is the fact that the job is continually changing. It is no longer a question of just simply saving and storing documents. The Public Archives has moved into the computer age. Incredibly, the computer records of the Government contain more than 10 times the data that is on paper. At present, there are no ways, except for pilot projects, to control and protect these records. They are continually being changed, destroyed and erased, and we do not know what is happening to the 2.5 million tapes and discs that exist in Government which could therefore result in the Government and public losing these electronic records, even though they have current as well as historic value.
In 50 years from now, if nothing is changed, we risk the possibility of the development of a big hole in Canadian history through loss and destruction. Canadians simply will not have the data to know how we lived in our present world. That is important, for that is what defines us.
The Public Archives stated its case very clearly to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs. It stated:
In democratic societies, the accepted practice has long been that the records of government be properly cared for, that the most important of these be permanently preserved as the Archives of the State and, with time, the public should have access to the Government archives.
Our Party is pleased that the Government is moving to update the legislation governing our Public Archives. Much of the Bill is acceptable and will enhance the role of this federal agency as the guardian of our heritage, ensuring that it continues to acquire and preserve public and private archival records of national significance.
June 6, 1986

The Government is seemingly of the opinion that this Bill is uncontroversial and should pass through the legislative process with little or no discussion. However, I have had representations from researchers and university scholars, as well as the Social Science Federation of Canada, indicating major defects which must be addressed. I heard the Minister refer to many groups from whom he heard, including the fact that he heard a few complaints.
I would like to thank Professor Reg Whitaker of the Department of Political Science of York University and read into the record his concerns as mentioned to me in his letter of March 10, 1986. He states:
Dear Ms. Finestone:
It has just come to my attention that Bill C-95, the Archives of Canada Act, which I believe would come before a committee (communications and culture) of which you are a member, contains some very serious implications for Access to Information. I further understand that the Minister responsible, the Hon. Marcel Masse, has indicated that he wishes this bill to be speeded through committee stage on the grounds of its allegedly uncontroversial nature.
In the hope that this will not happen, and that some of the implications of the Bill may at least be given discussion and publicity, I would like to draw to your attention the apparent problems. As a university scholar who has often used the records available in the Public Archives of Canada and who has had some fairly extensive experience in using the Access to Information Act, I Find some alarming features in this bill.
Sections 5 and 6 deal with records of government institutions and ministerial records. The general intent of Section 5, that such records should not be destroyed without the consent of the Archives, is highly laudable and is, I believe, supported by scholars who use government records as sources for their work. However, 5(6) stipulates that this does not apply in respect to a record containing information that was received in confidence from the government of a foreign state or an international organization of states or an institution thereof where the government, organization or institution requires the destruction of the record.
I will continue with the letter, Mr. Speaker, at two o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member. It now being 1.42 o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock p.m.
At 1.42 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: When the House adjourned at 1:42, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone) had the floor.


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I shall continue by reading a letter from Professor Reginald Whitaker, from the Policital Science Department, Arts Faculty, York University, who wrote to me about certain constraints of the Act which he Finds serious and which he hope will be eliminated through amendments at the committee stage.

Mr. Whitaker states:
Section 6 stipulates the transfer to the care and control of the archivist of government records-with the following exception indicated in 6(4)... "any
Archives of Canada
record that contains information related to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive or hostile activities that was obtained in confidence from the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof, unless the government, organization, or institution consents to the transfer of the record to the Archivist."
The language of these exceptions is very sweeping, especially 6(4). In the case of both clauses, I would particularly note that the reference is to "any record that contains information-obtained in confidence". In other words, this refers not merely to communications from foreign governments or organizations, but internal Canadian government records containing information obtained from foreign sources. The categories of "international affairs", the "defence of Canada" or its allies, and internal security, are, I am sure you appreciate, very broad, or can certainly be made so by a government wishing to withhold information. Moreover, a government department or agency which wished to destroy certain records could ensure this by the simple expedient of recommending to a foreign Government that they require destruction or withhold transfer. In short, what begins as an apparent exercise in entrusting all Government records to the Archivist, ends in creating a loophole which could be misued to undermine the intent of the sections.
The Access to Information Act, which the Archives must itself apply to all government records requested by its users, already stipulates a series of exclusions, including the matter of consent of foreign governments to releasing communication originating from outside Canada. The effect of this bill would be to prevent the Archives ever receiving such documents, and much more besides. In the case of documents disposed of or destroyed, they will then of course be lost forever from the historical record of Canada, thus precluding their eventual release after the passage of years and the consent of foreign governments to the release of documents which may by that stage be of merely historical interest. I am sure you can appreciate the serious consequences from the point of view of scholarship and of the heritage of historical documentation which the Archives are supposed to protect.
I am sure that is not what the Minister intends, knowing his deep interest and appreciation for our culture and history. Mr. Whitaker continues:
There is yet one more exception which can be taken to this legislation. 6(4) exempts the categories of documents listed from the effect of 6(1 )(b) and 6(2). The latter indicate that the Governor in Council may make regulations or directions, and prescribe terms and conditions, for the transfer of records to the control of the Archivist. This would appear to mean that in the case of records containing information received from a foreign source which desires destruction of the document, the Governor in Council is prohibited from intervention in the matter.
I do not think that is what the Government, the Cabinet or the Privy Council wants.
In short, an arrangement made between a Government department and a foreign Government would constitute the final word: the Government of Canada thus transfers discretionary power over the disposition of its own records, by statute, to its own bureaucrats and foreign Governments-
I think today was a fine indication of how dangerous that can be.
-and specifically indicates that it cannot intervene under any circumstances. The language here is somewhat confusing, but the implications should be examined at some length.
In closing, I would urge you to raise these concerns at committee stage.
It would be a very dangerous precedent if a bill containing such provisions were to slip through an unsuspecting Parliament under the guise of being uncontroversial. There are already enough loopholes and exclusions to the Access to Information Act; this will only make matters much worse yet for freedom of information in Canada, and could undermine the laudable goal of making the Archives the custodian of the historical record as related to the documents of the government of Canada.

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
To add to the record, it is important to note that the chairperson of the Archives Committee of the Canadian Historical Association which represents some 1,600 professional historians and researchers across Canada is also concerned about certain provisions of this proposed Bill. They wish to see it modified and they are prepared to appear and make representations for the needed changes before our committee.
The Social Science Federation of Canada in correspondence with me indicates serious concern in that Bill C-95 limits the jurisdiction of the Archivist to those institutions listed in Schedule 1 of the Access to Information Act and in the Schedule to the Privacy Act. Consequently, records of royal commissions and national institutions such as Air Canada, the CNR and the CBC, would not be covered. Unless the Archivist is given jurisdiction over the records of these national agencies, there is the real possibility that invaluable records of Canada's cultural past may be dispersed or simply destroyed. Similarly, Clause 5(1) of the Bill subjects the jurisdiction of the Archivist to other statutory provisions such as privacy and access to information legislation.
The problems which these new provisions can create for researchers are demonstrated by the passage of the Young Offenders Act which required the destruction of all case files related to juvenile delinquents retroactive to 1908. Experiences of a similar nature came to the public attention with the destruction of immigration files which were needed during the Deschenes Commission hearings.
In our view, such wholesale destruction of records virtually precludes in-depth scholarly assessment of the new judicial initiatives embodied in the Bill and required for informed decisions on future public policy. Moreover, there already exists under the Privacy Act a provision whereby the head of an agency of the Government of Canada may release to a researcher personal information, provided that the researcher gives a written undertaking not to publish his or her results in such a way as to constitute an invasion of personal privacy.
We believe that such a system should be extended to all personal information collected by the Government of Canada and that all statutory provisions requiring the non-release or destruction of such records should be amended by the new Archives Bill so that the Archives will have the final authority to decide what records are to be preserved, always subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act concerning the release of personal information. What must be avoided is the complete destruction of important records until their value to policy analysts and researchers can be assessed through the Chief Archivist.
Bill C-95, the legislation being proposed as a mandate for the Archives of Canada, has several links to access to information and privacy legislation. It is worthy to note that the implementation of the access to information and privacy
legislation has had a significant impact on records management in federal institutions. Though the value of sound records management has long been recogized by government institutions as an administrative necessity, and sometimes a nightmare, there has been a heightened awareness of this need in order to meet the requirements of this legislation.
Descriptions of all classes of information as well as decisions on access to them is difficult where records are not adequately organized within a corporate records classification system. Furthermore, each government institution is required to compile schedules or timetables which list their record holdings, the period of time the information must be retained for its administrative value and the ultimate disposal of each file, whether through destruction or transfer as an archival record to the Public Archives. Such records retention and disposal schedules must be approved by the Archivist. Much work remains to be done by government institutions in the scheduling of their information which is the sole method that ensures that information is maintained and disposed of with due consideration for its administrative, archival and historic value.
Nearly everything remains to be done in computerized records over which records management has not effectively been extended. I would ask the Minister to pay particular attention to this absence of administrative codification.
As part of a code of fair information practice, the Privacy Act in Sections 4 to 6 sets out a framework for the collection, retention and disposal of personal information. Subsequent regulations, directives and guidelines establish that government institutions shall schedule personal information for retention and disposal in accordance with specific principles recognizing that the interests of individuals are to be protected. For example, personal information that has been used by a government institution for a purpose affecting an individual must be retained by an institution for a minimum of two years.
References to records retention and disposal schedules in regulations pursuant to the Privacy Act were developed to protect the interests of individuals as well as the standard values of information for use by the institution and for future archival and historic use. By directive, schedules for retention and disposal of personal information must indicate, once personal information has been designated by the archivist as having archival or historical value, when the information shall be transferred to the control of the public Archives. When personal information has not been so designated, the schedule must indicate when the information will be destroyed. Government institutions are directed to follow the records schedules they develop including the transfer of records to the Archives.
Although compliance by federal agencies with records management policy is being monitored and assessed by the public Archives through evaluations of records management operations and regular reporting to Treasury Board on the state of records management in Canada, much work remains
June 6, 1986

to be done. The Privacy Act applies to a greater number of Government institutions than the traditional number covered by the Financial Administration Act. These additional 50-plus institutions were, and continue to be, unfamiliar with government records management practices and the roles and responsibilities of the public Archives.
With the passage of the Privacy Act legislation, the Archives has been actively advising government institutions on the scheduling of personal information. The process of the scheduling of information was in place before the proclamation of the Privacy Act.
I see you indicating that I have just a few more minutes left, Mr. Speaker. I would like to be able to deal with Ministerial records and with Article II. I would also like to be able to address the microfilm unit which has now been done away with. I think that was a grave error of judgment and I hope it will be reinstated. As well, I would like to bring to the Minister's attention my suggestion with regard to archival communities. There has been a very serious error in allocation of funds, an error that could potentially impact on the goal we all have in mind for the Archives.
Archives are the apex of the pyramid from which all historical information flows. The modern state is the custodian of enormous quantities of information, and the expanding scope of its utilization is one of the strongest forces shaping society and protecting our identity. The archives that result are a source of understanding, like mirrors reflecting our past. The greatest possible openness in Government and in the archives of Government will ensure that the history that is written will be an accurate reflection of Canada's past. It is appropriate to recall Lord Acton's oft-quoted admonition: "To keep one's archives banned against historians is tantamount to leaving one's history to one's enemies". It is said that the archives are the soul of a nation. Our archives constitute a priceless heritage. We must protect them while there is still time.
In conclusion, in light of the rapidly changing information age of our world, we welcome the Government's action to bring in Bill C-95 as part of the review and updating of Canadian cultural policy. We see the Archives as key to the conservation, maintenance, enhancement and appreciation of our distinct Canadian heritage. We hope the Government will agree to amending the tight and restrictive areas I noted in the Bill, concerns over which were expressed by the very constituencies who use this fine Government service. We look forward to participating in a co-operative undertaking to facilitate the necessary amendments during hearings in committee and to enable passage of a revised and more accessible Archives of Canada Act.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, why are archives important for a society and, more specifically, why are Canada's archives important for Canadian society? In fact, the archives are the repository of the documentation used to write history. The archives are the basis on which we build self-knowledge, our political process, our economic and social life, in other words, sociology and the history of our society.
Archives of Canada
The present Archives Act was passed in 1912. Archivists, historians, sociologists, anthropologists and economists have been waiting for a reform and an updating of this Act for a long time. Since its passage in 1912, we have witnessed the arrival of computers and other electronic data preservation means. In addition, the quantity of documents to be preserved has increased enormously. The workload of the archives has become heavier. In the meantime, the curiosity of Canadians about their society and their desire for self-knowledge has not decreased.

We have before us a Bill which proposes the first significant law on the subject. Bill C-95, of course, addresses a matter that is extremely important to anyone who is concerned about the culture, history and sociology of our country. I will argue shortly that this proposed law is deficient in a number of areas and that it risks the suppression of some important historical documents.
In order to make my argument I will digress a little into the history of archives, into how important they have been, and into what function they serve. If we go back in eastern and western history to ancient Greece and ancient China, we see that historical records and archives have been in existence for a long time. Records go back to 1300 BC in China in some form, although mostly for ritual purposes. By the time of Confucius there was a change, and records were being used for ethical purposes-to award praise or blame. Writing the history of something then became a way of making rulers accountable for their actions. Of course this is extremely important in a time of tyranny. People themselves might not be able to react to the tyranny but the historical record would contain it. Therefore rulers had to be accountable and knew they would face the judgment of posterity.
It is not surprising that the preservation of records should become a state function, and that states would want to guard the ability to decide what would survive of their political history and other issues on which they might be judged. The keeping of records became a matter for severe penalties. For example, in a period of recession in China in the 3rd century BC, a decree was issued that all histories except those by imperial historians should be burned. People had to turn in their banned books on pain of death.
In the West we have an understanding of human nature which made it possible for people to develop the ideas that historical records could help us to decide what we should and should not be doing, that we could learn from the past, and that we could help make the future better. The notion that records of the past could be used to prevent mistakes from recurring is very well articulated by the time of Polybius. Accurate preservation and accurate recording became a matter of practical importance. It was not just an intellectual hobby; it was something which might even save society in time of great need.

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
The very earliest historians were in fact really sociologists because they were doing what we would call contemporary analysis. They were very leery of using written records, and I think the reasons for this are quite relevant to the function and role of archives. Thucydides, for example, wanted to interview the participants in the Peloponnesian Wars because he did not trust records. He said that the people who took records took little trouble in the search for truth, that they accepted what came first to hand, and that chroniclers composed their tales not to speak the truth but to please the ear. Thus we have the writing of history confined to subjects in which participants could get behind the written records and check out the facts for themselves until we had reliable archives.
It is not until the 16th Century that archives became the most commonly used basis for the writing of history. Scholars like ibn-Khaldoun and Machiavelli did not use written records very much. Thucydides and Tacitus relied on contemporary sources in interviews, with very limited archival sources. However, once we get into the 16th Century, we see historians like Guicciardini collecting their own archives, using extensively these written records, and giving historians from different periods a chance to assess the record for themselves because they had an adequate base from which to do it.
We see the very distinguished scholar, Jean Bodin, from the 16th Century, who accepted both the Greek idea that history could be used to infer from the past into the future and the idea that people would be judged on their record and would therefore attend to it. According to him, the fact of historical records would incite some to virtue and frighten others from vice. The Archives of Canada might be playing that role as well. We do not have quite the same situation with a Government with a majority of 210 Members; perhaps it is not quite the same tyranny as has happened in other countries at other times. However, the same principle holds, and let us hope that we have an archives which can incite Ministers of the Crown to virtue and frighten them from vice.
Much of Bill C-95 is very sensible and very reasonable. It is non-partisan and reflects a good deal of solid work. Certainly it is very acceptable to archivists, scholars, and the general public that has occasion to use the Archives. The very important new functions which the archives perform are set out-conserving private and public records of national significance and facilitating access to them. The Archives are to be a permanent depository of records of government institutions and of ministerial records. They are to facilitate the management of records of government institutions and ministerial records. Also they are to encourage archival activities in the archival community. There is a great desire among scholars to have greater co-operation between the Archives of Canada and provincial archives. Indeed municipal archives are growing in many parts of the country. Cooperation among the different levels and different functions is already developing. We hope that it will develop even more strongly.
As well as their function in the acquisition, conservation, and management of historical records, they also provide assistance to other institutions such as the National Library of Canada by providing conservation services, administrative services, and exhibition services. Of course this is extremely important.
There are a number of heritage programs within the Archives of Canada which I should like to cite very briefly. The first is that of historical papers and records or manuscripts with 60 million documents and 23,000 reels of microfilm. Another is historical and genealogical documentation, with more than 100,000 works on Canada and its history. Another is a national map collection with one million cartographic and architectural items in the collection. As well there is a national photography collection with more than 8.5 million photographs from government and from private sources dating from the mid-19th Century to the present. There is a pictorial documentation section with over 100,000 works, including paintings, drawings, and printed images of people, events, places, and objects. There is also the national film, television, and sound archives with an extensive collection of Canadian private and public sector film and films of cultural or social value, amounting to more than 60,000 hours of recorded and historically important speeches and interviews. There are federal archives with a microfilm unit with more than 36,000 metres of selected records of federal Departments and agencies. Finally there are film records with approximately 1,500 files of selected electronic records produced by the federal Government, as well as those created by private agencies.
There is an enormous diversity of functions, and we see in the Bill recognition of the expansion of the requirements of archives as a result of the different media by which recordings are made. All these measures are certainly sensible and will receive my support.
I should like to refer to a couple of problem areas. I begin by referring to subclause 5(1) of the Bill which reads as follows:
Except as otherwise provided under an Act of Parliament, no record under the control of a government institution and no ministerial record, whether or not it is surplus property of a government institution, shall be destroyed or disposed of without the consent of the Archivist.
This appears to give precisely what we want. The archivist will be the person who decides whether or not material ought to be preserved. Anyone who thinks that records should never be destroyed should be aware of the enormous volume of material. Decisions must be made on which items should be preserved and which ones will be and will not be of importance to our culture. It is the archivist who should be making such decisions.
However, once we get past subclause 5(1), we find some unfortunate loopholes. The preservation function will be interfered with if the Bill as presently drafted goes through.
June 6, 1986

Let's get on to Clause 5(5). It reads in part:
-the archivist shall have access to
(a) a record to which sub-section 69(1) of the Access to Information Act applies, only with the consent of the Clerk of the Privy Council-
This is one limitation as guided by the Access to Information Act. It is certainly not the worst. Let me read Clause 5(5)(*):
a record of a Government institution that contains information the disclosure of which is restricted by or pursuant to any provisions set out in Schedule II to the Access to Information Act, only with the consent of the head, within the meaning of that Act, of that government institution.
This is too sweeping a loophole. It is too broad. It is too vague and it is simply not acceptable. We start off with a very good purpose, that the archivist will be making these decisions, and then we see a whole lot of information simply removed from the purview of the archivist who will never even get to see it. Let me give you the specifics which are set out in Clause 5(6) which reads:
-does not apply in respect of a record containing information that was received in confidence from the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof or an international organization of states or an institution thereof where the government, organization or institution requires the destruction of the record.
This means in short that somebody else, not even the Government and not the archivist, will be making the decision as to whether or not the material can be destroyed.
We understand that when material comes from international bodies, they will want to have some control over it. This could include international organizations and information obtained even within Canada for which no undertaking has been given to keep it secret. To leave that out would be totally unacceptable. Some governments might want to keep information secret over a certain period of time but later they might be willing to have it released. The option to get permission for release of information, as a result of time changing a situation, in records that might have been destroyed will not be there. We all know that governments do change. Decisions that were made to suppress information may be unmade, and yet if Clause 5(6) goes through the option will not even be there to re-apply for the information because the material will have been destroyed.
There are some problems also in Clause 6. Let me read it:
6(1) The records of government institutions and ministerial records that, in the opinion of the Archivist, are of historical archival importance shall
(a) be transferred to the care and control of the Archivist in accordance with such schedules or other agreements for the transfer of records as may be agreed on between the Archivist and the government institution or person responsible for the records-
In short, this starts, as does the previous clause, in suggesting that the archivist is going to be making these decisions, that there is going to be this transfer of information. However, again, as with the preceding clause, you move down a little bit in the paragraph and you find a very sweeping loophole. In this case it comes in paragraph 4. We find this sub-clause which was supposed to be giving the material to the archivist:
-does not apply in respect of any record that contains information related to the conduct of international affairs, the defence of Canada or any state allied or associated with Canada or the detection, prevention or suppression of subversive
Archives of Canada
or hostile activities that was obtained in confidence from the government of a foreign state or an institution thereof or an international organization of states or an institution thereof, unless the Government, organization or institution consents to the transfer of the record to the Archivist.
This is clearly giving to foreign bodies the opportunity to make a decision that should properly be made in Canada by the archivist. Again, the wording is much too sweeping. It includes far too many things that might be very legitimate and important matters to have in our records.
I want to raise a couple of concerns in other areas as well. I will be very brief, but I do want to flag one other trouble spot that I hope will be addressed positively in committee, namely, the disposal of ministerial records. Canadian legislation has been quite backward in this respect. It is not as good as French, American, British, and I dare say the legislation of many other countries, in requiring Ministers to leave their records behind. Ministerial records are part of the political history of the country. It is quite proper that the Canadian public through the archives should have access to this material. It is quite important for scholars, as they reflect and go through the making of decisions that affect all of our lives, to have access to material.
Under the current wording of this preservation of ministerial records there are loopholes. Political records seems to be there in a very broad definition. One wonders how one could escape having political records of a Minister in the archives. So many things Ministers do are political or have a political component. It certainly leaves the area open to abuse. Too many things could be defined as political and then exempted from preservation in the Archives. It might be legitimate for some personal records to be kept separate. But we are aware of some boondoggles.
Ministers and other important personages manage to give their records to the Archives and then get an income tax deduction for the gift. That is something we do not want to see. If the records are ones that were made in the course of public business, they should never be considered the personal property and the prerogative of the Minister. This happens with other people as well who give such material to the Archives. Records of this type should be considered public property all along. That is an area we would want to see corrected.
The last area that I want to raise as a problem is in the nature of personal records. It seems that there will be a very blanket exemption of personal records, yet this includes matters that even quite properly could be used for research purposes in due course. I refer to one important example already given, records of juvenile delinquents. Records would not be available even for scholarly purposes even 50 years after the fact. Scholars have developed ways of handling these questions of having access to personal data by simply not permitting any personal references in their scholarly works. The material is quantified but access is permitted so we can understand and research social and economic problems. All

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
kinds of things may be advanced by having access to this kind of material. The privacy of the people can be protected. This is so in other countries and in other jurisdictions. We would not want to see a blanket exemption that is really not necessary for the preservation of privacy. It would though be a very important impediment to keeping good records and making it possible for social history to be written and understood.
We received a number of representations from people who work in the area of archives who told us they are very keen to have this new legislation passed. The Social Science Federation of Canada, however, has raised some serious concerns. The Federation asks for amendments "to make this new Act more attuned to the spirit of Access to Information and the needs of the users of the Archives of Canada". It made reference very specifically to the problems I raised with regard to Clauses 5 and 6 that these were blanket exemptions.
The Association of B.C. Archivists raised concerns about the lack of the resources of the Archives to fulfil its mandate. That is not a matter that can be addressed in a Bill. The Association said it would like to see the Bill passed.
The Canadian Historical Association which represents 1,600 professional historians asks for speedy consideration of the Bill. Changes are long overdue. That Association raises some concerns about some amendments.
A number of individual historians have written expressing concerns, particularly about the possible destruction of historical records. One very distinguished political historian, Reginald Whittaker, said that what begins as an apparent exercise in entrusting all government records to its archivist, ends in creating a loophole which could be misused to undermine the intent of the sections. That indicates just how seriously this loophole is considered by the scholarly community which uses archives. They are really experts in this area and we should be listening to them.
I began my remarks with some consideration of the use of archives in ancient times and I would like to conclude with a few remarks about the present and possible future ages. The concern that records, in fact, record the truth remains. The great novelist, George Orwell, made Winston Smith, his hero in 1984, an archivist. Winston Smith worked for Big Brother destroying inconvenient truths and substituting other, more convenient data. He was a hero, however, because he kept records of the truth at home. He wanted to preserve it.
What we need now is an act which will preserve our historical records and ensure, with adequate amendments, that the records are not destroyed or exempted improperly from the control of the Archives. I urge the Government to respond promptly and positively to the concerns raised by the scholars. If it does, I can assure the House of my support for this Bill.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, it is important to underline some of the points made by my colleague in this debate. As perhaps one of the few Members
of this House who has made use of the Archives here in Ottawa, and found them to be a tremendously valuable source for the economic research in which I was engaged, I find it very encouraging that the Government is bringing this Bill before us for discussion. The fact that the Archives have been governed by legislation passed almost 70 years ago perhaps indicates a lack of concern for the importance of the historical base of our country. I would like to see us counteract that by at least giving enough attention to the subject today on second reading so that we have a serious debate on the strengths and weaknesses of the Bill.
The Bill certainly has strengths. For the most part, it provides us with a new and streamlined structure for the Archives which I think will work well. Its weaknesses, however, are those which have, unfortunately, come to characterize this Government in a number of areas. The weaknesses have to do with access to information. In the matter of the free trade debate we have seen a constant struggle to try and hold back information from the public. We have seen government departments attempt to manage the news in the early part of the Government's mandate before it realized that that would be self-destructive.
While this Bill puts in place some potential problems, I think they can be corrected at committee stage so I do not want to get too passionate about them. Yet there are some serious gaps. This was pointed out to our caucus by concerned academics. They are the people, after all, who work with archives even though they are not, in the broader sense, the ones who benefit from the existence of archives.
I would like to now refer to some comments of the Social Science Federation of Canada. Social scientists of course include historians, economic historians, sociologists, political scientists and economists. All of those people must make use of the Archives as sources. Even physicists-


William Tupper: Read paragraph two.


Steven W. Langdon: Of what?


William Tupper: Your document.


Steven W. Langdon: My document is a letter from the Social Science Federation of Canada. Is that what you are referring to? The letter is the clearly stated view of the Federation, after looking carefully at the Bill, that it contains serious challenges to the spirit of access to information, as well as profound implications for academic scholarship. Yet the Government is apparently of the opinion that the Bill is uncontroversial and should pass through the legislative process with little or no discussion. That we question.
The Federation goes on to attempt to analyse the Bill and make a number of key points which have already been made by my colleague. The first is that the jurisdiction of the archivist will be limited to those institutions listed in Schedule I of the Access to Information Act and the schedule of the Privacy Act. We have recently had occasion to deal with the
June 6, 1986

Access to Information Act and we had to come to the realization that it is not a very powerful Act, to put it mildly. The Act sets up an information commissioner who can take the Government to court, in a rather lengthy process, to try and get information. However, it does not do what people like the former Member for Peace River, Gerald Baldwin, hoped it would do when it was passed. The implication is that records of royal commissions, and national institutions such as Air Canada, CNR and the CBC would not be covered.
For those of us who attempt to deal on a contemporary basis with some of these institutions, such as Members of Parliament, I think access to this information is quite important, as it is for historians and economic historians who are trying to understand the roots of some of these institutions. The roots of the CBC, for instance, is a fascinating subject. They flow from a great public campaign across this country to create an alternative to what was seen to be a dominant American radio system which was very much shaping our culture.
1 think for the general history of our country, not just for the specific interests of people who want to look at the history of the CBC, it is quite important that the roots of that institution and its continuing progress over time will be something that can be investigated through full records as established in the Archives of Canada.
One can make the same case, I think, with respect to Air Canada and the CNR. The CNR, after all, has been a crucial connecting mechanism throughout our country, and goodness knows where would we be if it was not possible in the future for the chief archivists to see to it that the records of the CNR, and this host of other Crown corporations that we can barely count, are able to be brought into the Archives for the work of historians in the future.
When we consider the question or Royal commissions, of course, we are dealing with even more central institutions in the history of this country. Some of the most important policy making which has taken place in Canada has taken place through Royal commissions, whether we go back to the Gordon Royal Commission of the 1950s with its efforts to first identify the problem of foreign ownership, or the Rowell-Sirois Royal Commission of the 1930s, early 1940s in which many of the problems of federalism within our country were sorted out. Royal commissions have been crucial parts of our intellectual and political history. To say that we should not permit archivists to collect the information related, for instance, to the MacDonald Royal Commission, will make it very difficult for people 60 or 70 years from now to understand the free trade debate that is presently taking place in this country.
In addition to these questions of the jurisdiction of the archivists themselves, the Social Science Federation raises, as my colleague has, a number of specific clauses with respect to the Bill. These clauses can be dealt with in committee. We have had some indication from the Minister that he is going to look with some favour on attempts to rewrite some of these clauses that are considered to be too restrictive, to emphasize
Archives of Canada
secrecy too much, and hopefully the result will be an opening up of some of these points.
We have to take quite seriously the conclusion of a group like the Social Science Federation when it says:
In our view such wholesale destruction of records virtually precludes indepth scholarly assessment of the new judicial initiatives embodied in the Act and required for informed decisions on future policy.
They are referring, in this case, to attempts to analyse the changes to our legislation with respect to young offenders, something which we would not be able to look at carefully in the future and try to understand, if this Bill passed in its present form.
Continuing, if I could, with the Social Science Federation's quite strong critique, they are also very upset about some of the exceptions which cannot, under specific clauses, be collected by the Archives. They indicate:
These exceptions are couched in a language that is extremely broad and sweeping.
They continue,
The Access to Information Act, which the Archives must itself apply to all records in the possession of the Government of Canada, already stipulates a series of exclusions-
These are extra exclusions over and above those that are included within the present access to information legislation.
It is not just Social Science Federations, the broad umbrella bodies which have contacted us with their concerns, but also individual scholars who have said to us that the gaps which are created in the collection of material for archives will be quite damaging to future scholarship in this country. I am not going to repeat some of the detailed testimony which has been put on the record already by my colleague, but the academic researchers who have made this criticism include people like Reg Whitaker at York University who has written, I say for the sake of some of the Conservative back-benchers, one of the most critical and devastating studies of the Liberal Party of Canada, thanks to his capacity to be able to make use of the Archives effectively and dig out the sort of information which demonstrated the kind of pressures which that Party was subject to because of financial contributions and other forms of influence from business groups throughout this country.
We are talking about complaints by people who have very serious reputations in this country and have helped all of us to understand better the political and economic history which faces us as a country. I think that their warnings should not be simply dismissed.
I hope that as we move from second reading debate we will have the chance in committee to correct many of these deficiencies which would in their present form leave the Archives without the capacity to collect a great deal of very important information which both enriches our history and helps us as Members of Parliament to understand the questions we have to deal with legislatively. For instance, I think of some of the material that I worked through in our Archives dealing with the early history of the trade union movement and the way its growth was very closely related to the development of certain larger-scale corporations in this country.

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
Some of that information which was available to us who were working in this area was obtained from private corporations, Crown corporations, information from foreign government souces and indeed information from the security forces. In the early days, of course, the trade union movement was considered a source of subversion in this country and was very carefully monitored by the RCMP. That monitoring is exactly the kind of thing which could easily be eliminated from the Archives of the future by the kind of gaps that exist in this legislation.
I hope we can give this Bill the kind of scrutiny it deserves so that the legislative committee can correct some of the gaps which these important social science groups and working historians have pointed out to us.


Mr. Edwards:: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my personal appreciation for the quality of debate today. We are having an excellent examination of this subject this afternoon.
I want to set the record straight on one matter. It has never been the Government's intention to move this Bill through the House with little or no discussion, as the suggestion was made. The only purpose, if there is general consent, is to expedite the Bill through the House so that the most thorough discussion can take place in the committee. Of course, we are prepared, as I assume the legislative committee would be prepared, to give total and thorough examination to the very valid questions that have been raised by Members opposite.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I was not suggesting that there was an effort to put the legislation through with little discussion. I was simply quoting the concerns of the Social Science Federation with respect to that concern. That is why I hope there would be a broader debate of the kind we are having this afternoon.


William Tupper: Mr. Speaker, I too want to compliment everyone who has spoken on this Bill, including the Minister who introduced it and those in the Opposition who have
spoken.
I am one who has had the privilege over the years to have used the Archives. Members of my family have indeed used it more extensively than I.
You may feel a similar sentiment to mine, Mr. Speaker, about the disappearance of the term "Dominion Archives" and "Dominion Archivist". I think it is a bit of a dichotomy, when we are dealing with an institution today that is responsible for the preservation of our history, to have such a noble term dropped from its name. However, I know that countries and nations of people must move onward.
I welcome this Bill. The legislation sets out the terms of reference for the Archivist and really brings the Public Archives into the 1980s by updating legislation that was introduced some 70 years ago.
I could speak at length about the merits of the Archives and the good work it was doing. My colleague, the Hon. Member
for Essex-Windsor (Mr. Langdon), spoke at some length about the Social Science Federation of Canada and some of its concerns about the Bill. He was correct in bringing those concerns forward and I commend him for doing so.
The Social Science Federation of Canada is composed of some 23 learned societies, one of which is the Canadian Historical Society. I want to quote from a document from the Social Science Federation of Canada dated May, 1986. The second paragraph on page 1 reads:
The SSFC is delighted that the government of Canada has recently tabled Bill C-95, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada, as this will provide a long-overdue replacement for the Public Archives Act of 1912. This new legislation will place the Archives of Canada, an institution so critical to the preservation of the records of Canada's past, on a much sounder basis. Equally important is the fact that the new Act would replace chapter 460 of the current Administrative Policy Manual and give the Archivist of Canada and his staff statutory control over the preservation and destruction of all records of the Government of Canada.
Not only should this ensure that material which ought to be preserved is saved from the shredder, but by extending the definition of Government records to include "ministerial records" the Act should plug one of the major loopholes by which important materials passed in the private domain and out of the control of the Archives.
While the proposed Act seems to represent a desirable change, and is one which we wish to see enacted with all due speed-
I simply wanted to read that into the record, in addition to what my colleague, the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor, related to the House with respect to the presentation of their concerns.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Does the Hon. Member for Essex-Windsor wish to comment?


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, I have no disagreement with what has been said, except to make the point that the key feature which has been part of the communication we received from the federation is its statement that the Bill contains major defects which it would like to bring to our attention. I believe the federation's intent is to make certain that the positive aspects which have been noted by my colleague are carried through while, at the same time, the defects are corrected and that hopefully we will be able to set that as an objective for the legislative committee stage of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East rises on a question or comment?


William Lesick: Debate, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We are still on questions or comments. Are there any further questions or comments? Debate.


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure and honour for me to speak to Bill C-95, an Act respecting the Archives of Canada and records of government institutions of Canada and to amend the Copyright Act. It is time that we cleared the dust and removed the cobwebs from the legislation of 1912 by replacing it with this Bill which is long overdue. I am very proud that our Government has seen fit to take this step.
June 6, 1986

This afternoon, the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) spoke eloquently on this Bill. It was certainly worthwhile to have the opportunity to discuss this legislation earlier in the committee and then speak to it today. Certainly, changes are necessary. But what I would like to speak about primarily is what this Bill means to Canadians. I believe this Bill reaches out to Canadians because Canadians in general have been far ahead of our archives. Since 1967, 100 years after Confederation, the people of Canada have looked to their past and glorified in what they found. Since that time there has been a virtual blossoming and bursting out of a desire on the part of Canadians to know our past. Who are we? Where have we come from? What have others done before us to bring us to where we are today?
Multiculturalism blossomed some 20 years ago or less. People wanted to know about their past, where they came from. People from different nations brought with them their legacies which are now part of Canadianism. If it were not for our archives, we would not know about our past. Therefore, it is important for us as Canadians not to hide the past, but to remove the dust, learn about the past and understand where we are today. People of many different racial origins who make up our Canada are gathering all the information they possibly can and putting it into museums, both small and large. There is a proliferation of museums all across the country, and that is to the credit of Canadians. We have a museum in Edmonton East of early Canadians of Ukrainian origin. It is an absolute delight to see young people gazing at what their grandparents and great-grandparents wore, and seeing what they looked like. There are pictures, clothes and everthing else found in a museum of that nature.
It is important that we preserve and understand our origins. Our museums are virtually a living history. I wonder how many of us have slept in a homestead. I have done so many, many times. It is a home made of logs with a mud ceiling, possibly a foot thick, and whitewashed mud walls. That is where our forefathers slept when they first arrived in Canada. How many young people know about homesteads? We talk of archives and all the governmental archival materials which are necessary to be stored and kept for posterity. But then there are the other archives of the people of this country, and that is what I wish to address. In Edmonton there is a Pharmacy Archives Committee which has been active for some 25 years. I have had the pleasure of being part of it for the last 24 years. We have videotaped senior pharmacists in their 70s, 80s and early 90s, because today they are living historical figures. Since we started the videotaping of senior pharmacists some five years ago a number of them have passed away but we have the picture, sound, and story preserved and kept for posterity. We gave a copy of these videotapes, for instance, to the Glenville Foundation in Calgary for its records. We passed
Archives of Canada
them on to the Alberta Museum, to the Pharmacy Museum and to the University of Alberta so everyone, everywhere, can see what our early people were like.
It is very important that this Bill will now catch up with the people who have gone ahead. The previous Bill did not provide for new archives and record management policies which have been developed since 1945 in response to the growing size and complexity of the federal Government. It did not provide for a Canada-wide leadership role by the Public Archives in the areas of professional, technical and financial assistance to the archival community. It did not provide authority for the important international role played by the Public Archives. There are many other areas which were not addressed in the present responsibility of the Archivist. However, Clause 4(2)(&) of the new legislation states:
Co-operate with and undertake activities in concert with organizations interested in archival matters or the management of records by means such as exchanges and joint projects;	^
And Clause 4(2) (/) states:
Provide professional, technical and financial support in aid of archival activities and the archival community;
What is so important about the Bill is that it will combine the archives here in Ottawa and in the seven offices throughout the country, including Edmonton, together with what the people of our country have done, in order to bring history to the fore, to enable us to understand what has happened in the past, to understand the present and, therefore, to plan for the future. This proliferation throughout the country, together with the new Bill, I believe will provide a tremendous impetus to work on archival materials throughout the country.
We are going to have to study this Bill and it will be discussed thoroughly in the legislative committee. Hon. Members opposite have spoken out eloquently in favour of this Bill, but have pointed out some areas of concern. That is what the debate is all about and, of course, we do respect that. However, the Government has put this Bill before Parliament to bring up to date the Archives of Canada Act. The revisions will allow the archives of Canada to work in concert with other countries and to exchange archival material so we can better understand what we have in our country. I would also like to quote Arthur G. Doughty who said: "The archives are the soul of their people".


Sheila Finestone: Mr. Speaker, I would like the opinion of my hon. colleague. I wonder if he could tell us if the Bill clearly defines what the Archives is mandated to collect? The Hon. Member started out making certain observations about the importance of the maintenance of our multicultural history, and I could not agree more. I so stated in my own speech. However, does the Hon. Member believe that the Bill outlines strongly enough what is acceptable and what is unacceptable? What must the Archivist consider in order to accept or reject materials being offered?

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada


William Lesick: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for her question since it is a relevant one. It is the duty of people to collect all materials that they possibly can in concert with the archivists and officials at the seven offices in the country. In this way they can determine what is important. There are also provincial archives and provincial historical societies which look over materials to see what is relevant and what is not. I suggest that most important is the fact that there is a collection. We are making an effort to understand where we come from and how we managed 50, 60, 100 years ago and more.
What is relevant? Whatever is good is relevant. Archivists can tell us, but it is something which has to go back to the people since if it is relevant to the people, it is more important.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, it is also my pleasure to participate in the debate this afternoon. The Public Archives is not something on which we place too much importance when we are here in the House of Commons. When we are here we are more concerned about getting things done today and tomorrow. There is perhaps the odd Member of Parliament who is concerned about preserving the record of his or her actions for future generations.
There are a number of interesting questions which come up when one starts to think about the Archives and the importance it has in our history. A year or two ago I was invited to the opening of an exhibition of a private collection which had been donated by a Canadian citizen to the Public Archives. As I recall, it was the collection of Mr. Jacob Lowe. It is a collection of Judaic art which Mr. Lowe had collected throughout his lifetime in his travels throughout Europe and the rest of the world. After the holocaust he rummaged around in antique shops and in destroyed synagogues buying objects from art collectors and private individuals. He put together a collection which is really remarkable. It is a unique collection in the world. There is probably no other private collection which parallels or comes anywhere close to the collection put together by this one individual. He decided to donate his collection to the Archives. His donation was accepted and has now become part of the historical record concerning the heritage of our country. In reflecting upon this Bill I was reminded of the exhibition and the collection of Mr. Lowe.
The question which came to my mind was with respect to the criteria used by the Archives in deciding whether or not to accept the collection of a private individual for inclusion in the Public Archives. Undoubtedly, there are all kinds of people who would like to see their records placed in the national Archives. I am sure that what the Archives accepts is probably only a small percentage of what is offerred. Undoubtedly there are historical standards, probably even international ones. Undoubtedly there are conferences held to determine what constitutes a matter or an item for inclusion in the Archives. Nonetheless, perhaps it is a question which we could ask during the consideration of this Bill in the legislative committee. It would seem appropriate to include several of these
considerations or criteria in the Bill to establish the Archives of Canada. Perhaps there is even something in the Schedule. I have looked through the Bill and I have not been able to find anything in that regard at this point.
I understand that when a private collection is given to the Archives there may be some tax considerations which the individual making the contribution may receive in terms of a tax benefit from the Government. Perhaps those aspects are covered in the Income Tax Act. Again, perhaps it would be appropriate to ask questions of this nature during the deliberations of the Bill in committee.
We know that the Bill will replace the present Public Archives Act which dates back to 1912. We know that the legislation before us follows the recommendations made by at least two recent reports, one by a consultative group on Canadian archives, the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council, and the other by the Applebaum-Hebert Federal Cultural Policy Review Committee. The Public Archives of Canada is to become the Archives of Canada.
Looking through the Bill we see that it is much more detailed than the present legislation. In addition to acquiring records, the object and functions of the Archives as outlined in Clause 4 of the Bill set out more modern concerns such as providing access to records, providing information, consultation, research and other services related to the Archives. Also as part of the objects of the Archives we find a clause dealing with the ability or the power that is given to the Archives to make information known about the Archives by such means as publications, exhibitions and the lending of records. Much of this legislation will simply implement many of the things that the Archives is doing today but which were obviously not foreseen in 1912 when the original legislation was passed.
We in this Party have concerns, some of which were expressed by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Mount Royal (Mrs. Finestone), earlier this afternoon. I would also like to address myself to some of these concerns. I was happy to hear the Parliamentary Secretary state earlier that the Government and Government Members are disposed to having a careful study of this legislation in committee with public hearings. Certainly Members of Parliament are not familiar with all of the arcane aspects of every Bill that comes before the House. We have to rely on people from the private sector or even Government experts in this matter. Certainly the experts should be given the opportunity to come before a parliamentary committee to express their views.
We have a particular concern with Clause 5 which deals with the records of Government institutions and ministerial records.

Earlier I heard the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) say that the Bill prohibits "the destruction of government and ministerial records, except in certain cases".
June 6, 1986

Well, as far as the first few words go we agree with him that "the Bill prohibits the destruction of government and ministerial records", but we are concerned about the last four words: "except in certain cases".
It just so happens that we are wondering in what "certain cases" government and ministerial records might be destroyed.

In English, we sometimes refer to a clause like this as a Mack truck clause. It is the kind of a clause which has an exception that is so wide one that could drive a Mack truck through it. You, Mr. Speaker, probably more than I, know how big a Mack truck is.


Mr. Lewis:: I wouldn't touch that one.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, in fact we find that priority is given to any federal statute containing an exception which might clash with the general principle set forth in Clause 5 of the Bill. Frankly I think it should be the other way around, that this Bill on the Archives of Canada should have precedence over any federal law, excluding of course the Access to Information Act and the Privacy Act.
It seems to me it would be quite normal to insist that this legislation, the Archives of Canada Act, should have precedence, and that all other federal statutes be subject to this Bill or the Archives of Canada Act, not the other way around.
However, it is obvious in section 5, where it says "except as otherwise provided under an Act of Parliament", that the opposite is true. Any Act of Parliament-


Don Boudria: Except as provided anywhere else.


David Berger: Exactly. "Except as provided anywhere else", as pointed out by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria, just about anything else can prevail over the Archives of Canada Bill.
It seems to me that the Government should perhaps reverse its priorities in considering this Bill, or give us an explanation for the way this Bill is written.
A bit further on in section 5, we find reference to the records of "a Government institution" and to "ministerial records" which come under the jurisdiction of the Act.
To find what this means, Mr. Speaker, we have to refer to the definition section, which is clause 2 of this Bill. There, we find that a "Government institution" means a Government institution listed in schedule I to the Access to Information Act or the schedule to the Privacy Act. We therefore have to refer to these Acts to find out if an institution is in fact a Government institution.

As I understand it, and as I think has been mentioned in debate this afternoon, records of royal commissions are not included in the schedules of the access to information and privacy legislation. Let us think about some of the royal
Archives of Canada
commissions we have known in the past year or so. The Macdonald Commission would seem to be an exception to this law. The Archives would not have the authority to get the records of the Macdonald Commission.


Sheila Finestone: What about the Caplan-Sauvageau Commission?


David Berger: My colleague, the Liberal critic for communications, has said that the Caplan-Sauvageau records would not be made available to the National Archives. All of the work and records of the Deschenes Commission, which is dealing with the very important matter of war criminals and is causing so much concern these days, may not be made available to the Archives of Canada because royal commissions are not listed in either of these schedules which define government institutions.
It was mentioned earlier today that Crown corporations like Air Canada, Canadian National and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation would not fall under the definition of Government institutions either. As well, Mr. Speaker, I would refer you to the definition of a ministerial record. We know that there has been some contention over what constitutes a ministerial record or a cabinet document. The Auditor General has been carrying on a running battle with two successive Governments and with three Prime Ministers over the question of what constitutes a cabinet document and whether or not the Auditor General should be entitled to have access to such cabinet documents. In spite of the ringing declarations made by the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) during the last election campaign who said that the Auditor General should have the right to see every single cabinet document and that he was going to open up the records of Government to the Auditor General, we have seen that those words have been harder to put into practice than they were to say on the campaign trail.
According to the Bill, a ministerial record is a record of a cabinet Minister that pertains to that office, but it refers to an exception which may prove to be much broader than the rule. It says that a ministerial record is a record of a cabinet Minister other than a record that is of a personal or political nature.


Don Boudria: Like Flora's letter.


David Berger: That is right, Flora's letter that we have been talking about in the House over the past couple of days, the memo from her Deputy Minister, would be considered a record of a political nature and may not therefore be considered a ministerial record.
These concerns and others have been brought to us by representatives of the Social Science Federation of Canada who, I understand, would like to appear before the legislative committee that deals with this Bill.

June 6, 1986
Archives of Canada
There are a number of other concerns that have been expressed relating to information that has been received from a foreign state or an international organization of states which may be destroyed where required by the foreign Government or organization concerned. This is a defect in the legislation at which we should like to look in the legislative committee. In general we feel that the Archives should have the final authority to decide upon what records should be preserved, subject to the provisions of the Privacy Act concerning the release of personal information.
Any exception to the rule should be carefully and clearly defined and circumscribed so that we ensure that important records relating to the political and historical life of Canada are indeed preserved, not shredded at the whim or will of some unknown and uncaring or perhaps caring individual. However, this is the general principle we feel should prevail. We look forward to studying the Bill in the legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired, but he will be able to respond to questions and comments, if there are any.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, we have had and continue to have an excellent exposition of the issues this afternoon. It is probably a Friday afternoon which could stand out perhaps not in terms of an immediate resolution of the issue but certainly as a thorough exposition of the issues.
I have a number of brief comments and a question for the Hon. Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). Could he describe what kinds of documents he would prefer to see preserved? I think we are getting to the edge of the argument here by dealing with areas such as documents related to alliances with foreign Governments. We are also getting into the area of ministerial documents. I think the Hon. Member correctly pointed out that personal and political documents should be excluded. In any event, I am certain that at some point when he concludes his long and rewarding parliamentary career he might want to have certain items removed from circulation and not necessarily preserved for posterity. I should like to have his views on that point.
Before obtaining those views, I should like to point out that we have a great need for the preservation of a tremendous volume of records. For example, as the Minister pointed out earlier, we have the unfortunate situation where many computerized records are not now provided for in terms of preservation. We have new and distinct characteristics which identify us as Canadians which must be codified and preserved, such as our unique national traditions of bilingualism and multiculturalism, our unique parliamentary system and our public institutions. Of course these are parts of our collective memory, and it is one reason it is essential to have the value which is inherent in this statute as part of our legislative mandate.
I would be most appreciative if the Hon. Member could describe the kinds of documents he would prefer to see preserved. Would he want to have any personal and political documents excluded? Would he concede that there are some
security considerations particularly when the laws of foreign Governments and our international treaty obligations might otherwise prevent the publication of such documents?


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I would like simply to take note of the Hon. Member's observations. I understand that there are other Hon. Members who want to intervene in the debate this afternoon. I also understand that we will have an opportunity to discuss those questions in committee.


James (Jim) Stewart Edwards: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that the Hon. Member wants to enrich the activities of the committee as much as possible, but I ask him not to deprive us today of his wisdom, of his sagacity, and of his personal opinion. I will refine my question to a very pointed one. Would he not concede that there are circumstances wherein a parliamentarian upon retirement would want to be sure that certain personal and political communciations were not part of the official record to be disclosed at some later date? Correspondence could be very personal and could be very political, as has been conceded. I ask that one, very pointed question.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, undoubtedly there are occasions when that would happen. We also have rules governing secrecy which require that records be kept for a certain period of years prior to public disclosure On occasion I think the use of 30 years has been the practice.
I could only point to the draft Bill before us this afternoon. It refers to records of a personal or political nature. What does "political" mean? It could take on everything, in that everything with which we deal is political. The exceptions could be so wide that it could encompass almost everything. It is necessary to have more precise definitions when we are drafting Bills. I would certainly be interested in obtaining a definition or an explanation of the term "political nature" when we reach committee stage.
The Hon. Member mentioned alliances with foreign Governments. I should like to refer to subclause 5(6) of the Bill which indicates that records cannot be kept by the Public Archives when information was received in confidence from the Government of a foreign state. What does that mean? All it means is that the President of the United States, the International Trade Commission, or whatever-and we can think of the current foreign trade negotiations-can stamp "confidential" on memos and request that they be destroyed, and none of the documents would ever go into the Public Archives. I think we will have to obtain an explanation of what all this means in committee. Otherwise, the exceptions will be so broad that pretty well everything will be excluded from the jurisdiction of the Archives of Canada.


Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, the question about what kinds of documents will be excluded requires some very careful definition. Cne area which I did not go into in my own remarks but about which I am concerned is the royal commission exclusion, to which other Hon. Members have referred. Of course it may involve very sensitive documents, but they are absolutely vital to the formulation of public policy.
June 6, 1986

I was disappointed to see the Parliamentary Secretary start to defend the notion that there are many documents which would have to be secret and confidential and would not properly be in the Archives. I am sorry to see that happening already. There are exemptions already, but I wonder how extensive those exemptions should be.
For example, we know that the RCMP keeps as confidential files on the Winnipeg general strike of 1919, a very long time ago. It is difficult to imagine that there are current security matters which could be jeopardized from files dating back to that period of time. Certainly we have agencies which are exccessive in how they define what material has to be kept away from the public and from the Archives.
I also think it is improper to raise the question about the files of Members of Parliament. We are talking about ministerial records, the records of Ministers of the Crown who are doing public business. The current definitions of "personal" and "political" papers being exempt are improper. One could imagine a narrow definition of "personal" being acceptable. However, other countries have addressed the problem more successfully than we have. Of course this wide open exemption for political records would be entirely unacceptable.


Mr. Nickerson:: Mr. Speaker, at one time this nation used to be known as the Dominion of Canada. It has now become customary to remove that term "Dominion" wherever it is to be found. I do not know why this has been done, but I have observed that the impetus comes largely from the Province of Quebec. Be that as it may, Sir, I would like to add my comments to those of the Hon. Member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Tupper). It would seem right to me that for historical purposes, if nothing else, the term "Dominion" should be retained somewhere. It makes sense to retain it for the Dominion Archivist. It makes sense not to change that name if for no other reason than that it has that right historic, archaic and anachronistic ring to it.


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I understand the question and comment period was put into our rules to facilitate debate between Members on both sides of the House and to allow Members from another Party a comment on remarks made by a speaker during his or her 20-minute time period. The Hon. Member has referred to comments made half an hour ago by another Member, and I do not think that falls within the spirit of our rules.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is a point of debate. I will hear the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson).


Dave Nickerson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, on that very matter that was referred to by the Hon.
Archives of Canada
Member for Laurier (Mr. Berger). He referred to the change of name in his presentation to this very House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments are now terminated. Debate.


David Bruce Daubney: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to take part in this debate on Bill C-95. The national Archives are an important and vital part of any sovereign state's nationhood. I am pleased to see the following codified in Clause 4 of this Bill:
the objects and functions of the archives of Canada to preserve private and public records of national significance and facilitate access thereto.
As a Member of Parliament with a degree in history from Queen's University, a fine institution whose own archives are an excellent example of many of the private archival institutions found throughout this country, and as a former user of those facilities as well as the Public Archives of Canada and as a Member whose interest in Canadian history continues, I am extremely pleased to support this Bill on second reading today.
I congratulate the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) for introducing the Bill and for his excellent speech. The Bill is not perfect but it is a great step forward from the status quo. A number of suggested improvements have already been articulated this afternoon, and I am sure in the clause by clause proceedings in the legislative committee on this Bill some improvements to the legislation can be made.
I would like to comment on the interjection made by the Hon. Member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) on the word "Dominion". I must share with you, Mr. Speaker, and again I am speaking largely as one who has some sense of Canadian history, that I too feel some regret at the disappearance of the word "Dominion" from so many of our institutions in Canada. We have another example today in Clause 3 which establishes the Archives of Canada which is to be under the direction of the Archivist of Canada. I am disappointed that in this vehicle for keeping our historic records the Bill will have the effect of doing away with the full title of Dominion Archivist. As one of the more impressive members of the Senate of Canada, certainly on the Liberal side, former Senator Eugene Forsey has pointed out on a number of occasions that the word "Dominion" is very much a Canadian word.


Don Boudria: It is in Psalm 72 of the The Bible.


David Bruce Daubney: As well as a biblical word, as pointed out by the Member opposite. It is a fine Canadian word and I think it is a shame that it is slowly and gradually, somewhat insidiously disappearing from our vocabulary.
I have had the pleasure of attending, as a local Member of Parliament, the National Gallery and the Public Archives not just as a student of history but recently to meet several of the hard working local archivists, many of whom are constituents

June 6, 1986
Indian Affairs
of mine. All the people working at the Public Archives are dedicated, hard working Canadians who deserve our credit and support and who, I might say, are working in very cramped and inadequate quarters at the present time. I have written to the Minister of Communications and to the Dominion Archivist about the need for new facilities for the Public Archives. I have also raised this issue before Treasury Board officials in committees of this House. I know the Minister is aware of the accommodation problems of the Public Archives of Canada. I know he intends to do something about these problems and will be having a new building erected in the near future.
There is also a problem in the off-site storage of documents and records. It is a very severe problem that will continue even after the new building is erected. I had occasion recently to visit the main off-site facility which is in operation at the present time in the downtown area of the City of Ottawa. This facility is in the basement of the old Journal Towers which was occupied by The Ottawa Journal, that late lamented newspaper that we in the nation's capital could always count on to give a fair, unbiased and objective view of public affairs. The Ottawa Journal is very much missed by reasonable Canadians in the nation's capital. In the press rooms on the third subbasement level are stored many of our nation's priceless treasures, the documents of many Canadian statesmen and many Canadian private citizens of great repute.
I was shocked by what I saw there a few weeks ago when I visited that facility. I saw papers of people like Sir Charles Tupper, a former Prime Minister whose term in office was only exceeded in its brevity by that of the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner), in facilities that are totally inadequate for storage. There are pipes on the ceilings which leak periodically and at unpredictable times. I saw the papers of a former Leader of the Opposition, the Hon. George Drew, a predecessor of mine in the riding of Ottawa West, a former Premier of Ontario and High Commissioner to the United Kingdom, where sewage from the overhead pipes had leaked onto the boxes containing his papers. I brought this deplorable situation to the attention of the Dominion Archivist and the Minister. The Dominion Archivist is well aware of the problem and has sent me dozens of photographs documenting other things. I urge the Minister of Communications to use his influence with his colleagues in Treasury Board to provide the necessary funding now, not just for a new building for the Public Archives of Canada but for the immediate securing of new and appropriate off-site storage facilities here in Ottawa for the storage of these priceless artifacts.


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


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a very brief comment and a question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. It being four 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 FOR PAPERS   INDIAN AFFAIRS CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN WESTBANK BAND AND DEPARTMENT OF INDIAN AFFAIRS AND NORTHERN DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin) moved:: That an humble Address be presented to Her Excellency praying that she will cause to be laid before this House copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings, telephone calls, studies and other communications during the years 1980, 1981 and 1982 between (a) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or any of his officials and Mr. Noll Derriksan or Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises (b) Mr. Noll Derriksan or Toussowasket Enterprises or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited and the Indian Economic Development Fund (c) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or any of his officials and the Westbank Development Company or any official or employee of the Westbank Development Company (d) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development or his officials and Mr. Ron Derriksan or the Westbank Indian Bank regarding Mr. Noll Derriksan, Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or the Mount Boucherie Trailer Park or any financial arrangements associated with the above (e) the Regional Director General for British Columbia of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Headquarters Economic Development Branch of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development regarding Mr. Noll Derriksan, Toussowasket Enterprises Limited or any official or employee of Toussowasket Enterprises Limited, the Mount Boucherie Trailer Park, Mr. Ron Derriksan, the Westbank Indian Band or the Westbank Development Company.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway).


John V. Nunziata: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It has been brought to my attention that the Hon. Member moving this motion is named as a defendant in a civil suit. The Member can correct me if I am mistaken, but as I understand it the action was filed approximately one month ago in a court of law. In view of that fact, I submit it is inappropriate for this House at this time to deal with this matter based on the sub judice rule. It would, in my respectful submission, also be inappropriate generally to discuss this matter for a number of other reasons.
I am advised as well that some very serious allegations of criminal activity have been suggested by the Hon. Member at a committee meeting on-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I do not think this has anything to do with what we are going to be discussing here today. The sub judice rule does not apply in this particular case. I hope the Hon. Member will not debate this any further and that we can carry on. I will have to rule him out of order.


John V. Nunziata: I have a separate point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is regrettable but if that is your ruling, I will respect it. Given that the case is before the courts, I think it is improper for this House to deal with it.
June 6, 1986

The second point I would like to raise is that I am advised as well that this matter is presently being investigated by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.


Some Hon. Members:: So?


John V. Nunziata: In a committee meeting there were allegations by the Hon. Member of attempted murder. He suggested corrupt practices by-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. member is bringing up something that has nothing to do with the debate today. Therefore, I recognize the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway).


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, first of all I must apologize. If I had known you were going to be in the Chair I would have made my motion much shorter. On the other hand, perhaps I would have put it in the other official language because you are becoming so practised in that language.
I should tell my hon. friend across the way that the supposed legal case has to do with parliamentary immunity. There have been three letters from the Law Clerk of this House stating very clearly that I do have parliamentary immunity, and it would then of course move to privilege. I do not think you, Sir, want to stop anyone from stating what they feel is the truth in this House of Commons.
Having said that, I would like to start my remarks by saying that in-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the Hon. Member will address his remarks through the Chair and therefore carry on with the debate.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: I do apologize. In 1982, as a member of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, I became aware of a very serious case of impropriety involving the B.C. Regional Office of the Department of Indian Affairs and the Westbank Indian Bank near Kelowna. My friend, the Hon. Member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King), was the first Member to become aware of the complaints involved here. He was approached by tenants and owner-lessees of several mobile home parks on the Westbank Reserve. The owners claimed the chief and band council were taking their authority from a 1977 agreement approved by the DIA, of which the owners knew nothing. It also became apparent that the chief of the band, Ronald Derriksan and his brother, Noll, were involved in some very questionable transactions and were receiving large amounts of money through the B.C. Regional Office, even though both men were known to be very wealthy. We wanted more information to determine if the Department was acting in an irresponsible manner and if, indeed, brothers Ron and Noll Derriksan were, in the words of the Hon. Member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), favourite sons of B.C. Regional Director General Fred Walchli and becoming
Indian Affairs
rich at the expense of other Indian bands and Canadian taxpayers.
As a result, I took the natural step of placing a question on the Order Paper, a notice of motion for the production of papers requesting correspondence and documentation between the Westbank Band and the Department.


John V. Nunziata: Point of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On a point of order, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: It is a point of privilege, Mr. Speaker. Indeed, we in this House have parliamentary immunity in order to facilitate debate. However, at this point the Hon. Member is alleging criminal activity. I dare the Hon. Member to go outside this House-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -rather than hiding behind the cloak of parliamentary immunity. There are limits.


Frank Oberle: Look who is calling the kettle black!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I find no privilege there.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I would ask the Hon. Member to hear me out.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Members are taxing the Chair. Take it easy. This is Friday, we still have a few more minutes to go, and I would appreciate it if Hon. Members behaved like Hon. Members, please.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I would just ask the Hon. Member to hear a little more and then he can make his judgment.
The question I placed on the Order Paper languished there for two years. It never received a response of any kind and I was put off by the Minister several times. During that time there were at least two major reviews done of the Westbank Band: A review of financial transactions and relationships between the band and the B.C. Regional Office, called the Hobbs Report; and a review of band by-laws, the 1977 agreement, and the activities of the band council, by a Vancouver law firm called Lawson Lundel.
Let me add that it was not just Conservative MPs who felt that this affair needed greater investigation. The fifth report of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs, in 1982, unanimously requested "an independent inquiry, specifically with regard to all activities carried out by the B.C. Regional Office in conjunction with Indian band members and officials of the Westbank Indian Band."
As I said, I received nothing from the previous Liberal Minister or his Department, and the information I have has been compiled through my own efforts and those of my colleagues.

June 6, 1986
Indian Affairs
Shortly after the election of September, 1984, I placed the same motion on the Order Paper. There was no response until, I should add, very recently when I received several reports, all of which had already been obtained, some from opposition Members.
The Westbank affair is before the House once more and I sincerely hope the facts I and other Members bring forward today will convince the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), and this Government, to seek a full inquiry under the Public Inquiries Act.
There are many aspects of this affair which bear investigation, but I will relate just a few. My hon. friend from Okana-gan-Similkameen will also speak on this issue, particularly on the injuries suffered by mobile home park owners and tenants.
One of the most outrageous aspects of this matter involves Toussowasket Enterprises, one of the questionable deals to which I earlier referred.
Here is the history. In June, 1973, Chief Noll Derriksan, by band council resolution, gave himself possession of a lot on Indian Reserve No. 9, the future site of his mobile home park. The BCR was signed by Derriksan, who was also band administrator, and his mother, Margaret, who was a band councillor. Derriksan then incorporated a company called Toussowasket Enterprises, which undertook to lease the land from the locatee, who was, of course, Noll Derriksan.
In August, 1973, Noll Derriksan also gave himself a lot on Indian Reserve No. 10. While it was noted in two departmental reports that the band was reallocating land to its members after an unsuccessful leasing plan, it would seem that there is a clear conflict of interest here. Derriksan, as chief, was allocating choice land to himself.
This was confirmed by Mr. J. D. Leask, former Director General of Reserves and Trusts, who said in testimony before the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs on December 1, 1982:
It is most certainly prohibited for the chief to sit in a council meeting, for example, and to vote or to be involved in a motion which allocates land, which may be allocated to him or to someone he has an interest in.
Let me add that this conflict of interest is minor compared to the many which follow.
Noll Derriksan then applied to the Department for a loan under the Indian Economic Development Fund for $72,000 in May, 1975. In March of 1976, the loan was approved for a larger amount of $197,000. There are several points here worth noting. Number one, the earlier loan application was approved at headquarters in Ottawa by Acting Director D. G. Meredith. Mr. Meredith later went into business for himself as a consultant, and one of his most important clients was to be Chief Ronald Derriksan. It is also noteworthy that the increase
of $125,000 from 1975 to 1976 was made despite the view expressed in the Hobbs Report that:
Available documentation is inadequate to determine if this increase is justified.
Noll Derriksan's net worth in 1975 was more than $1 million. In 1976 the Federal Business Development Bank approved a loan to Toussowasket for $170,000, taking as security a first mortgage on the property and Derriksan's personal guarantee. The Department of Indian Affairs took a second mortgage as security. It was found out later that Derriksan never formally surrendered his property, making the arrangement highly suspect because Indian lands must be surrendered prior to the registration of mortgages.
A departmental memo dated January 31, 1977 calls the project a retirement fund for the locatee, Noll Derriksan. In 1977, incidentally, Noll Derriksan's net worth was calculated to be in excess of $2 million. A departmental document prepared by Economic Development Officer Flora Benoit concludes the following:
This project has not provided any Indian employment, nor is it of much social or economic benefit to Indians, other than to its owner, Noll Derriksan.
In July, 1977, Noll Derriksan applied for additional funds for cost overruns in the construction of his mobile home park. Stewart Wong, an accounting consultant to the Department, prepared a report which was quoted in testimony before the standing committee on May 25, 1982. The report states the following:
It is obvious that the subject does not feel obligated to fulfil his agreement with the Department, not even a token payment has been received from Derriksan since dispersement of the original loan.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret but the Hon. Member's time has expired. Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member more time?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for International Relations):: Mr. Speaker, it is my pleasure to respond today on behalf of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie) to the motion presented by the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway).
I can inform the Hon. Member and the House that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has said he will table the papers as requested in the motion. I have been told that over two full files of papers have been examined to date, and it has been established that there are over 400 pages dealing specifically with the Hon. Member's request and that these have been carefully screened in accordance with the Access to Information and Privacy Legislation. Translation of the papers is now under way, and they will be tabled in the House as soon as feasible under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It is hoped the papers can be tabled before the summer recess.
June 6, 1986

Mr. Speaker, perhaps I may give the Hon. Member the assurance that we will do everything we can to meet his request as soon as possible.


John V. Nunziata: I do not know what shenanigans are going on here this afternoon, Mr. Speaker. We have a Member bringing a motion for the production of documents, a Conservative Member of Parliament, who speaks for ten minutes and alleges criminal activity and corruption against a member of the public and an Indian band, the Westbank Band in British Columbia, and then right after the Member speaks the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister stands up and says that he is going to produce the documents in the normal course.
It is obvious to all those who are watching that the Conservative Party is trying to use Private Member's hour in order to allow the Private Member to make statements, to attack another Canadian who is presumed innocent until proven guilty, to put those statements on the record, when that Member will not make the statements outside the House, when that particular Member knows that he is named as a defendant in a lawsuit and perhaps is trying to use this opportunity to influence a court of law. He is trying to put on the record allegations that are quite properly put before the court of law.
The Member knew, and the Government knew, that there have been several federal Government reports on this particular matter. I would like to point out and stress that the Liberal Party does not object to the production of the documents or an investigation into this matter. Very serious allegations have been made, and we believe it is important and incumbent upon officials to conduct a thorough investigation in view of the allegations that have been made.
Now, the Member who moved the motion knew that this matter is presently before the RCMP. The Royal Canadian Mounted Police have been asked to investigate. They are conducting an investigation, and having full knowledge of that fact, the Conservative Party today has conspired to allow this Member to abuse his parliamentary immunity, his privileges, in order to malign individuals.
It was also quite clear and obvious that the Indian Affairs Ministers had said last week or the week before, that the three reports in question were before the RCMP. It was also indicated that the Justice Minister (Mr. Crosbie) was considering holding a public inquiry into this matter. If that is the case, and this Government is already intending to hold the public inquiry pursuant to the Public Inquiries Act, why then are we going through this process here today? The documents should either go to the RCMP, the police, or to the person or judge who is conducting the inquiry. Why does the Conservative Government find it necessary to stand up, using the shield of parliamentary immunity, to allege very serious wrongdoings against individuals?
Indian Affairs


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I can answer that question very quickly. We cannot get the RCMP to do it because they cannot get a warrant.


Mr. Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: That is not a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I cannot hear the Hon. Member. The Hon. Member for Cariboo- Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) has the floor. I would like to hear his point of order.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Mr. Speaker, the reason the RCMP cannot move is that they need a judicial inquiry so that they can supboena evidence and hear witnesses. That is the problem.


Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would just like you to recognize that what the Hon. Member is trying to do is simply to interrupt my colleague and bring new arguments into the debate. It is no point of order.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: What is new about that?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Perhaps I might explain to the Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques (Mr. Guilbault) that I was reading a document to prepare myself for the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I tried to hear whether it was a point of order. It was not a point of order, neither was that raised by the Hon. Member. Therefore, we are on debate and I would like to recognize the Hon. Member for York South-Weston.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Member made some very serious allegations on April 15, at the committee. First, he alleged that Mr. Paul Tellier, who was Deputy Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development from 1979 to 1982, and is now a Clerk of the Privy Council, was responsible for criminal activity and for covering up the mismanagement of Government funds. The Member also alleged attempted murder.
I want to quote from that particular committee meeting. The Member, using his parliamentary immunity, stated:
Gentlemen, I have recently come into possession of a part of a secret internal document, which I have here this morning if you wish to see it, on transactions of the Westbank Band and the role played by DIAND. It is a sad tale of mismanagement of government funds, corruption, fraud, attempted murder, extortion and worst of all, a coverup by departmental officials up to the level of deputy minister.
I find that the height of irresponsibility, when a Member of this House-


Philip Derek Lewis: You are in a position to know it.


John V. Nunziata: -an experienced Member of the House-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I want the Hon. Member to know that he should not bring into the House a reading from a committee hearing. That should not be done. 1 will let him proceed because he is a new Member, but he has been here almost two years and he should begin to know that that is not done. I will let him continue in the time he has left.

June 6, 1986
Indian Affairs


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, similar allegations have been reported in the media. The point I am making is that there are allegations of wrongdoing against the Clerk of the Privy Council, who was a Deputy Minister at the time, against certain Canadians, and against the Westbank Indian Band. It seems to me that if the Hon. Member has evidence to substantiate any allegations he might have, it is incumbent upon him, indeed it is his duty as a Canadian and a Member of Parliament, to provide whatever evidence he has to the police and have the police, the RCMP in this case, investigate.
For the Member to stand up in committee and stand up in the House of Commons and make allegations in the middle of a lawsuit, when he is named as the defendant, is an outrageous abuse of his privileges in this House and it brings the whole House of Commons into disrepute.
The Government has been in office for two years. His colleague, a Minister of the Crown, has had this in his Department. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Crombie), the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), the Minister of Justice and indeed the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) know that these allegations are made by a member of their own caucus, but they are not providing that information to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police or appointing a judicial inquiry. I suggest that it is an obstruction of justice. The matter should have gone to the RCMP as soon as it was brought to the Hon. Member's attention.
I regret that the Conservative Party has found it necessary to do what it has done here this afternoon, rather than act accordingly and adhere to some very basic principles of decency and justice.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: What did John Turner do when he was Minister?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Philip Derek Lewis: Rat Pack number two.


Lorne Everett Greenaway: Rat number two. Where is Copps? All the others are there.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I hear some noise from across the way as I begin to make a few remarks on this topic. As much as I try to ignore that, as I know you would want me to do, Mr. Speaker, I cannot help but think about all those remarks that Conservative Members-


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it not customary for the Chair to recognize members from different Parties?


John V. Nunziata: You never stood up.


Frank Oberle: I noticed my colleague behind me standing up for debate. I thought that he would have been recognized.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I will recognize him after the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. There are only 10 minute speeches allowed. I regret that I did not see the Hon. Member rise, but I will recognize him next.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. May I first congratulate you for that excellent ruling on that point of order. I cannot help but remind myself of those very eloquent replies which the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) gave to opposition Members of the House on occasion after they had made allegations which were perhaps one hundredth as severe as those we have heard this afternoon.
I recall asking questions that did not involve judging a case, asking the Solicitor General to adjudicate on matters before the court, but simply asking him whether, for instance, a search warrant had been issued for an office of a Member of Parliament. I did not even ask whether that had been exercised because I know it falls under the authority of the Speaker. Yet, even asking those questions, the Solicitor General replied that if I had allegations of criminal activity to report, I should do so to the police.
Recently I reported to the House an allegation made in a Montreal newspaper concerning certain tendering practices of a Government Department. I was merely asking the Government to investigate this, but I was told again that if I knew of certain criminal activities it was my duty to report them to the RCMP. Those comments were made by Conservative cabinet Ministers in reply to published allegations in the newspaper that we were merely asking them to investigate. We were not making those allegations.
I can only assume that the Member who is making these allegations today must have been aware of how the Solicitor General, the chief law officer of the Crown in this country, expects Members of Parliament to raise similar issues. If he is aware of that, does he simply have confidence in his own colleagues or does he have a total lack of respect for our institutions? I do not know which of the two it is.
There are two issues before us today. There is the issue, of course, of whether or not the documents, as the Hon. Member has asked, should be tabled in this House. That is obviously what the whole motion is about. But I contend that that is not what the speech of the Hon. Member was about. One could stand here all day and ask the Government to table a document. So the Hon. Member from Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) rises in his place in order to ask that certain documents be tabled not just of anyone but of one of his own colleagues. All he had to do was to turn sideways and speak to his colleague, the Parliamentary Secretary, from a few feet away, and ask him whether or not he intended to table the documents. The charade was allowed to go on in this House, as my distinguished colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), pointed out, whereby an Hon. Member who knew, or at least should have known, that the documents in question were going to be tabled anyway, used the pretext of presenting this motion in the House to make accusations. We have to collectively assume at this point that all these accusations are wrong because the laws of this land do not permit us to think otherwise. I do not pretend to be learned in the law.
June 6, 1986


An Hon. Member:: You are not.


Don Boudria: I am not a lawyer. I have been told by learned parliamentarians not to apologize for not being a lawyer.


John V. Nunziata: Now, now. Don't go too far.


Don Boudria: But that is not the point. Most Canadians know, as I do, that we are all presumed innocent until proven otherwise. I am sure all the people named today in the House have that same presumption of innocence. To use the pretext of having presented a motion for the production of documents, documents the Hon. Member knew or should have known were going to be tabled anyway, to make these accusations, in my view, is wrong.
I could think of other words to describe it, but in keeping with our parliamentary traditions, I shall not. However, I will continue to think them anyway, knowing that if I were to make any remark which would be more severe, you, Mr. Speaker, being the diligent Speaker you are, would not tolerate it.

Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that our privileges as Members should be used in a responsible manner by each and everyone of us. There are a number of Members who on occasion have been accused of using their privileges for certain ends, and the Hon. Member opposite, the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister who just tabled-


Jean-Guy Hudon: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister for External Relations (Mr. Hudon).


Jean-Guy Hudon: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member opposite has incredible nerve and ought to mention the 10 times or so he used the same privileges to make all kinds of accusations he was afraid to make in the lobby of the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: This is debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


John V. Nunziata: On the same point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I just ruled that it was not a point of order.


John V. Nunziata: On another point of order.
Some Hon Members: Sit down.
Indian Affairs


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on another point of order.


John V. Nunziata: In stating his point of order, the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary imputed motive to my colleague-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Just a moment. I just ruled that that was not a point of order. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) has the floor.


Don Boudria: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, in the few seconds I have left I should like to tell the Parliamentary Secretary, badly informed as he usually is, that he should not say I raised the question of privilege about ten times, for you, Mr. Speaker, know full well that I rose twice on a question of privilege since I was elected in 1984. Only twice: once this week, and the first time about a year ago. But I will not say anything more about this because the Parliamentary Secretary probably does not know any better. But the fact remains, Mr. Speaker, that if he does not know anything about these matters he should at least know what is going on in his own department, and before the debate began on the motion this afternoon he should have warned his colleague that these documents would be tabled, thus avoiding accusations which should never have been made and heard in the House. I urge other Members to give their views on the motion under consideration this afternoon.


Mr. Fred King (Okanagan-Similkameen):: Mr. Speaker, it is a sad day, indeed, for the democratic process in Canada when a debate such as this must be undertaken. It should be totally unnecessary, considering the known background of the underlying issues, the amount of time and effort which has been put into seeking a resolution to the base causes of the problems and considering the fact that there is in effect a freedom of information law. Nevertheless, we are here and we are raising the matter before Parliament because we simply do not accept that we as parliamentarians should allow ourselves to be shut out of the information to which we legitimately claim and have demanded access for more than four or five years. Nor do we believe that a bureaucratic system should be able to thwart the efforts of elected Members of Parliament to bring about a measure of justice and relief to a group of persons whose wellbeing is being put in jeopardy by the failure of the system to fulfil its obligations to citizens with whom it has entered into a binding contract.

June 6, 1986
Indian Affairs
This is not a crisis which has just arisen. It was first brought to my attention more than five years ago. I have put the matter before two Ministers, representing two Governments, formed by two different political Parties. I have raised the matter almost every week for five years. During that time, the Ministers have changed, the Government has changed, even the philosophies of Government have changed. What has basically remained unchanged is the bureaucratic structure in the offices of the Department of Indian Affairs in Hull and Vancouver. That structure is the one common element which stands over the years as an impediment in the way of producing essential remedies.
At a meeting of the Standing Committee of the House of Commons on Indian Affairs and Northern Development on December 1, 1982, the problems associated with the Westbank Indian Band were the main topic. The witness on that day was a senior official of the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, Mr. Joe Leask. I ask you to note, Mr. Speaker, that the exchange which I am about to quote took place three and a half years ago. If I were to ask the people in my constituency, the people most involved and most obviously concerned, what has changed as a result of our combined efforts over that 42 month period, the answer, I am sure, would be: "Nothing has changed, absolutely nothing". Therein lies my frustration and the frustration of those people whom I represent in Ottawa, whose lifetime investments in money and effort are put in jeopardy by the failure of successive Ministers, acting, I am sure, upon the advice of departmental officials, to honour the terms of property lease contracts on the Westbank Indian Reserve. These leases provide the basis on which its individual businesses exist. Yet the breaking of such guarantees as "the peaceful enjoyment of the occupancy" are not just casually accepted by persons acting on behalf of the Crown, but in numerous cases are actually aided and abetted by departmental action or inaction.
Is it any wonder that people cry foul and suspect cover-up, conspiracy, collusion and worse. It is this circumstance which caused my outburst at the standing committee meeting on December 1, 1982, and which was recorded in Hansard as follows:
What really bothers me about the whole situation is that-it appears to me that the whole object of the department is to cover everyone's backside. The main reason there are delays is that there are skeletons in the closets; the last people who want them out are the people sitting around this table representing the department. That is the impression I get after harping on this for more than a year.
There is really no intent to bring things out into the open. Is there any place where the ordinary qualities of decency and honesty and integrity, upon which democracy must be secure-is there any of that in the department?
That statement was made more than four years ago; but the same facts pertain today. We are still being discouraged at every turn in our attempts to get information and to bring about change.
Not just MPs are frustrated. There is a dissident group of Westbank Band members representing more than 50 per cent of the band membership who have registered their complaints with the Minister and with departmental officials. They plead with me as their Member of Parliament to assist them in obtaining access to certain information which they believe it to be their right to obtain in support of their demand that the chief and council be removed from office. I have to tell them that we as MPs have no better success in getting information than they do themselves.
The question must be put, why? Why after five years of effort do the same problems exist? Why has nothing substantial been done to correct the situations which various inquiries have identified as immoral, illegal and which have been described in other equally damaging terms? That is what we are contending with and that is what we are trying to correct. While we have been carrying the message to Ottawa that things are out of hand in Westbank, that unworthy actions are being taken by band council in the name of the Crown, that individuals are being intimidated and defrauded of assets worth millions of dollars, again in the name of the Crown, what reaction do we receive from those responsible in Ottawa in the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development? The then Minister, the Hon. John Munro, in July of 1982 said this in the House of Commons:
-no one has provided the Department with information to back up the charges-not once have the Hon. Members turned over any names to which they are directing their allegations. They have not turned over any document of any kind substantiating any type of misconduct-
At about the same time Fred Wachli, Regional Director, B.C. Region of the federal Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, had this to say to the newspapers:
-a lot of allegations have been made about the band which have us baffled- from a review of our records there is no truth to them-
That is the attitude and position taken within the system.
I would like to note a few of the allegations which were in the hands of the Minister of the day and in the hands of the Department. The first is from a mobile home park owner. It is a sworn statement provided by a lawyer for a group which is suffering. This is what he said:
The band-has practised a pattern of intimidation throughout by demanding, for example, that a Lease Holder enter into a new Lease under threats of administrative abuses such as higher rents or refusing to consent to sell a leasehold interest. These actions have been reported repeatedly to the Department of Indian Affairs officials and they have not intervened in these abuses whatsoever.
The Band has published and distributed misleading documents to the detriment of the earning capacity of the leaseholders. The Department of Indian Affairs has taken no action-
The Department of Indian Affairs officials and the Minister have denied the existence of information which they have previously been given-
The Department of Indian Affairs acting on unconfirmed and unjustified information cancelled a lease in which the sum of $366,000.00 had been invested on the basis of false information and made no attempt whatsoever to confirm or deny the facts before doing so.
The following is from a prospective leasee on the Westbank Indian Band Reserve:
June 6, 1986

Chief Ronald Derriksan in dealing with a proposed development with myself made false statements to entice myself into a development... Chief Ronald Derriksan required a deposit of $15,000.00 before permitting engineering studies of the site ... The Chief agrees to terms and conditions of the lease but when lease is presented it fails to describe the agreement. When the developer refuses to sign the lease the Chief refuses to return the funds.
The following is from another prospective leasee who stated:
Chief Ronald Derriksan demanded and received a $5,000.00 deposit from myself and T.W. Foodstuffs Ltd. who were partners in a proposed motel site ... When the lease was presented it did not contain the agreed terms. Funds were not returned and therefore the project was cancelled.
There about 10 such instances.
In conclusion, I would like to read the recommendation was made by Mr. John Tennant of the law firm Lawson, Lundell which conducted extensive research into the situation of the Westbank Indian Band. He said:
-we recommend that a public inquiry and/or departmental investigation be authorized by the Governor in Council and/or the Minister. The person making the inquiry or investigation should have full power to summon witnesses, to require evidence on oath and the production of documents.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I guess I feel obligated to participate this afternoon in this debate. I qualify my remark with the word "obligation" simply because I think the House, with the representations from two government Members, has certainly lowered itself to a really sleazy, bootleg type of practice. What we have before us is really an academic exercise. A Member of Parliament from Cariboo has stood in his place and requested through his motion that correspondence and documents concerning the Westbank Indian Band in B.C. be released. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development stood up and agreed to his request.
As an individual Member of Parliament I have no objection to requesting and having released any type of documentation. After all, on behalf of all Canadians, that should be the normal course to follow. However, if the Hon. Member chose to pursue this through the House then one would at least expect that, if there was a sense of genuine decency on the other side, the debate would end there.
The point is also academic because I believe there was an agreement in advance of the debate that those papers and documents would be released. Therefore, I must ask the question, why was the debate necessary regarding allegations, criminal activity, fraud and assassination attempts? I think the asking of such questions brings the House to a level which makes it look ridiculous in light of the new civility promised by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and in light of the reforms which received the unanimous agreement of the House.
It is unbelievable and incorrect for a Member of this House-in this case two members of the Conservative Party- to make criminal allegations about individual Canadians on
Indian Affairs
the pretext of soliciting documentation. That should not be tolerated. It is unacceptable. I say that because we are witnessing today in this Chamber a double standard. When members of the Government Party stand up and speak concerning irregularities, conflict of interest or information that should be shared with the public, what we see is a number of trained seals who cheer the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen) or the Prime Minister in their attempts to block and diffuse. But they have more morality when it comes to controlling their own tongues and their own aspirations when they concern individual Canadians. They are quick to use this one hour of parliamentary time, under the pretext of acquiring documents, to deal with something that is already undergoing a judicial process. Members are quick to take the place of the RCMP and to pretend to be a jury. We should not take up the time of Private Members' hour with that when there are a number of important issues affecting the entire country with which we may deal.
It is no wonder that two of my colleagues and I have had the courage to rise to set the record straight. We do not argue with proceeding with this matter in the proper way. It has already been suggested that if the RCMP are investigating the matter, the Hon. Member and others have played their roles. They have flagged the issue and it has gone through the proper channels. If the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is considering initiating a public inquiry, the Hon. Member and his colleagues have done their jobs.
Hon. Members know that their cabinet colleagues are undertaking the proper investigations, and I question the sincerity and motives of individual Members who have risen to speak. I question their allegations that those on this side of the House simply want to block information. That is the furthest thing from the truth. We want to let the information rise, but we want to let it rise through the proper course of the law. We do not accept the shoddy, sleazy tactics we saw today during the course of Private Members' hour. We do not condone those tactics.
If Hon. Members are prepared to use this place as a court of law and are prepared to be jurors, where were they during the last two years when opposition Members raised much more serious allegations of Government improprieties? They simply cannot have it both ways. It is unfair and undignified for a Member of Parliament from that side of the House to make allegations about individual Canadians when other Canadians are already looking into the situation in the proper light. It is simply inexcusable that this forum be used in such a shoddy, sleazy way. It is intolerable that this should happen when the Prime Minister and other Hon. Members, with the support of all Parties, have introduced a reform into the House of Commons. Of course, Canadians who are seeing this mockery will laugh.

June 6, 1986
Indian Affairs
I am not opposing the actions of Members of Parliament from the Government side simply for the sake of opposition. I am getting pretty sick and tired of a situation which causes individual Canadians to ask themselves and me about the level of debate in the House of Commons. They have suggested that all Members of Parliament have taken on the characteristics that are attributed to some Members of Parliament who spoke in this afternoon's debate. We help neither the institution nor our colleagues when Members of Parliament are pretending to be jurors. They are asking for documents that it has been agreed would be supplied and then they are taking a backhanded slash at individuals while a Member of Parliament is involved in a lawsuit.
Once again, I wish to flag the double standard that seems to be coming from two Members of the Government side. It is simply intolerable. We would not have objected to having the documents tabled. That exercise would have taken less than five minutes, and the Hon. Member could have sat down after that. However, he proceeded to make allegations of criminal activity and to slander individual Canadians before a court of law has been able to make a judgment. That is intolerable and that is why we chose to rise in our places to try to set the record straight.
We wish to tell Canadians that we in the Liberal Party have no hang-ups over freeing information. We do have our problems with individual Members of Parliament who, rather
than having the courage to face those Canadians with their allegations, use their immunity to debate the allegations when other Canadians do not have the same recourse. It does not show integrity and it does not show courage. Canadians will measure that individual accordingly.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on the motion of the Hon. Member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion (Mr. Greenaway) agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Because the Government House Leader has announced the Business of Supply for Monday and Tuesday next, I have instructed the Table, as the Chair has done on all the previous occasions, to drop the two items of Private Members' Business scheduled for those days to the bottom of the list of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.
This House stands adjourned until Monday at 11 a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 4.58 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Monday, June 9, 1986