1986-02-05

Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, let me share with you a letter from a constituent who explains just how unfair and wrong is the Government. The letter reads as follows:
The logic of relating pension benefits, paid for and earned by a worker in a previous position, to unemployment insurance benefits to which the worker is otherwise entitled eludes me.
I am a retired member of the Canadian Forces drawing an annuity. I am, and have been since my retirement employed fulltime in a job in the private sector. I pay the same unemployment insurance premiums as other workers earning the same salary. In the event I left this employment-for whatever reason-the fact that I am drawing a pension from a previous career should have no bearing on my unemployment insurance benefits.
In effect, this proposal would force me and others in my position to pay a premium for a benefit to which I would not be entitled. It seems to me that this is hardly free enterprise thinking.
I might point out that serving members of the Canadian Forces pay full unemployment insurance premiums and this proposal could have a serious effect on many members who are forced to retire as early as age 50 and may well have no entitlement to unemployment insurance benefits, despite the fact that they have paid premiums for 20 or more years.
It is unlikely that much can be done to stop this proposal, as our current majority Government's cavalier treatment of the individual and the individual's rights seems cast in concrete.


Mr. Speaker:: May I ask the Sergeant-at-Arms to ensure that the doors to the galleries are opened, please?


MINES AND MINING
Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, on November 16, 1984, the Minister of State for Mines (Mr. Layton) assured the House that the people of Ear Falls, Ontario, would receive the same assistance and benefits made available to communities in Quebec which were caught in mine closures. It has been over 14 months now since the Minister made that promise. Approximately two-thirds of the workers at Stelco's Griffith iron ore mine have already been permanently laid off, with the rest to get the axe between now
and April, and this in spite of a major tax remission granted to Stelco by the then PC provincial Government.
Moreover, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) on November 8, 1984, announced that he would be providing tax relief for people facing plant closures, particularly in single-industry towns. Income tax time is approaching and the people of Ear Falls wonder whether the Minister of Finance will come through on his promise. The Minister has had the Ear Falls situation under study for months. The people of Ear Falls need and deserve an answer. They need it now.


CHILDREN
Mr. Dennis H. Cochrane (Moncton):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of the House the life struggle of a young boy and the response of Canadians to this human tragedy.
One-year-old Patrick Drisdelle of Moncton died Sunday in Boston after a valiant community effort to raise funds to provide the necessary medical care for a successful liver transplant. Although a donor was found, two subsequent operations were necessary and the liver failed to function, leading to the tragic end of a long and hard-fought battle.
I am sure other Members of the House join with me in expressing our sympathy to Roland and Cheryl Drisdelle and their family. Patrick's fight for life leaves me and others torn between feelings of sadness and pride, sadness because, despite the best efforts of all, Patrick's struggle was lost. The feeling of pride emanates from the tremendous moral and financial support provided by the people of Greater Moncton and throughout Canada. This tragedy has once again brought the kindness and compassion of Canadians to the fore. I take particular pride in the response of our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney). Not only did he call personally to express his condolences, he also facilitated immediate arrangements by providing staff assistance and transportation to the family.
Mr. Prime Minister, I appreciate your thoughtfulness, which I know expressed to the Drisdelle family the thoughts of a number of Canadians who shared their grief. Your understanding and sympathy exemplified the sorrow felt by many who were touched by Patrick's fight for life. Your actions, and those of the many people involved in Patrick's struggle, reaffirm the ability of the Canadian people to open their hearts in a united effort on behalf of a child in need.

February 5, 1986


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Andre Harvey (Chicoutimi):: Mr. Speaker, Opposition Members continue to undermine the confidence of all Canadians, traipsing through our ridings and doing phoney consultations on a number of issues to which our Government has already begun to respond constructively.
They talk about fair taxation but conveniently forget to say that ours is the first Government to impose a minimum tax on the rich whose additional $300 million tax contribution will go a long way towards helping widows and funding our already successful employment programs.
They keep harping on employment yet shy away from admitting that our Government has set a record-25,000 new permanent jobs every month, against 1,200 created by the Liberals over their last five years.
Gas prices are the current topic. The numerous measures taken by our Government in the past twelve months are common knowledge, but our Opposition colleagues would rather not tell Canadians that the provincial tax in Quebec will go up by 16 cents while the federal tax will increase by only 6.9 cents.
1 hope the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) will lead his bus load of protesters to the Quebec City National Assembly, not to Ottawa.
Opposition Members crisscross our ridings, questioning Statistics Canada figures on job creation in each of our constituencies.
Perhaps the Japanese are doing better than we are, Mr. Speaker, but in 1985 we did manage to create 8,000 jobs in our region, a record which the Liberals would rather not mention.
Worse still, in my judgment, is the following issue raised in yesterday's La Presse:
Can a Government be-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to advise the Hon. Member that his time has expired.
* * [DOT]


CANCELLATION OF KATIMAVIK PROGRAM
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, for the youth of Canada and for the Katimavik program, the dream is dead and the adventure is over. Katimavik, which means meeting place, and is a federal award-winning program to employ youth between the ages of 17 and 21, has been summarily cancelled by the Tory Government. This program,
which has already attracted over 20,000 youth, and which continues to receive over 500 applications per week, has been slammed closed by the Government.
It is incredible that with more than 600,000 youth unemployed on this very day, the Tories, in their confusion and lack of direction, have seen fit to cancel Katimavik, and they have not told us what will replace it. The Government has made some vague promises to do something, but this will not help the 500 youngsters per week who were applying to get into this program, nor will it help the 279 staff members from losing real and productive employment.
Katimavik is cancelled because the Tories cannot recognize its value for job training. Yet Katimavik won a United Nations Award this year for leadership in improving and protecting the environment through its Youth Reforestation Program. Our youth in this program also do such things as help the handicapped and work with the elderly. Now if the Tories cannot recognize that the environment is a major problem for Canada and an excellent place to create jobs, and that working with the elderly and the handicapped provides needed services and superb job training experience for youth, if this Conservative Government cannot recognize these excellent job training experiences-


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Hon. Member but his time has expired.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Gilles Bernier (Beauce):: Mr. Speaker, the most recent report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development, or OECD, shows that the Canadian economy is more healthy than that of most Western countries. This powerful international economic organization published its latest report in mid-December 1985. The major points are as follows:
Canada is ranked first among the 25 member countries of the OECD in the area of job creation.
Based on our job creation figures, the OECD concludes that unemployment should continue on its downward trend in 1986.
Canada is ranked second out of 25 for individual purchasing power, its performance being exceeded only by that of the United States.
The competitivity of our country has greatly improved vis-avis the United States.
Contrary to many European countries, Canada is not affected by a discrepancy between manpower costs and productivity, which means that wage increases reflect productivity increases.
February 5, 1986

According to the OECD economists, the deficit has been under control since the budget was brought down last May and it will still be under control at the end of February.
The report also foresees sustained growth in the export sector following an increase in automobile, paper and natural gas sales. This last increase, say the experts, is due to the implementation of the Western Accord signed recently by the Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, there are grounds for rejoicing in the figures published by the OECD. Canada is truly on the right track. This is something that the population should know.
To conclude, I wish to point out that we, in Beauce, are buoyed up by feelings of optimism, trust in the future and confidence.


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN QUEBEC
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, Quebec men and women who were expecting to pay less for gas were sorely tried yesterday when they learned that the new Liberal Government had raised the tax on gas, thereby causing its price at the pump to go up again.
After hearing so many hypocritical speeches by Liberals here in Ottawa, Quebecers could rightfully expect that the new provincial Government would lower the prices instead of increasing them, especially at a time when gas is already ten cents a litre cheaper in Toronto than in Montreal.
Ontario and Quebec have at least one thing in common: both provinces have a Liberal Government. But there is also a difference between those two provinces: the New Democratic Party in Ontario has managed to force the Peterson Government to withdraw its gas tax increase proposal.
It is clear that Quebec men and women need the New Democratic party in Quebec and in Ottawa to stop any gas tax increase and to fight against the Liberals and Conservatives for a price reduction.



Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Duvernay):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Montreal, a new group came into being, the Canadian National Committee for the reduction of gas prices.
I would like to congratulate its chairman, Mr. Joseph Gilles, a man from Laval who has my full support and co-operation.
Oral Questions
This Conservative Government has taken every step needed for that process to materialize. I can assure you, Mr. Speaker, that lower gas prices will come to the pump very soon.
This morning people could read reports of a new price increase in Quebec, the Province in which the price of gasoline already is the highest in Canada, from 12.9 cents to 13.9 cents a litre, whereas the Federal tax is only 7.1 cents a litre.
The Committee must urgently turn to Quebec City rather than to Ottawa, because here the process has been more than initiated. It is too bad that Quebec should announce a rise when we, in this Conservative Government, have worked for months on a deregulation process that would result in lower prices working their way through to the gas pumps.
Mr. Speaker, I tell my two colleagues: the buses are ready! Get on board for Quebec City. I will join you.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF CONSUMER AND COMMERCIAL RELATIONS OF ONTARIO
Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. May I signal the presence in our gallery today of the Minister of Consumer and Commercial Relations of the Government of Ontario, the Hon. Monte Kwinter.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. He will know that although the Canadian dollar was up marginally this morning, the crisis is far from over. While he has adopted in this House the attitude of blaming everyone else for his problem, he must recognize that he, as the Fiscal adviser to the Government, has the sole responsibility of dealing with this matter. Will he today, Wednesday, February 5, tell this House what he is going to do to solve the dollar crisis?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, this Government takes full responsibility for the economic policies we brought in. We are proud of them and we think they are doing the job. 1 will tell the Hon. Member the sort of

February 5, 1986
Oral Questions
things we have been doing which are contributing to our economic strength. This is clearly evidenced by the fact that 1,000 jobs have been created every day since we came into office.
We initiated our program with the November economic statement. This set out in a very clear way the sum total of our economic policies. We brought in policies to increase investment, both foreign and domestic. We brought in policies to invigorate the energy sector and the small business community. We have followed a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hope questions and answers will be shorter than yesterday.
[ Translation]


MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. The answer does not relate to the question, so I will rephrase it, in French this time.
The Minister of Finance has the authority to solve the problem. What concrete step will he take to put an end to the Canadian dollar crisis?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member, a former Minister of Finance, says, to use his words, that my response was not relevant to the question. He asked what we were going to do to introduce a degree of stability into the Canadian dollar as well as strengthen the Canadian economy. For him to say that shows that he fails to understand the effect of the policies we have brought in and their impact on job creation, investment, housing starts, and inflation. All of these things are very, very clear.
If he cares to read not what I say but what expert economists have to say, he will see that they say the economy is strong and on the right track. They say they do not understand why there is a weakness in the dollar in the face of the strength in our economy and the fact we are taking action on the deficit, something which is long overdue after 10 years of mismanagement-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: -by the previous Liberal Government.


MINISTER'S POWERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the financial markets in Canada and abroad do not appear to be too impressed with the Minister's style of answer because the dollar is still under tremendous pressure. My question is very simple. Does he feel he is powerless to deal with this situation?


Mr. Gauthier:: He sure does.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, I do not feel that way at all. And the childish remarks from the person right behind the Leader of the Opposition are totally unwarranted. The dollar today is up;
70.37	cents is what I heard just before I came down to Question Period. I think that is

I beg your pardon? No, it is
70.37	cents. I would ask the Leader of the Opposition to go and check the record again because yesterday, when he asked his first question, he said the dollar was down at a record pace unknown in our history. That was totally wrong. I said it was wrong at the time and asked him to check his records again, because his records are always wrong. The peak was in 1977 at 8 cents. When he was the Minister of Finance it was down 5.73 cents. That is far greater than it has gone down now. Get the facts!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INTEREST RATE LEVELS
Hon. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: Mr. Speaker, one thing which is not wrong is that the Minister was given a 70-cent dollar in September of 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: You should have stuck to the piano.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order!


Donald James Johnston: He was given a 77-cent dollar in September of 1984. The Minister has said that the dollar is undervalued and that it will rebound. If he truly believes that, he must also believe that there is no need to continue a policy of increasing interest rates. He should be prepared to protect homeowners who are renewing mortgages and consumers who are taking out-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the Hon. Member has a question.


Donald James Johnston: Why is he following a policy of jacking up interest rates?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, maybe I could quote two eminent observers of the political scene. The first is David Peterson who said, in his words, that we were presented with one hell of a mess on September 4, 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The second is his former colleague, Marc Lalonde, the former Minister of Finance who, in referring to the deficit, said: "Ottawa will be completely hamstrung by the size of the deficit". That is what we were presented with on September 4, 1984.
In response to the specific question-
February 5, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please!


Mr. Chretien:: The 69-cent man.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please!


Donald James Johnston: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Peterson was probably referring to the mess in the policy directions of the Government in September of 1984.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Mulroney:: He was referring to your Government.


REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE FROM MINISTER
Donald James Johnston: Will the Minister assure Canadians and Members of the House that there will be no increase in interest rates tomorrow, given his belief that the dollar is undervalued and that it is rebounding?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this is a ludicrous question coming from the Hon. Member who was a Minister at the time the previous Government was pushing interest rates up to 20 and 25 per cent per annum. There is no credibility whatsoever in that type of question.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: As has been demonstrated, our policy is to get interest rates down. We are encountering pressures in the exchange markets which overlap into financial markets here in Canada, which has resulted in interest rates going up in Canada. However, as we indicated at this time last year, our policy is to get interest rates down by stabilizing markets. That is what we are doing right now, and we will be following through with a reduction of interest rates in due course.


INVESTMENT OUTFLOW
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance and it is also with regard to the continuing problems with the dollar. Yesterday the Minister told the House that his Government is doing all the right things. He reiterated that today when he said he is proud of his policies.
I did some checking on numbers produced by the Government yesterday. Will the Minister confirm that there was a net outflow of Canadian direct investment of $5,290 million, which is over $5 billion, last year, which was a 50 per cent increase from the year before? Will he confirm that there has been that kind of outflow of Canadian investment?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm that figure. I do not know what the Hon. Member is reading from, but there has been a good
Oral Questions
inflow of investment capital from foreign investors. Yes, there would be some outflow by foreign investors who are investing to broaden their market-place. We are not going to try to stop that. That is a normal function in the market-place.
I said in 1982 that the balance of these policies were necessary in this country to encourage both foreign and domestic investment in Canada, to get control of the federal deficit problem, to deal appropriately with the federal-provincial stresses and strains, as well as to generate a climate where interest rates would be lower. These were the policies I was advocating then and that is what we have followed through on.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to tell the Minister that I am quoting figures produced by Statistics Canada.


BUDGET INQUIRY
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister has been boasting about his policies. Considering that the outflow of Canadian direct investment actually increased following last year's Budget, at an alarming rate in the third quarter-the last quarter for which we have figures-will he admit that this outflow of Canadian investment is a major factor in driving down the value of the Canadian dollar and, therefore, announce that he will bring in a Budget that will encourage Canadians to invest in Canada to keep our dollar up and keep jobs here?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to have to remind the Hon. Member again, because he does not like the news, but we have been creating jobs in this country at a rate of 1,000 per day, some 450,000 jobs since we took office.
The specific response to his comments on investment is that investment activity in Canada was down for a period of time after the recession. It stabilized in late 1983 and early 1984. This past year, 1985, investment took off, growing at 11 per cent per annum, and the projections are that this will increase to over 12 per cent during the course of this year. That is what we mean when we say our policies are designed to encourage investment in Canada and to create jobs in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: The rhetoric of the Minister of Finance will not hide the reality of the Government's own statistics which show that last year Canadians invested more abroad than the previous year, and that tendency is increasing to our disadvantage.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER INTRODUCE NEW POLICIES
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, this morning we learned that the Government of Canada spent $800 million in the last month buying up Canadian dollars, just to bribe speculators in the United States with our money. Instead

February 5, 1986
Oral Questions
of wasting that money in a spurious effort to prop up the dollar, will the Minister bring in new policies to encourage investment at home that will keep our dollar up? That is what he should be doing.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I just indicated to the Hon. Member what we are doing and what we have done to encourage investment in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: It's not working.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: I believe it was a year ago that the Hon. Member's Party said that they wanted to see 300,000 jobs created. We created more than that as a result of the combination of policies that we undertook. The rhetoric that the Hon. Member is throwing out on the floor of the House is false. The true facts are there for him to check.


John Edward Broadbent: I have them.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member for Oshawa should check them. The figure of 450,000 jobs is very, very real and, as I said yesterday, 450,000 Canadians are saying: "Thank you Michael Wilson; you're doing the right thing".


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation)


PRICE OF CRUDE OIL-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to remind the Prime Minister that on several occasions his Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources stated in this House that it would take up to three months before lower crude oil prices might benefit Canadian consumers at the pump. Well, this morning I came across some documents which make it crystal clear that crude stocks of Canadian refineries will be depleted within 20 days at most. I would therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he would commit himself to take decisive steps so that Canadian refiners will immediately reduce gas prices at the pump, to the benefit of consumers.


Mr. John McDermid (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member's question, I find that stance rather peculiar coming from the Liberals. Their current Leader, when he was Minister of Finance, suggested that when price increases come through, reserves should be used up and it would take at least a minimum of 45 days to do that, which was later transferred into 60 days. Now he is saying prices should drop in a shorter
period of time, that is in 20 days. It just does not add up, and the Hon. Member knows that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER GOVERNMENT IS PREPARED TO TAKE MEASURES TO BENEFIT CONSUMERS
Jacques Guilbault: Back to the Prime Minister, Mr. Speaker, because his Parliamentary Secretary did not understand that current stocks will not last more than 20 days. He should do his homework.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to take immediate steps to make sure that lower crude prices will not lead to excessive profits for Petro-Canada or any other oil company, and that consumers will reap the benefit of cheaper crude oil, as they should.


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member talks about 20 days of reserves, it is interesting to note that the Province of Quebec has always asked for 60 days of reserves because of emergency rationing. They are on hand, and the Hon. Member has been told that time and time again.
It is interesting to hear the Member talk about gasoline prices. He was in Montreal the other day and did not say anything about the one penny a litre raise on gas which the Liberals imposed in that province, twice the amount of tax which the federal Government has-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Horton McDermid: The Member does not say anything about reducing that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Finance. Does he deny that not only has there been a 50 per cent increase in the numbers of Canadian dollars leaving Canada for investment purposes, the difference between 1984 and 1985, but there has also been a $1.7 billion decrease in the numbers of foreign dollars being invested in Canada? How does the Minister explain that when he talks about his policies working to create a better investment climate in Canada?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member must understand that in balance of payments statistics there are pluses and minuses-
February 5, 1986


John Edward Broadbent: Yes. They are both minuses.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member says they are both minuses. There are a lot of pluses, Mr. Speaker.


John Edward Broadbent: And the dollar is going down.


Mr. Epp (Provencher):: Give him the books.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Let me respond to the Hon. Member's question. It is not appropriate to take one statistic and not look at the global effort at raising investment activity in this country. Investment activity is the broadest measure of investment activity, which creates jobs. It shows that last year, after four years of very, very poor performance, suddenly there was an upturn of 11 per cent. As I indicated in my last answer to the Member's Leader, it will be up about 12 per cent this year-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. These answers are getting very long.


GOVERNMENT POLICIES
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Minister's answer to my Leader very carefully. He said that his policies were designed to increase investment, both foreign and domestic. How then can he explain, with his policies in place, an increase by 50 per cent of investment dollars leaving Canada and a decrease by $1.7 billion of investment dollars coming into Canada if his policies are working?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not know how many times the Member wants me to answer the same question.


Some Hon. Members:: Just once.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: The Hon. Member is pulling specific statistics out of context without looking at the broad picture. The broad picture is one where investment activity was up 11 per cent last year after three or four years of either going down, or staying flat at very low levels.
It has been the policies of this Government to regenerate that investment activity to create the jobs, improving job prospects for Canadians and improving the competitive position. Last year in Canada we had an improvement in productivity and an improvement in the cost structure, something that we had not seen for the last 15 years.


Ian Deans: $7 billion short.
Oral Questions ENERGY PRICE OF GASOLINE


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Recently the Prime Minister received a telegram from the Canadian National Committee for the Reduction of Gas Prices headed by Mr. Joseph Gilles. They are demanding that the Government reduce taxes on gasoline immediately, and they are joined in their demands by the Canadian Automobile Association. Is the Government going to act on their request, or does the Prime Minister plan to ignore the concerns of so many Canadians?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for the question because this gives me an opportunity to say that we are concerned about gas prices as well. We expect them to be dropping once the supplies get through the pipelines.
It is completely irresponsible to ask a Government to reduce gas prices in the amounts they are asking for, not taking into consideration supplies that cost extra money, or profit and loss statements of companies, or anything else. Everybody would like to see lower prices in everything, but what is being asked for is completely unrealistic.


An Hon. Member:: Bourassa.


REQUEST FOR REDUCED PRICES
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. Parliamentary Secretary does not agree with the committee's figure on reduction, why does he not set one of his own and at least start the ball rolling to reduce gasoline prices?
Since coming into power the Government has increased taxes on gasoline by 3.09 cents a litre. When, Mr. Speaker, is the Government going to reduce gasoline prices, or is the Government going to gouge the Canadian consumer constantly?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, this matter was fully debated in the House yesterday. The Hon. Member led for his Party and did not have enough guts to stand up and say whether or not the Liberals supported the motion brought in by the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.
I can tell the Hon. Member that when the Liberal Government was in power gas in Montreal went from 30 cents a litre to 58.1 cents a litre during the time of the National Energy Program, an increase of 94 per cent.
What is the Hon. Member talking about? Such hypocrisy.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

February 5, 1986
Oral Questions


An Hon. Member:: One question.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I would very much like to be able to hear this question.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


PETRO-CANADA CLOSURE OF SERVICE STATION AT GRAVENHURST, ONT.
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Thank you for recognizing me, Mr. Speaker.
I have a question that I would like to pose to the Prime Minister. I would like him to answer it personally on behalf of a couple of ordinary Canadians.
In view of the fact that Canadians are probably paying 6 cents to 10 cents a litre too much, about $4 a tankful, why did the Prime Minister allow Petro-Canada to close the gas station of Cora and George McAra of Gravenhurst, Ontario, when that couple wanted to lower the price by two-tenths of a cent a litre?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member beat a hasty retreat yesterday from the House of Commons but he sneaked back in afterwards for the debate.


Ms. Copps:: Totally out of order.


Some Hon. Members:: Shhh!


John Horton McDermid: This question was fully answered and it is to be found on page 10441 of Hansard. It deals with the particular problem that the Member brings to the attention of the Government. The question was answered yesterday. The Member is playing politics with these people's lives.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, these people are paying with their life savings.


ANTICIPATED REDUCTION IN PRICE OF GASOLINE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask the Prime Minister a supplementary question. I dare him to show some leadership and some guts and answer the question himself.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I have to put the question every ordinary Canadian is asking. When, in view of world prices dropping dramatically as they did again yesterday, is the Canadian motorist going to see it reflected at the pump?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I will answer that question very quickly so the Hon.
Member can hear the answer before he shoots out of the House like a rabbit again.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: I tell you nothing so became the Hon. Member as the elegant way in which he beat a retreat yesterday.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Young:: Where were you on Friday?


Martin Brian Mulroney: I can tell the Hon. Member that the Minister-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Hon. Member will be aware of the telex which was sent by the Minister to the various companies, conveying the strong views of the Government with regard to the passing on of the reductions that we expect will take place. That will begin countering in substantial measure the 80 per cent increase in petroleum prices which occurred when the NDP got together with its Liberal sweethearts and drove prices up 80 per cent during the NEP.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice. As the Minister will be meeting with the provincial Attorneys General in Vancouver next week, can he assure the House that high on his agenda will be the entrenchment of property rights in the Constitution? Will the Minister agree to urge his provincial colleagues to support such an amendment, a move which is sought by Canadians in all parts of the country?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, this is the toughest question we have had all session.


Ian Deans: Just answer it quickly.


John Carnell Crosbie: At the urging of the Hon. Member and other members of our Party, I have caused to be put on the agenda for our meeting next week in Vancouver the question of the protection of property rights, which our Party supported when the constitutional discussions were under way, and which the Official Opposition and the unofficial opposition both opposed, although the Official Opposition backslid when it was too late for anything to be done to include the protection of property rights in the Constitution. We will be looking at this question, particularly keeping in mind the necessity for the protection of
February 5, 1986

the rights of women and taking into consideration the fears which women expressed with reference to that entrenchment.


BOARD OF INTERNAL ECONOMY
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Hon. Member for Mission-Port Moody in his capacity as the designated Member to reply on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy. In light of further media reports that the electronic system in the Liberal caucus room had been tampared with, will the Hon. Member undertake, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, to table immediately in the House the report of the incident which was originally presented to the Sergeant-at-Arms? If not, will he, on behalf of the board, undertake to have an immediate inquiry into the situation established?


Mr. Gerry St. Germain (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy, if the Hon. Member has a presentation he would like to make to us as a Board, we will take his representation. We will hear it before the Board of Internal Economy and deal with it immediately.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is a new procedure, putting questions to the Board of Internal Economy. It is certainly allowed; I have no problem with that.


Don Boudria: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: No. Because it is an internal matter with regard to House administration, I think I will not grant a supplementary-


Sheila Maureen Copps: Oh, come on!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am not going to grant a supplementary.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is a brand new procedure. I think that is the way we should start. That is the way I am going to start. If Hon. Members want to discuss that with me later, that is fine. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North Centre.


PRICE OF GASOLINE IN DETROIT AND WINDSOR
Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, if I can get his attention.
Oral Questions


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Stand up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Benjamin:: Now what?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the Hon. Member have a question, please?


Cyril Keeper: Yes, Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. He will know that yesterday gas was selling in Detroit at 32 cents per litre-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: -while in Windsor it was selling at 51 cents per litre. It is not hard to understand why Canadians were going to the gas pumps in Detroit. What is difficult to understand, and what requires explanation-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Given the way this has started, perhaps the Member could just come to his question, please.


Cyril Keeper: Why has the price of gas fallen dramatically in Detroit, by 10 cents since last November, while it stays stable and high in Windsor? When will the Prime Minister give an explanation of that?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the Hon. Member, without being able to verify his figures, that certainly there is a difference in prices between the United States and Canada for very many reasons. One of them, of course, is the taxation, both the federal and provincial taxation. In Quebec, for example, the provincial tax was raised by the Liberals a penny per litre yesterday, and I guess this morning it showed up at the pump. It makes a big difference in those gas prices.


Ian Deans: How does that affect Windsor?


John Horton McDermid: However, I can tell the Hon. Member that any of the Americans with whom I have talked would gladly have more pennies on the litres of gasoline down there if they had the social safety net which we have here in Canada. If they had medicare, if they had the Guaranteed Income Supplement and the other social security programs-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I don't believe it; that is coming from a Conservative.


Mr. Nystrom:: McDermid for Prime Minister.


Mr. Rodriguez:: Smile, McDermid. How can you say that with a straight face?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.

February 5, 1986
Oral Questions


REQUEST THAT PETRO-CANADA BE INSTRUCTED TO REDUCE PRICES
Cyril Keeper: The Minister knows that the taxes on gas have gone since they have come to office.

Mr. Speaker, just how long will Canadian consumers continue to lose $8 million a day? And when will the Government be prepared to use Petro-Canada as a means to reduce prices and provide fair prices to Canadian consumers?


John Horton McDermid: Mr. Speaker, it is very true that taxes on gas in Canada have gone up. They have gone up because of the mammoth debt with which the Government was left from the previous administration that was supported by that little red rump over there called the New Democratic Party. We are taking our responsibilities seriously. Let me answer the question this way: You are going to see drops in prices very soon, very soon.


JUSTICE
Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question today is directed to the Minister of Justice.
Yesterday, the Minister indicated to the House that he had appointed Mr. Justice Krever, a unilingual Anglophone, to a position traditionally held by a Francophone in the Ontario Appeal Court. He went on to say that it was essential to have a first-class person. I do not doubt that! But does the Minister feel he was unable to find a well-qualified Francophone for this position?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, just in case the hon. gentleman is genuinely worried, there are 18 judges at the appeal level in Ontario, three of whom are bilingual, or 17 per cent. There are an additional four bilingual judges who can be used on appeals from the High Court. Of these seven, four are Francophones. In 1985 there were two appeals among 1,400 applications which required a French panel. To date 43 per cent of all judges appointed across Canada by the Mulroney Government they have been Francophone or had French capabilities.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NEED TO APPOINT BILINGUAL FRANCOPHONE JUDGE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Mr. Prime Minister, people say that each and every appointment by your Government is verified by you twice before being final.
Do you support the appointment of an Anglophone unilingual judge to the Ontario Appeal Court, indicating that it is impossible to find a bilingual Francophone judge in Ontario today? Was such a judge impossible to find? Do you agree with the Minister's suggestion that a bilingual Francophone could not be found for this traditionally bilingual position, Mr. Speaker?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, together with the Hon. Minister of Justice, I personally contacted a number of distinguished Ontario Francophones and offered them this position. For health reasons or other considerations, they had to decline.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Before the Government gets involved in a fire sale in the case of Canadair just as it did in the case of de Havilland, could the Minister clarify the confusion concerning the future of that company? Have bids been made for the purchase of Canadair, yes or no? What will be Canadair's profits for financial year 1988? Finally, will the Government consider as a valid option keeping Canadair as a public concern-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This is several questions in one. I think the Minister should at least be allowed to answer the first part.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, this is perhaps the eighth time I have been asked if there are any offers with respect to Canadair. As I informed the House earlier, we to date do not have any firm offers for Canadair. At the present time I would say that there are two groups that are at least considering a possible deal involving Canadair. I think the House will be pleased to learn that both are Canadian groups.
February 5, 1986


CANADAIR-MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: I have a supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Tomorrow, my leader and I will visit Canadair and meet its president, Mr. Desmarais. Will the Minister recommend to Mr. Desmarais to provide us with such essential information as Canadair's profits, or does he feel that we will witness a fire sale in the case of Canadair just as we did in the case of de Havilland?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for Ottawa Centre visits Canadair tomorrow, he would do a great service if he told those he meets that when we took over government Canadair had a hangar full of finished, unsold planes. It was operating at a loss after a huge deficit was run up by the former Government. I am pleased to tell the House that today Canadair has a backlog for aircraft production. Employment is on the upswing. We have just announced programs that will result in 400 more jobs. In short, I hope the Hon. Member will tell those there that the unfounded rumours that opposition Members have been spreading are totally wrong, and that their jobs are more secure today than they were when we took power.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS- FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL DISCUSSIONS
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Are we making any progress on the federal-provincial talks so that when we go to the trade negotiations with the United States all the provinces will stand four-square behind the federal lead?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, the House will know that after the federal-provincial conference in Halifax a continuing committee of officials to deal with trade negotiations was established at the instigation of this Government. That committee was extended to include officials from the Yukon and the Northwest Territories. The House will be very pleased to know that that committee met for some six hours in Ottawa yesterday in a very harmonious and constructive atmosphere. The committee has tentatively agreed to meet again on March 4 to carry on the co-operative progress in this preparatory phase of the trade negotiations.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


PLIGHT OF POTATO FARMERS IN ATLANTIC PROVINCES
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture. I am sure the Minister is well aware of the serious financial crisis facing the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and New Brunswick. I know he has met with a number of organizations which have pointed that out quite clearly to the Minister. What assistance is the Minister prepared to offer the potato farmers of Prince Edward Island and Atlantic Canada to help them through this most serious situation?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the Hon. Member's interest in the plight of the Atlantic Canadian potato farmers. As he knows, a number of representations have been made to me by provincial Premiers and by my provincial counterparts in Atlantic Canada. At the moment, we are looking at three options. I appreciate the difficulties the farmers are experiencing, but to this point in time we have not made any final decisions.


INSPECTION FEES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, last year for the first time the Government imposed inspection fees of three cents a hundredweight on potatoes. Will the Minister confirm that negotiations are once again under way to increase those inspection fees over the next four years to 20 cents a hundredweight?


John Wise: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that the Hon. Member will know that we sat around a table to discuss the matter of imposing inspection fees. Indeed, we will continue to negotiate that issue with representatives. We did not act unilaterally last year, nor is it our intention in 1986 unilaterally to impose increases on inspection fees for the potato farmers or any other group as far as that is concerned.


EDUCATION
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. I wonder if the Minister of Finance agrees with Terence Donahoe, Nova Scotia's Minister of Human Resources, who reacted to the federal Government's intention to reduce the level of funding for post-secondary education and medicare by saying the following:
-if Ottawa goes ahead with the reduction in grants, "it simply will emasculate the post-secondary education system.
"It is going to be chaos and chaotic... the system is simply going to fall apart.
Does the Minister of Finance agree with his Conservative colleague?
10476

February 5, 1986
Oral Questions


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the remarks that were just made. I will say to the Hon. Member that when the Budget comes forward in due course, he will see very clearly by the degree of spending we are putting into post-secondary education, research and development, and health care, that these represent clear priorities of the Government. They will continue to be clear priorities. That is the policy of the Government.


LEVEL OF FEDERAL FUNDING
Rodney Edward Murphy: Mr. Speaker, the Minister does not agree with his Conservative colleagues in Nova Scotia. Does he agree with the Newfoundland Conservatives who, in a Green Paper, indicated that they are looking at privatization of the medicare system, in part or in whole, as a result of the Minister's cut-backs in the level of funding for established programs financing?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 do not think that the Hon. Member has been listening carefully to the responses to questions. There are no cut-backs in funding. There is a reduction in the rate of growth, but as the Prime Minister indicated in Halifax the Government will be spending $25 billion more by moving the amount of spending on post-secondary education and health care from $65 billion over the last five years to over $90 billion in the next five years. That surely is not a cut-back in spending.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday in committee the Economic Council of Canada, and today in The Globe and Mail the data resources indicated that there would be a great benefit to Canada in reduction of inflation, increase of employment, increase of Gross National Product, and reduction of the deficit as a result of reducing oil prices. I was wondering if the Minister will be reflecting those changes in his Budget presentation which will occur later this month.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is looking for a sneak preview and I will try to give him one. The effect of the drop in international oil prices is not an easy one to measure. Yes, as the drop in prices flows through to the consumer there will be benefits felt by the consumer. There will be offsets to that as the Government's revenues go down as a result of lower corporate taxes and lower PGRTs. However, the net effect is probably fairly balanced when taking into account the over-all nature of those changes.


CROWN CORPORATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday when I asked the Minister to issue new instructions for the sale of Canadair, instructions which would ensure that Canadair remains Canadian, he did not make any commitment on that point but he did say the following:
However, the conditions under which we feel it should be privatized have been made abundantly clear. There are very strict parameters which we are interested in, when entertaining possible bids for Canadair.
What are those conditions and parameters which are very clear? Will the Minister make them public by tabling them in the House?
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member had an opportunity to come to the committee which reviewed the sale of de Havilland to Boeing, he would have heard, of course, the type of parameters to which I referred yesterday.


Mr. Speaker:: A very short supplementary question.


SALE OF DE HAVILLAND
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, is the Minister telling us that the same parameters and conditions which pertained to de Havilland pertain to Canadair? If that is the case, then de Havilland was sold for a song. It was sold outright to foreigners. Will the Minister tell the House whether or not the same conditions and parameters are to be applied to Canadair as applied to de Havilland?
Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, first, de Havilland was not sold for a song.


Mr. Allmand:: Damn right it was!


Sheila Maureen Copps: Half a song!


Ian Deans: It was only a chorus; it wasn't even a song.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: de Havilland was sold to a very reputable aircraft company-perhaps the finest in the world-at a fair price. I think Hon. Members will find that it will work to the advantage of the employees of de Havilland, the Government, and the people of Canada. I wish members of the Opposition would quit being such downers as far as the aircraft industry in this country is concerned.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
February 5, 1986


CLERK OF PETITIONS' REPORTS
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the petitions presented by Hon. Members on Tuesday, February 4, 1986, meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.


Mr. Speaker:: I am in receipt of one or two notices with respect to questions of privilege and points of order. I will take them in the order in which I received them. 1 have notice of a question of privilege from the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell).


PRIVILEGE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is with respect to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), who I think has inadvertently misled the House. If he were to check the record he would find that the NDP voted with the Conservatives against the National Energy Program. The Prime Minister should check that out before making these misleading allegations.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: That is revisionist thinking!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has made his point, which is not a question of privilege.
The next notice I have received is with respect to a point of order from the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray).


POINT OF ORDER
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I am raising a point of order with respect to your ruling on whether or not the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) should have been allowed a supplementary question. I recognize that this was the first occasion on which a question had been put to the designated spokesperson for the Commissioners of Internal Economy. However, may I respectfully suggest, Sir, that one should not have anticipated that somehow or other the supplementary question might have been to the same person and, therefore, not permissible. It could well have been the case-and I tell Your Honour it would have been the case-that the supplementary question would have been directed to a Minister on an aspect of the matter related to the original question.
May I suggest, Sir, that on occasions such as this you might wish to consider at least allowing the Hon. Member to say to whom he wishes to ask his supplementary question of, thereby assisting you in making rulings in what are admittedly very tough and stressful situations.
Point of Order-Mr. Gray (Windsor West)


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for his support. I would be happy to consider the matter. As I indicated at the time, it was a difficult one. I would appreciate it if the House Leaders, who have some involvement in this matter, would give me some advice on the matter, through the usual channels.
I may say that the point the Hon. Member is making gives me some cause for concern. In other words, if questions can go both to the Board of Internal Economy and to a Minister on the same matter, then matters could be put to the Board of Internal Economy which could at the same time be regarded as matters under ministerial accountability. It is difficult to find that a matter can be in both places.
However, I suggest I will think about the matter again. It was the first time the matter arose. I would appreciate any further advice I can get on the matter. Can we leave it at that?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I just want to add this one comment, Sir. May I say, most respectfully, it would have been easier to make a decision in this type of difficult situation which you have just described had it been possible for you to actually hear the Hon. Member's question. You would have then been able to see more easily whether or not there was an over-lapping, which would have made it obvious that the question should not have been permitted.


Mr. Speaker:: I will now hear the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) and the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I had intended to rise on much the same point. However, I rise for a somewhat different reason than that which caused my colleague, the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), to rise.
I must confess that when I had imagined that there would be questions to the representative spokesperson of the Board of Internal Economy, I had imagined that those questions would be absolutely non-partisan in nature. It would be difficult for me to imagine how, then, a supplementary question could be put to a Minister of the Crown. Therefore, I would like to have some further discussion on the point. I also urge some consideration on this point: If questions to be put to the representative of the Board of Internal Economy are for information purposes, as I had imagined they would be, then it would be reasonable to think that on most occasions a single question might be sufficient. However, that ought not rule out the possibility that there could be a supplementary question. I will take the opportunity which Your Honour has offered to make my own views known to you privately.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) rising on the same point of order?


Mr. McGrath:: Mr. Speaker, my point has been covered by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn).

February 5, 1986
Point of Order-Mr. Gauthier


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I might add a word to what has been said by the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). When we are discussing these matters in terms of the new procedure, we are grateful to the committee chaired by the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) for recommending it. I think it is working well. In effect, it has now democratized the Board of Internal Economy so that all Parties are now represented on the Board.
It might be helpful too, when we consider these matters, to consider the practice of giving notice if information is required. Of course, it would be difficult for any Member responding on behalf of the Board of Internal Economy to do anything more than simply take the matter as notice, unless the matter had already been adjudicated upon or resolved.
I think we should talk about the matter. I think it has nothing to do with asking supplementary questions. It has to do with the process of asking representatives of the Board of Internal Economy for information in which all Members of the House are vitally interested and concerned. I look forward to that discussion, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank all Hon. Members. I repeat my suggestion that I would like some guidance on the matter. 1 am sure the House Leaders will provide me with that.



Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During Question Period today the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) referred to the Hon. Member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan) as having no guts. My House Leader drew my attention to Citation 320 of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition where that term is listed as unparliamentary. I ask that the remark be withdrawn from the transcript of today's proceedings.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member will know that the term was used in this Question Period by more than one Hon. Member. Certainly, it is language which in normal debate would not be allowed. The Question Period always has its different tensions. I would be happy to think about the matter and look into it. Perhaps the wisest course of action would be to remind all Hon. Members of our obligations with regard to language in Question Period. The Hon. Member has asked me to look into the matter and I will do that.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the report of the legislative committee on Bill C-86.
[Editor's Note: For above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


PETITIONS
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I have a petition to present signed by 1,454 electors from the riding of Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The 1,454 signatures added to the signatures which have already been tabled make a grand total of 3,397 electors from my riding who ask for a commitment from the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mul-roney) to ensure that agricultural programs will not be sacrificed in free trade negotiations with the United States of America.


Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I present a petition from constituents in my riding of Scarborough Centre. They strongly recommend that the House of Commons consider the reinstatement of capital punishment for murders of law enforcement officers, for known paedophile sex murderers and persons convicted for the second or third time of armed robbery where the death of an innocent person occurs.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I have three petitions from citizens of Regina and Saskatoon, Saskatchewan. Even though the legislation has passed in the House of Commons the petitioners still hope that Honourable Members of the other place will amend the legislation to restore full indexation of Family Allowances and rescind unfair tax increases, sending the Bill back to this place.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that in fact a petition to the Senate?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: No, it is a petition to this House.
February 5, 1986


Mr. Dan Heap (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, the voters of Spadi-na also do not accept the decision which was made. They find the deindexation of family allowances very unfair and they petition this Honourable House to reinstate full indexation of universal Family Allowance and to rescind the unfair tax increases.


Dennis H. Cochrane: Mr. Speaker, once again I have the honour to present a number of petitions to this House, signed by residents of the federal constituencies of Moncton and other areas in southeastern New Brunswick. The petitioners are expressing their concern with regard to the assessment being conducted on the maintenance capacity of the CN shops throughout Canada. They are concerned that any negative ramifications of that assessment would have a great effect upon the economy of the area, the unemployment rate and, certainly, upon the lifestyle those people have grown to enjoy over the years.


Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I also have the honour to present a petition signed by residents from southeastern New Brunswick, more especially from Moncton, Dieppe, Richibouctou and Riverview. This shows, Mr. Speaker, that people are quite concerned about conditions at the CN shops and that increasingly they would like to obtain the assurance from the Government that those jobs will be protected.


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-93, an Act relating to the establishment of self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Order Paper Questions
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 443 will be answered today.


Mr. Parry: Since January 1, 1978, how many charges under Section 84(2) of the Criminal Code (a) were laid (b) resulted in a conviction (c) were reversed on appeal?


John Carnell Crosbie: The information sought is not available, as the necessary or relevant statistics are not kept.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Mr. Nunziata:: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question from the Solicitor General. I asked-

Several months ago, with respect to Question No. 296 on the Order Paper, the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) indicated he would look into the answer to that question personally. I was wondering whether the Solicitor General could indicate to the House today as to the progress of that question?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It would be out of order for the Hon. Minister to reply at this time. It would be in order for the Parliamentary Secretary to reply.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I did on a previous occasion ask a question o the Solicitor General and Your Honour permitted the question to be answered by the Solicitor General.


Mr. Beatty:: I sit here day after day, Mr. Speaker, and we don't get any questions from him.


Mr. Speaker:: I would be glad to review it, but I have a feeling that if I did that-which I do not doubt because the Hon. Member said I did-then I made a mistake. Therefore, at this point I am going to recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to reply to the question.


John V. Nunziata: I take it then, Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I will recognize the Hon. Member on a point of order after, perhaps.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I have looked at the question referred to and there are some 36 to 40 parts to it which involve several different departments. That is causing difficulty in responding sooner.

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act


John V. Nunziata: Well, Mr. Speaker, some time ago the Solicitor General gave his undertaking that he would personally involve himself in the answering of that particular question. You did permit him to answer and through his answer he gave his undertaking. I would like to put my question to the Solicitor General.


Mr. Speaker:: I believe I have just ruled. I do not believe that is possible.
Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
Mr. Speaker:: There are eleven report stage amendment motions listed on today's Order Paper concerning Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act and other Acts in consequence thereof.
The Chair has examined the motions and found them procedurally acceptable, except one, namely Motion No. 5 in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
Motions Nos. 1 and 2 will be debated and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.

Motion No. 5 seeks to introduce a new concept into the Bill, that of collective bargaining, which is clearly beyond the scope of the Bill. I refer the Hon. Member to the Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1).
In addition, the motion tries to bring in provisions of the Public Service Staff Relations Act, which specifically excludes members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and by so
doing indirectly tries to broaden the scope of that Act. As the Hon. Member knows, Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(8)(a) clearly states that this cannot be done. Therefore, I must rule the motion out of order.

Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 will be debated and voted on separately.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put forward very briefly my concerns with respect to Motions Nos. 9 and 11 with respect to the preliminary ruling made by the Chair.
Having reviewed the report stage, I just want to question, if I may, the procedural acceptability of these motions. Motion No. 9 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) appears to broaden the nature of complaints to include those about "the activities of the Force in general".
Since the clause in question deals with the actions of specific individuals and not of the Force, it is hard to see how it is relevant to the clause. I would find it difficult to think of a way of complaining about an activity of an inanimate organization without having a complaint against a member of that organization.
Our past practice in this regard, as outlined in Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, Citation 773(1) is as follows: "An amendment is out of order if it is irrelevant to the Bill or beyond its scope". Therefore, I would argue that the motion is irrelevant to the Bill and ought not to be put to the House.
Motion No. 11 seeks to ensure that the Public Complaints Commission has the final decision in the case of appeals from the public with respect to members of the RCM Police. You will be aware, Mr. Speaker, that the House agreed in principle to granting this power to the Commissioner of the RCM Police when it agreed to the Bill at second reading.
In light of this, Mr. Speaker, I think you might find that the motion is contrary to this principle and ought not to be put to the House if we are to be consistent with the practice which is amply outlined in Citation 773(2) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads as follows:
An amendment must not be inconsistent with, or contradictory to, the Bill as so far agreed to-
Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to respond to the suggestion which was made with respect to Motions Nos. 9 and 11, and comment briefly with respect to Your Honour's preliminary ruling on Motion No. 5.
First, with respect to the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) on Motion No. 9, the clause in question seeks to introduce a new Section 45.35 of the RCMP Act which is headed "Public Complaints". That section sets out a mechanism for the receipt of complaints by members of the public who certainly could complain either with respect to the specific conduct of an individual member of the RCMP or, indeed, might very well wish to complain in a more general
February 5, 1986

sense about particular operational policies, for example, of the RCMP.
I would note that a predecessor Bill, Bill C-50, given first reading in April of 1978, with a similar provision, made reference to the activities of the Force in general. Therefore, I suggest to my colleague, the President of the Privy Council, that this is well within the scope of the particular clause proposed for amendment.
With respect to Motion No. 11, once again this seeks to extend certain provisions of this Bill. As it is now worded, the Bill would establish a mechanism whereby there would be a Public Complaints Commission which could hold a hearing and make recommendations to the Commission.
This amendment was discussed at great length in committee and is well within the scope of the clause it seeks to amend because it would merely include the additional step, as it were, of allowing a final appeal and decision by the Public Complaints Commission. I suggest that Your Honour's ruling is certainly well within the scope of this particular motion.
Finally on that point, when the House adopted the Bill at second reading it adopted the broad principles of the legislation. It would be inaccurate to suggest that the House adopted in principle a whole series of individual clauses. Surely the job of the committee is to examine the representations made by witnesses and make improvements in the legislation. If one if unsuccessful, then at report stage, one should make an effort to improve the Bill again on a serious question such as this. That, after all, is the purpose of report stage.
With respect to Your Honour's preliminary ruling on Motion No. 5, I respectfully suggest that Your Honour reconsider this particular matter. It suggested that the motion seeks to introduce a new concept into the Bill, that of collective bargaining. However, the Bill itself very clearly deals with the whole question of the nature of the relationship between the 14,000 members of the RCMP and their employer. This proposed motion would provide an alternative to the mechanism established in the Bill. It is not fundamentally different in principle; rather, it is once again an attempt to incorporate in the Bill, through changes to two other pieces of legislation, the representations made by, in particular, the Association of 17 Divisions seeking the right to collective bargaining, which is currently denied to members of the Force. Therefore I hope that on reflection perhaps Your Honour might see fit to allow Motion No. 5 to be in order and debated as well.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the comments of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I would like as well to concur in your preliminary ruling, specifically with respect to Motion No. 9. The Government House Leader indicated he felt that that particular motion, which has the effect of changing the definition of a complaint, was beyond the scope of this legislation. I have some difficulty with his submission because it would mean that it would be beyond the scope of any legislative committee to change the definition of a
RCMP Act
particular word in any particular piece of legislation. The purpose of this motion is simply to expand the definition of complaints in order to allow a member of the public to complain generally about the conduct of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. The Marin Commission recommended a definition that would allow for a general complaint. Therefore, I hope that you will confirm your preliminary ruling with respect to Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11, and in particular Motion No. 9.


Mr. Speaker:: I will of course reserve on Motions Nos. 9 and 11. I have to say to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) that whatever his arguments are with regard to Motion No. 5, his argument that the tactic used is to amend another Act in consequence thereof I think is admitting that he knows he is going beyond what Beauchesne allows. I therefore confirm my ruling that Motion No. 5 is ruled out of order and I will come back to the House as quickly as I can on Motions Nos. 8 and 11. The rest of the ruling therefore stands.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 30 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"with pay and benefits."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this important motion which would amend the provisions of the RCMP Act to ensure that in circumstances in which a member is suspended from duty, that suspension will be with pay and benefits. Clearly the circumstances in which members of the RCMP are suspended are rare. However, in those circumstances it would seem to me that we should recognize the implications of suspension without pay, particularly when that suspension may last for several months or, in some cases, for more than a year. This can cause grave hardship for the individual involved. At the end of the process he could be found to be completely innocent of any wrongdoing. He may very well have had to give up his home and perhaps be unable to afford legal counsel because he has no income.
The committee which studied this legislation with care heard strong representations from both the Association of 17 Divisions and the divisional representatives on this important point.

Mr. Speaker, I would like to emphasize that the Association and the RCMP Division Staff Relations Representatives were unanimous in their contention that suspensions without pay are not required to ensure the sound administration of the RCMP. They were unanimous. Mr. Speaker, these people are elected by RCMP members throughout Canada to defend their interests.
As well, Mr. Speaker, I might point out that the Association of 17 Divisions, based in Quebec but with members in all regions of Canada, is made up of some 2,800 members of the RCMP, and this organization also supports the motion.

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
Mr. Speaker, there are at least five reasons to support this motion. First of all, just like any other Canadian citizen, a member of the RCMP is presumed to be innocent until found guilty. If he is presumed to be innocent, it is unfair that he be suspended without pay and benefits.

I would note that suspension with pay during an investigation into an alleged offence is an acceptable administrative process and was recommended by the Marin Commission. You will recall that Commission reported to the Government in 1976 after having carefully studied all aspects of this question. At page 154 of the Report is found the following:
During a criminal investigation or a service investigation of a serious nature and any subsequent proceedings, a member should be either suspended with pay or assigned to other duties.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I would note that suspension without pay, in effect, presupposes guilt and constitutes immediate punishment. Suspension without pay is perceived as exerting extreme pressure, in many cases, on the member to resign, thus denying the member a proper hearing.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, to those who argue that it is not fair to keep a member on the force if he or she is accused of having committed serious wrong-doing, I would note that a member who is alleged to have committed a very serious wrong-doing or a criminal offence, and whose services can no longer be accepted within the force, can be processed for discharge on an urgent basis. Clearly such discharges would be rare indeed, Mr. Speaker. I would hope that the Government will recognize the injustice of the proposal in the Bill and will accept the unanimous representation of the divisional representatives on this question as well as the strong views expressed by the Association of 17 Divisions.

Mr. Speaker, I hope that after consideration of this motion the Government will accept it so that justice will be done to all members of the RCMP.

Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I want to support this amendment very strongly. I moved a similar amendment to the Bill when it was in committee. I have a very strong interest in this issue because, as Minister, I appointed the Marin Commission in the 1970s. The recommendation that members of the force should not be suspended without pay and benefits was one of the recommendations of the Marin Commission.
As my hon. colleague pointed out, this sort of treatment of members of the force is really in contradiction to our Canadian Charter of Rights whereby an individual is considered to be innocent until proven guilty. It is contrary to many other basic principles of justice. I will not prolong the debate, but I feel this is an amendment that should be accepted by the Government if it wants to respect the principles of the constitution and the principles that are inherent in our dealings with
employees and our labour relations policy generally. 1 urge the Minister to give serious consideration to this amendment and to accept it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I clearly would not dismiss lightly any recommendation made by Judge Rene Marin in his report. 1 happen to be a good friend of Judge Marin. I am a supporter of his and 1 worked with him at the Canada Post Corporation. He is the chairman of that corporation and a very highly regarded individual who produced an excellent report.
I think it is appropriate for us to look at the proposal that is being made by my colleague, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), which is flawed in at least two regards. One is a policy matter, and the other is the structure of the amendment that he is proposing.
Section 13.1 of the Act presently reads:
Every member who has contravened, is found contravening, or is suspected of contravening the code of conduct or an Act of Parliament or of the legislature of any province, may be suspended from duty by the Commissioner.
What would be the effect of the amendment proposed by my hon. friend across the way? My hon. friend would remove the words "by the Commissioner" and substitute for that the following: "with pay and benefits".
The first concern that Members of the House should have is a technical concern. I do not understand why the Hon. Member for Burnaby would propose to strip away from the Commissioner the right to make any suspension. That is not at all clear to me from the Hon. Member's amendment. By removing the individual who has the authority to make the suspension and specifying no one, how is the interest of the member served? Is he suggesting that no one within the force has the authority to suspend a member with or without pay, or is he suggesting that the authority to suspend a member with or without pay should be broadened and should be conferred on a broader category of individuals than just the Commissioner?
I suggest to the Hon. Member that if he is concerned about the welfare, the well-being, and the feelings of members of the force, surely the rank and file members of the force would be interested in hearing from him why he would take away an authority which is vested in one individual, the head of the organization, and leave us in a position where, presumably, the effect would be to simply broaden the authority to suspend a member. What is the reason for this sort of amendment?
There is also a policy consideration here, Mr. Speaker. I listened with interest to my colleagues arguing in favour of the principle that when members of the force are suspended they should be suspended with pay as opposed to without pay. Indeed, the committee looked at this when the matter was before it and the committee decided to reject the amendment which has been proposed.
There are a number of reasons for that. The first is that in the majority of cases where an individual is suspended, he is suspended with pay. It is perhaps appropriate to do that. However, there are some instances where an offence which has
February 5, 1986

been alleged is so serious that it would be appropriate to suspend a member without pay. For example, if a member of the force is charged with bank robbery and there is photographic evidence, then there is the potential that over a protracted period of time the officer could find himself in court charged with a serious criminal offence with sufficient evidence to merit suspending him from his duties. Yet, he would continue to be paid during that period if the Hon. Member's amendment were to pass.
This raises questions about the appropriateness of this sort of action and whether or not it brings the administration of justice into disrepute. Our concern is that nothing should be done which would bring the administration of justice into disrepute.
If the Hon. Member for Burnaby and the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) want to make an argument in terms of whether or not there is a presupposition that an individual is guilty, they could logically extend that argument to being one against suspension either with or without pay. They would make the argument that surely the court will decide whether the individual who is charged under the Criminal Code is guilty or not guilty and it is not up to the RCMP to suspend the individual at all. However, they are not arguing that. They are saying that it is appropriate, even before a conviction has been secured, for the force to suspend an individual in some cases. The only issues in dispute here are who will do the suspension and whether the suspension should be with or without pay.
There are a couple of other points I would like to make as well, Mr. Speaker. I think the Hon. Member would be concerned about the possibility of creating a special class for the RCMP with privileges and rights which extend beyond those which are granted by Parliament to other public employees. When other public employees in the public service are suspended, the authority is there to suspend them without pay under some circumstances. Yet, the effect of the Hon. Member's amendment would be to create a privileged class in this instance and to confer benefits on members of the RCMP which simply are not conferred upon other federal employees.
I suggest that that sort of double standard would be unfair.
There is one other point that I would like to make before sitting down, Mr. Speaker. I gave the members of the committee the assurance that we would bring in amendments to the regulations that would ensure that any suspension of pay of a member is grievable and that, if there is an injustice being done by the administrative action, the member would have the authority to grieve and take advantage of the various provisions under the regulations. We intend to keep that commitment and to ensure that rights of members of the force are protected.
However, we do not believe that a privileged group should be set up with special rights and privileges not conferred on other public employees. We do not believe that any action should be taken by Parliament which would have the effect of bringing the administration of justice into disrepute.
RCMP Act


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have listened with a good deal of interest to the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty). What he refuses to recognize is that for many years now there has been a feeling among many people, and members of the force in particular, that the RCMP is a law unto itself, that the rules under which it operates were modeled after the rules and laws of the armed forces of the 17th or 18th century.
Before I proceed to the comments I want to make, 1 will deal with one point which the Minister made a few moments ago. He said that if we do this for the RCMP we will have two classes of public employees, that these people will have conditions which do not apply to all other public servants. I suggest the fact is the exact opposite, because all other public sevants except employees on Parliament Hill have the right by law to belong to unions, whether it is the Public Service Alliance or the Professional Institute. When they are accused of wrongdoing or disciplined by suspension or firing, they have a right to ask their unions to grieve on their behalf and deal with it through a number of steps.
However, the RCMP force has no organization and the Commissioner does not want them to have one. The Minister and the Government agree with the Commissioner, so that when the Commissioner or senior officials in the RCMP believe that an ordinary member of the force has done wrong, the Commissioner shall be the prosecutor, the judge and jury to decide on the penalty. That is unacceptable.
Let me briefly cite for the record the views expressed in a very fine presentation on this subject by the committee of seventeen. They say:
Our reasons for recommending that a member be suspended with pay and allowances are as follows:
1.	The Constitution Act, 1982, presumes every person to be innocent until proven guilty by due process of law.
The RCMP Commissioner wants the exact opposite. When he suspends an officer without pay he has already made a judgment. There is no due process of law or consideration by a committee of peers or outside supervisory group. The committee goes on to state:
2.	Suspension from duty with pay pending completion of an investigation for an alleged offence or a breach of the Code of Conduct is an acceptable administrative process. This was a recommendation of the Marin Commission.
The Minister says he is proud of his friendship with the Marin Commission, but he is quite prepared to ignore Justice Marin's recommendation when it does not suit him. The committee goes on to state:
3.	Suspension from duty without pay presupposes guilt and may constitute immediate punishment before due process of law has been completed.
4.	Suspension from duty without pay is perceived as exerting extreme pressure on a member to resign from the Force.
They go on to describe an actual case of an officer who was suspended without pay. Fortunately, the Commissioner subsequently agreed that the officer should be paid while he was
COMMONS DEBATES	February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
suspended. However, it took two and a half years until the case was finally settled. The Committee states:
In view of the fact that current proceedings are lengthy, most in excess of two years, it may be realistic to conclude that the member will not be in a financial position to contest the discharge proceedings.
Of course, the member must do this on his own because he has no union or association to support him in his difficult time. The Minister wants to continue this procedure, but as far as we are concerned that is completely unacceptable.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise to make a brief intervention in this debate on this amendment. I am not a former Solicitor General like the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. All-mand), but I did spend some pleasurable time as a Crown attorney and defence counsel in Vancouver. I have called RCMP officers as witnesses for my cases and I have cross-examined them in other cases, so I believe I have some experience with these officers in their day-to-day work.
I believe they should receive salary and benefits while under suspension. I suggest that the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) is not considering this issue in human terms. I might say that he is a bit too stuffy when he says this brings the administration of justice into dispute.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Disrepute.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That it brings the administration of justice into disrepute. That is a rather high-sounding principle but it does not mean anything in the context of this very human situation.


Henry Perrin Beatty: It does to me.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is a very high-sounding principle. Let us consider the human situation. These officers are very special and have a very difficult job. There is a greater possibility for them to get into trouble than the average public servant. I make the case that it is a rather unique job and if special cases must be made for them, let us do so. It will not set a precedent for the whole public service.
As my colleagues have pointed out, the civil service has a better grievance procedure and union protection. Let us look at it in the context of human terms and the special job that these police officers must perform. If there is an allegation by which they can be suspended, they are helpless. They are not rich people but ordinary Canadians with families. They cannot afford to hire expensive lawyers to help them when they are under suspension.
The Hon. Solicitor General pays great tribute to Justice Marin and his report. Why do you not follow the report if you have such great respect for the judge, because he clearly saw the human side of the issue? With respect, the Minister ducks behind the technicalities. I believe that these technicalities can easily be rectified and I wish to propose a subamendment to the amendment by my hon. friend, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I move, seconded by the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald):
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 30 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"by the Commissioner, with pay and benefits".
The Commissioner can still apply the suspension but it will be with pay and benefits. The Minister would not be able to duck behind that technicality.
I ask the Minister to consider the human terms because these people face special and difficult circumstances. It is easier for them, compared to other public servants, to get into trouble but they are left unprotected. It would be no detriment to the Government to exercise some human kindness and allow for suspension with pay and benefits. There is a principle which we must take into consideration besides the money that such a provision would cost, and I suspect that Conservative back-benchers would agree, if they were here listening to what I just said. I ask the Solicitor General to consider this subamendment.
Mr. Alan Red way (York East): Mr. Speaker-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 would simply seek your guidance about the rules of the House with respect to moving an amendment to a report stage motion. Could you give us guidance in that respect?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is exactly what I am doing. I am taking it under advisement at this time and carrying on with debate. I hope to come back with a ruling for the Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty).


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sure you will be advised that the subamendment arises from what the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) suggested in his last intervention.


Mr. Redway:: Mr. Speaker, I wanted to rise to assure the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell) that Government Members are present, attentive and know what the substance of this debate is all about. What strikes me is that perhaps the Hon. Member and his colleagues are either confused, do not understand the meaning of the words in the Bill itself, or perhaps are getting carried away with themselves.
However, it is quite clear that the clause of the Bill we are dealing with does not say that a member of the Force is to be suspended without pay. It merely says they are to be suspended from duty. It does not say whether it is with pay or without pay. It leaves it quite flexible. There is the opportunity to suspend with pay or the opportunity to suspend without pay.
If the occasion arises-it may rarely and it may never,-the Hon. Minister has indicated that when someone is suspended without pay then he has made an undertaking that the regulations are to be amended so that that particular matter can be grieved.
The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) indicated that, in effect, there was no grievance procedure in the Act, but actually there is. With the combination of that
February 5, 1986

grievance procedure, the Minister's undertaking and the working in the Act, it leaves us with the flexibility that we are looking for. It may be that no one will ever be suspended without pay. There is that flexibility and that option if it is necessary. If it is not necessary, it will not be used because the Act as it now stands allows the Member to be suspended with pay.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, could I ask the Hon. Member a
question?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: No. The Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) must know that there are no questions or comments during this part of the debate.
Let me come back to the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell). What is happening is that the Hon. Member for Burnaby is deleting something and the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway is adding something.
Clause 13.1 reads:
-the legislature of any province may be suspended from duty by the
commissioner.
Let me read the Hon. Member's amendment:
That Bill C-65 be amended in Clause 7 by striking out line 30 at page 5 and substituting the following therefor:
"with pay and benefits"
The Member is asking that we add the words "by the Commissioner with pay and benefits". I see no problem with that sub-amendment.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Is it within the power of a Member of Parliament to make a motion that has to do with the expenditure of Government funds?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes, it is perfectly in order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I just want to clarify something. I believe this will assist the Solicitor General and Members of the House. I have a copy of the amendments as they were given to the Clerk. I believe the difficulty arose because the amendments that were filed to the Bill in the original form referred to the Bill as it was tabled in the House of Commons on June 27, not to the reported version of the Bill.
Unfortunately, it would appear in translating these amendments to the reports stage of the Bill that perhaps an error was made in deleting those words. I have checked the original Bill and it did include the words "by the Commissioner".
It was a difficulty in the interpretation of that amendment to the extent that I was responsible by virtue of the fact that we proposed amendments to the lines of the Bill as it was originally tabled. I certainly regret that. However, I would note that those amendments were translated by others.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. During the submission of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) to
RCMP Act
this House, he based his objection to the motion on the elimination of the words "by the Commissioner". One would suspect that he would look favourably upon an amendment that would include the words "the Commissioner".
If the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) indicates that in his amendment the words should be there, I imagine that you have no alternative, Mr. Speaker, but to allow debate based on the words included.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: That is what he is saying.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the seconder for the motion the Hon. Member for the Winnipeg North?


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is speaking on the subamendment to the amendment.


John V. Nunziata: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I understand that 1 will have an opportunity to speak to the amendment as well?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, during the submissions of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) he said: "Nothing should be done to bring the administration of justice into disrepute". If there is anything that would bring the administration of justice into disrepute, it is the presumption of guilt before a fair hearing by a particular tribunal.
I cannot help but point out the hypocrisy in the position of the Solicitor General. When he was the Minister of National Revenue, he put together what was known as the Declaration of Taxpayer Rights. I am sure you recall when he put that out, Mr. Speaker. He said that henceforth the taxpayers of Canada would have certain rights and he proceeded to point out what those rights are.
One of those rights, and this is a document put out by the Solicitor General when he was the Minister of National Revenue, was the presumption of honesty. He said: "You are entitled to be presumed honest unless there is evidence to the contrary". He went on to say that "you are entitled to every benefit allowed by the law".
One could ask the Solicitor General why taxpayers should be allowed every benefit allowed by the law yet members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police not be entitled to every benefit allowed by the law? The law of Canada is the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms which states at Clause 1 \(d) that a resident of Canada:
to be presumed innocent until proven guilty according to law in a fair and public hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal.
The Solicitor General says nothing should be done to bring the administration of Justice into disrepute. His position of not allowing members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police to be suspended with full pay and benefits brings the administration of justice into disrepute because it presumes that an officer is guilty of some offence. Why else would you suspend an officer without pay? One could conclude that by suspending

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
an officer without full pay and benefits that the particular officer is guilty of some offence.
The Solicitor General says that in certain cases the infraction might be so serious that it demands the officer be suspended without pay. The Solicitor General then cited the example of a bank robbery.
A person is presumed and assumed innocent, regardless of the evidence prior to a trial. Yet the Solicitor General is suggesting that in the case of someone charged with bank robbery he or she should be suspended without full pay and benefits. Is the Solicitor General not saying that the commissioner, in this particular case, has the authority to condemn an officer or a member of the Force who is still innovent according to the law of Canada? It is a basic and fundamental principle of our justice system that one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I cannot understand why the Solicitor General is so adamant in his position that he wants to suspend members of the Force without pay and benefits.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and other Hon. Members have indicated why an individual should not be suspended without full pay and benefits. We in the Official Opposition believe-and I am sure the NDP would agree- that all members who are in the midst of an investigation should be suspended with full pay and benefits or assigned to other duties. Otherwise, the person is being convicted before he or she is given a fair hearing, before the person's final guilt is determined. It is a preliminary finding of guilt if the person is suspended. It is not only contrary to the basis of the justice system in Canada, but on humanitarian and compassionate grounds, and on those grounds alone, one could argue that a member of the Force should not be suspended without full pay and benefits and that indeed one should be suspended with full pay and benefits.
Can we imagine the hardship involved for a member of the Force who is suspended without full pay and is subjected to a long hearing or investigation? Let us say that it takes from six months to a year before the RCMP conducts its own investigation into a particular allegation. What is the particular member who is presumed innocent supposed to do? He or she is denied full pay and benefits. Presumably some of the benefits are for the member's family, so the family suffers as a result. Is he or she to go on welfare? Is he or she to go on unemployment insurance? We can see how serious the matter is, if the commissioner is allowed to suspend an individual without full pay and benefits.
After the final determination of the particular allegation, if the person is found to have contravened the code of conduct or the Criminal Code of Canada, after he or she has been found guilty, we all agree that then and only then should the commissioner be allowed to suspend the person without pay. Otherwise it would create considerable harship.
In closing, I reiterate my very serious concerns about the hypocrisy of the position taken by the Solicitor General. When he was Minister of National Revenue he had what is known as
the "Declaration of Taxpayer Rights". It was a high-faluting document. He had it framed. It went across the country. He was very proud of it. He was also proud of the fact that there was a presumption of honesty and that every taxpayer was entitled to every benefit allowed by the law. What has changed his mind since he was made the Solicitor General of Canada? Why should RCMP officers and members not be afforded the same rights as any other Canadian is afforded? Those rights include the right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty. I, for one, cannot understand that blatant and obvious hypocrisy.
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, I simply want to respond to the arguments of the Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway). He pointed out that the Bill before us indicates that the member may be suspended from duty by the commissioner but that it does not specify whether he should be suspended without pay and benefits or with pay and benefits. Consequently he said that it could be done either way, that the member of the RCMP could be suspended with pay and benefits and that would respond to the law as proposed in the Bill. That is not enough.
I respond to the Hon. Member by telling him that that is not enough because of the abuses present in the RCMP where members were suspended without pay and benefits for long periods of time until their cases were heard. It was exactly for that reason that the Marin Commission very specifically recommended that if they were to be suspended, they be suspended with pay and benefits until the matter had been decided.
It was also for that reason that the Association of 17 Divisions and RCMP divisional staff relations representatives-and both these groups represent members of the force who are not officers-recommended that if there were suspensions, it be written into the law that the suspensions be with pay and benefits. It is not enough that we accept what is written in the law at the present time. It was not enough for Judge Marin when he wrote his report, and it is not enough for the men in the RCMP who would like us to legislate otherwise. I wish the Government would listen to the good reason of the men in the Force and to Judge Marin.


Svend Johannes Robinson: And to the women as well.


William Warren Allmand: And to the women of the Force as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: We cannot forget the women. The House has heard the terms of the amendment. Is the House ready for the question on the amendment to the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.
February 5, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those against will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it, and I declare the motion defeated.
Amendment (Mr. Waddell) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is now on Motion No. 1. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, at committee we had the benefit of listening to RCMP divisional staff relations representatives in respect of their views on Bill C-65, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mounted Police Act. On behalf of the Internal Affairs Committee, RCMP divisional staff relations representatives presented a brief to the committee. One would suspect from the comments of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) that he did not take the time to read it. It was well-written and well-researched and made some very cogent arguments in respect of certain amendments to Bill C-65.
After the introduction in their submission to the committee, the first area of concern expressed by them was the issue of suspension without pay. One could conclude, therefore, given the fact that it was the first item they raised, that it is one of the most important, if not the most important, concerns of the RCMP divisional staff relations representatives in respect of the Bill. It is obvious why this would be a very serious concern.
I should like to quote from the particular submission. They started off by saying:
The question of whether the Commissioner of the RCMP needs the authority to suspend a member of the force without pay has been a major issue for discussion since 1973.
They referred to an administrative bulletin which was issued last year and said:
Prior to the passage of this regulation, the commissioner did not have clear authority for suspension without pay. The RCMP divisional staff relations representatives unanimously feel that suspension without pay is not necessary for the proper administration of the force.
They gave their reasons for saying it.
It goes on to list five important reasons why a member of the Force should not be suspended without pay and, if anything, should be suspended with full pay and benefits. First, they say that a member of the RCMP is a Canadian citizen and as such is presumed innocent until proven guilty by due process, the point 1 raised earlier. The second point they raise is that suspension with pay during an investigation into an alleged offence is an acceptable administrative process as recommended by the Marin Commission.
The Marin Commission spoke about this very issue and recommended that during a criminal investigation or service investigation of a serious nature, and any subsequent proceed-
RCMP Act
ings, a member should be either suspended with pay or assigned to other duties.
The commission also recommended that no more than 45 days should normally elapse between the commencement and termination of any service investigation, and that if the investigation cannot be concluded within that time the member should be advised of his position and of the current status of the investigation.
The Marin Commission spent a lot of time putting this report together. As you know, Mr. Speaker, as you were a Member of the House at the time, the commission was instituted by the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who was then Solicitor General. The members of the commission spent a lot of time researching the terms of reference and coming up with recommendations.
The Solicitor General has said that he is a friend of Commissioner Marin and that he has respect for him. The Solicitor General has not given any good reason why we should not adopt the recommendations of the Marin Commission. The Solicitor General has dismissed these recommendations in a very frivolous manner without giving good solid reasons why an officer should not be suspended with full pay and benefits. He cited the example of the bank robber, but that is just not good enough.
The third item raised by the representatives of the RCMP at committee was that suspension without pay presupposes guilt and constitutes immediate punishment. Once again, authority is being given to the Commissioner of the RCMP to be investigator, prosecutor and executioner all at the same time and that is not fair.
The fourth item raised by the representatives is that suspension without pay is perceived as exerting extreme pressure on a member to resign, thus denying a proper hearing. That is an interesting point. This committee is composed of very responsible individuals. Staff Sergeant Fred Davis, Corporal Ron Thurston and Staff Sergeant Rick Preston were, I believe, the authors of this particular report and they suggest that the potential exists for the Commissioner to use his authority in order to pressure a member into resigning. If a member wanted to seek other employment, he or she might not have any alternative but to resign. That is something worth noting.
The fifth and final point raised by the representatives is that any member alleged to have committed so blantant an act that his services can no longer be tolerated can be processed for discharge on an urgent basis, and such instances would be so infrequent that unique methods could be justified. I for one cannot think of any activity that is so blatant that it requires immediate dismissal on an urgent basis. If one is charged with a criminal offence, one is presumed innocent until proven guilty. I suppose if there was a case of continual insubordination, that might be a reason to suspend an officer. However, a mere breach of the code of conduct should not give the Commissioner the authority to suspend without pay because that is a very serious action.

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
In closing, I would ask the Solicitor General rethink his position. There is still time for him to do so. The Solicitor General appears to be a reasonable person. He says that he is a reasonable person and he says that he has consideration for the administration of justice. He says that he has taken great strides in the Department of National Revenue by giving the taxpayers of Canada their declaration of taxpayer rights. I would call on him to put together a declaration of rights for RCMP members. If the Solicitor General truly believed in entitling every benefit allowed by law to the taxpayers when he was the Minister of National Revenue, then surely he should be consistent, since he is a reasonable individual, and afford members of the RCMP the same rights afforded to every other Canadian.


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 Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived on division.
Motion No. 1 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Chair has reviewed the arguments of the Hon. President fo the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) with regard to Motions Nos. 9 and 11. Motion No. 9 would allow complaints against the RCMP in general. Clause 45.35 allows complaints against any member of the force. Conceivably, one could file individual complaints against all members of the Force for an activity common to all members. In my opinion, Motion No. 9 is within the scope of the clause and therefore is in order.
Motion No. 11 attempts to substitute the final authority on a complaint from the Commissioner to the Public Complaints Commission, as provided in Clause 45.29(1), and therefore is within the four corners of the Bill. The ruling made earlier this day will therefore stand.
We will now deal with Motion No. 2.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 36 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) No member or former member of the Force is eligible".
He said: Briefly, in support of this motion, I would note that the amendment reflects the concern of witnesses appearing before the committee and, in particular, the Association of 17 Divisions, that the external review committee should be seen to be completely unbiased and free of any perception of bias by requiring that former members not be eligible for appointment to the external review committee. The fundamental concern here is to safeguard the appearance of independence of the external review committee.
I would note that the Bill as it is currently worded prevents any serving member from being a member of the external review committee. One would certainly hope that that would be the case. The review committee process is supposed to be external to the RCMP itself, and obviously any internal involvement would be a contradiction in terms. However, I think we have to look at the credibility of this process. The Bill as it is worded would ensure that the external review committee would have the opportunity to review grievances of members of the RCMP. However, it will still be able to make recommendations to the Commission. It will be the Commission which decides whether to accept or reject the recommendations of the external review committee.
For that reason, it is essential that this external review committee not be perceived either by members of the public, who may be involved in this process, or by members of the RCMP, to be in any way linked, either directly or indirectly, to the RCMP itself. Therefore, the amendment would ensure that former members of the RCMP would not play a role in the external review committee. Surely, there are many other outstanding Canadian men and women who could be appointed to this external review committee, without the necessity of tainting the perception of the public by including former members of the RCMP.
I note that the fundamental objective which we in the New Democratic Party have sought to achieve in our review of this legislation is an assurance of the basic right to freedom of association which is accorded all other Canadians. This means that the provisions of various laws which currently deny that freedom of association deny the RCMP the basic right to full and free collective bargaining and that those provisions would be struck down. The Government has refused to accept that. It has refused to allow members of the RCMP to choose for themselves whether or not they want full and free collective bargaining without the right to strike.

Mr. Speaker, again I repeat that there is now the Association of 17 Divisions. It has members in all regions of Canada, but most of them are in the Province of Quebec. The Association of 17 Divisions has a membership of 2,800 and, as I
February 5, 1986

understand it, roughly 90 per cent of RCMP "C" Division members recently voted in favour of collective bargaining and the right to be represented by the Association of 17 Divisions.
Mr. Speaker, the approach of this Government is to deny Quebec RCMP members the right to choose their own representatives. The Association made it clear that it is not asking for the right to strike. But I think that the attitude of the Government, the basic role-

The external review committee must be seen to be totally independent. If we are to deny fundamental rights to collective bargaining then, at the very least, the body which is seen to be external to the RCMP which is reviewing complaints must not include former members of the RCMP, just as it must not include serving members of the RCMP.
The objective of this amendment is to ensure that the perception of independence is an accurate one. We obviously would liked to have seen the opportunity for full collective bargaining. At the present time, there are about 14,000 members of the RCMP. It is true that the vast majority of those members-well over 10,000 of them-have decided at this point that they accept the divisional representative system of representation. Certainly, I would not in any way quarrel with their right to make that decision for themselves. However, what we are saying to the other approximately 3,000 members is that they do not have the right to seek free collective bargaining and representation. In the case of the members in the Province of Quebec-


Henry Perrin Beatty: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) rises on a point of order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, however much I admire my hon. friend's ingenuity in arguing Motion No. 5 under the guise of debate on Motion No. 2, Mr. Speaker has ruled Motion No. 5 out of order. The comments of the Hon. Member with regard to collective bargaining in the RCMP are totally irrelevant to the particular issue as to whether or not former memebrs of the RCMP should be allowed to serve on the external review committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I appreciate what the Solicitor General is saying. I know that the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who has been here for a long time, realizes what he is doing. Therefore, I think that the House is now ready for the question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I defer to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), unless he is finished. He was in the middle of his submission.
RCMP Act


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude my brief remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Burnaby still has one minute remaining. Does he wish to carry on with his remarks?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Yes, Mr. Speaker. In conclusion, with respect to the amendment which would ensure that the process of the external review committee be seen to be completely free of any suggestion of involvement, either by current members of the RCMP or former members, I point out once again that the reason this amendment is so important is that day, after this committee has in fact made its recommendations, it is still the commission which has the final say. Given the rather primitive system of labour relations within the RCMP, surely the Government would accept this very reasonable amendment to the proposals with respect to the composition of the external review committee.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak briefly to this particular amendment. I am of two minds with respect to it. I will indicate the dilemma in which I find myself.
I understand what the Hon. Member for Burnaby is suggesting. He is saying that no member or former member should be allowed to be a member of the external review committee. If it is truly to be an external review committee, then it should not include as part of its membership someone who is a former member of the RCMP. That can work both ways, and I would like to indicate why I think it can work both ways.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby is suggesting that if a former member sits on the external review committee then, in some way, the individuals who are being investigated might be affected by the fact that there is a former officer who sits on the review committee. That can also work the other way. That is to say if a former member of the RCMP sits on the external review committee, then he or she might have a greater understanding of the issues before it.
I am sure most Hon. Members will agree that when one deals with labour relations, for example when a matter proceeds to arbitration, it is quite normal for labour to appoint a representative to the arbitration board. It is also normal for management to appoint a representative to the arbitration board and then for there to be a neutral chairman, a neutral third person, appointed. I suppose the reason this system has developed in labour law in Canada is to ensure that at any particular arbitration hearing there is at least one representative who is sympathetic to the cause of labour, one who is sympathetic to the cause of management and a third representative, presumably the one who has the deciding vote of the three, who will look at both sides and who has a balanced view of the particular matter being considered.
The reason I raise this matter is that there is a purpose for trying to seek out someone who is sympathetic to labour and management when it comes to labour arbitrations, and that

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
might make some sense when one deals with an external review committee. I agree that a person who is a member of the Force-not a former member-should not sit on the committee. However, I do not have the same difficulties with respect to a former member.
As Hon. Members know, this external review committee is to be made up of five individuals. There is to be a chairman, a vice-chairman, and not more than three other members. People appointed to the board are appointed by order of the Governor in Council. That creates some problem, since we know the track record of the Government when it comes to political appointment, to patronage and to partisanship-


Ms. McDonald:: They had a good example to follow!


John V. Nunziata: Notwithstanding the fact that the Conservatives campaigned against it in the last election campaign, the moment they came to office they started appointing their friends, relatives, Party hacks and bagpeople. Thus, they have a long track record when it comes to patronage. Our friends to the left say that we were not any better. Well, we did not promise-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: -during that election campaign to change the system of patronage.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: I do not want to be diverted from the substance of my submission except to say that I have concerns when we give to the Conservative Cabinet the authority to appoint people to various boards and commissions, because, given the opportunity to appoint a friend and relative, those Hon. Members will appoint a friend or relative to any board or commission.
When we are dealing with an external review committee dealing with the RCMP, we must ensure that the people who are appointed to this committee are people with unimpeachable integrity. We have heard those terms before, of course. They are often used by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) in defence of all of those people on the other side of the House. They all have unimpeachahble integrity, notwithstanding the abysmal poor judgment which is often displayed. But I do not want to get sidetracked on this issue.
The Division Staff Relations Representative Committee recommended that consideration be given to an amendment giving the Governor in Council the authority, upon the approval or in consultation with the National Executive Committee of the Division Staff Relations Representative. It wants some say as to who is appointed to this external review committee because it, too, no doubt, has a concern with respect to the type of individual who might be appointed by this Conservative Government. Page 6 of its submission states: "Members of the Force and the public expect a balanced, objective, non-partisan review of matters presented". It then recommends that it have some say about who is appointed to that committee.
The reason the committee made that recommendation is that it does not have the faith and trust that this Conservative Government would appoint an external review committee which has a balanced, objective, non-partisan approach to the matters which might be before it.
In conclusion, I would like to say that 1 do not share the concerns of the Hon. Member for Burnaby with respect to this particular motion. I think that a former member of the Force, as a member of this external review committee, might serve to provide some experience and understanding of a particular issue which might be before the committee. I would hope as well that we will not give authority to the Conservative Cabinet, or any cabinet, for that matter, to appoint the external review committee. If this particular committee should be above suspicion with respect to partisanship, and truly independent, the committee should not be appointed by Cabinet. Perhaps it should be appointed by Parliament. Some other body should be permitted to make some contribution to the appointment of the external review committee.
If you were the chairman of the committee, Mr. Speaker, I would not have any problem because all of us in this House respect your judgment and balanced approach to the deliberations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I did not intend to participate in this particular discussion but I must say I was inspired by my colleague opposite who, in his usual friendly and thoughtful way, made a useful intervention in the proceedings of the House. I would like to indicate that I will certainly send down for framing the statement made by the Hon. Member in defence of the Liberal Party. He pointed out that no Canadian will ever be disappointed in the behaviour of the Liberal Party because it never promised anything better than it delivered. In matters of morality, it never disappoints.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Henry Perrin Beatty: If my hon. friend could get a grip on himself, at least temporarily, perhaps we could get back to the subject at hand which is the motion proposed by my friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). The issue seems to be whether there is the potential for a conflict of interest to exist in the case of members of the external review committee. Clearly, in an instance where a current serving member of the Force is appointed to the external review committee, there would be the potential that, in matters coming before the review committee, he might very well have a direct interest in the decision being taken. The question, then, which remains is whether, in the case of former members of the RCMP, they are deemed to have some continuing personal conflict of interest that for all time would forbid them serving on the committee.
February 5, 1986

I would suggest, Mr. Speaker, that if you look at the conflict of interest regulations which involve Members of Parliament, members of the Cabinet and other federal appointees, you will find that the conflict of interest regulations relate to their present activities. If someone is engaged in some activity which is in conflict with his or her professional responsibilities, a conflict of interest exists. There is also a provision for a cooling-off period for senior Government officials when they leave and go to the private sector in terms of the work they can accept. But no attempt is made to bar for all time federal employees from the ability to pursue activities after they leave their present responsibilities. Nor is there an attempt made to bar for all time people with a background and experience in the private sector and other areas who come to Ottawa and who have an interest in serving on government boards and commissions. There is no assumption that one carries with one for all time some scarlet letter which is going to taint and prevent one from discharging one's responsibilities in a fair and effective way.
What is important is that we ensure that no conflict of interest can exist, and the Bill, as it is written today, does precisely that. Second, the Government should have the scope to appoint the most qualified people in Canada to serve on the external review committee. The submission I would make to the House is that surely anyone who looks at a situation like this would recognize that perhaps the people with the greatest expertise in terms of the activities of the Force are former members of the RCMP themselves. Are we simply to exclude a whole class of Canadians on the basis that they are somehow tainted by having served their country well as members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police?
I note that the Hon. Member for Burnaby makes no effort to bar former members, or even present members of other police forces, from serving on the external review committee. There is no belief on his part that the mere fact of having been a police officer taints one and makes one unqualified for participation on the external review committee. The only group he would seek to exclude are former members of the RCMP. I would suggest that that sort of exclusion is unfair. It casts doubt upon the integrity and independence of former members of the Force. What is more, it would deny the external review committee the ability to draw upon people who may very well be the most qualified people in Canada to serve on the committee.
For that reason, Hon. Members on this side of the House cannot accept the motion which is proposed by my hon. friend.


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 Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
RCMP Act


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will
please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will
please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 2 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 6 at page 13 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3), where any member or members are aggrieved by". Motion No. 4
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 8 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"any level in the grievance process, and in any event, within 30 days the". Motion No. 6
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 27 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"court except in accordance with section 18 or 28".
Motion No. 7
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 21 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"36. The Governor in Council may make regulations".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that these four motions have been grouped for debate. The combined effect of all four motions would be to enhance the procedural safeguards available to members of the RCMP, strengthen their rights, and ensure that the grievance procedure is more effective. Motion No. 3 would ensure the possibility of group grievances. As the Bill is now worded, only individual members of the RCMP can file a grievance. This amendment would include the words "or members" and ensure that group grievances could be Filed. A similar proposal was made by the Marin Commission. They said that a group of members with a common cause of complaint should be allowed to have a single grievance lodged on behalf of the group. As it is now, if a single grievance affected many other members, they would all of course have to File similar grievances. As the Marin Commission points out, the divisional staff relations representative program has given some recognition to the question of group concerns, but nevertheless I believe the Bill should reflect that recommendation as well.
There are a number of potential areas of group grievances. For example, at the time the divisional representative system was put into place in 1974, there were 14 specific promises made to members of the RCMP. They were asked to vote on whether or not they wanted to have a divisional representative system or collective bargaining. One of those very important promises, which might very well be the basis of a group

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
grievance today, was promise number nine. That promise was as follows.
[ Translation]
The Government had promised that a division representative would be directly involved in negotiations with Treasury Board. Well, Mr. Speaker, that was in 1974 and today, eleven years later, it is still not the case since no representative sits at the bargaining table with the Treasury Board.
So the promise was made all right, but it has yet to become reality for members of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
And then, Mr. Speaker, if salaries had been reviewed on the basis of the average salary paid by other major police forces in Canada, as RCMP members were promised, then the RCMP membership would not be trailing behind other law enforcement officers in Canada.

So an illustration, as it were, of the kind of group grievance which might very well be brought forward is that grievance with respect to the promise solemnly made by the Government of the day in 1974. It stated that one divisional representative shall be directly involved in pay negotiations at the bargaining table. That was the promise made and broken by the Liberal Government, and unfortunately it remains unfulfilled by the Conservative Government today. That was one of the premises which underlay the concept of divisional representatives. [Translation]
And that, Mr. Speaker, is undoubtedly one of the reasons why more than 90 per cent of Quebec RCMP members voted in favour of the right to collective bargaining through the Association of 17 Divisions.
Mr. Speaker, I stress the fact that the Government now refuses to acknowledge that basic right of Quebec RCMP members.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Are we on Motion No. 5?


Svend Johannes Robinson: In addition, dealing with, as I have been, this important Motion No. 3 with respect to group grievances, another example of the kind of grievance which might very well be brought if there were an opportunity for group grievances is with respect to the surveillance of the Association of 17 Divisions which it is alleged took place. The association has filed a complaint with the office of the Information Commissioner. As a result, it received some 867 pages of documentation concerning the association-

-and there are still 197 pages which the RCMP has so far refused to make public.
If the motion were to be adopted, Mr. Speaker, many RCMP members would probably insist that the Commissioner reconsider his refusal to publish those pages of material concerning unions within the RCMP and the Association of 17
Divisions, and make that information available to the Association.

I find it most interesting that at the same time as the RCMP insists there was no surveillance of the association, it refused to make available to the association almost 200 pages of documentation concerning collective bargaining rights and concerning the association. Once again, that is the kind of grievance which should be allowed as a group grievance and would be allowed if the amendment in Motion No. 3 were adopted.
Motion No. 4 would ensure that there is a time limit for the consideration of grievances. It would impose a 30-day time limit, just as Motion No. 8 would ensure a 90-day time limit after the hearing of the grievance before a decision is rendered. These are additional safeguards for the protection of members of the Force.
Finally, with respect to Motion No. 6, this would in effect broaden the scope of potential review by the courts. As the Bill is now worded there could only be review under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act, a fairly narrow review. Motion No. 6 would in effect broaden the scope of review and ensure that members of the RCMP would be accorded the same rights as members of the civilian security service. Those members do have the right to review under Section 18 as well as Section 28 of the Federal Court Act.
The net effect of these four motions would be to enhance the protection of members of the RCMP during the grievance process, once again bearing in mind the fact that the Government still refuses to grant to members of the RCMP the basic rights to which all other Canadians are entitled, namely the right to full collective bargaining and freedom of association.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I recognize the Solicitor General, may I point out that the Hon. Member, having been a Member of this House since 1979, realizes that even en franfais he cannot come back to Motion No. 5. He has done that to me twice and I hope he will not do it a third time.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, I do however think we should applaud my hon. friend's artistry and ingenuity in doing that.
I would like to comment briefly on these four motions. Motion No. 3 purports to provide for group grievances in addition to individual grievances. Group grievances are possible at the present time. Grievances on the same issue which are filed by a number of members would be consolidated by the Force if practicable. The issue here is whether a class grievance on behalf of a number of members of the force should be able to be filed. The concern which the Government has is that it wants to do whatever it can to avoid a situation where one member of the Force, purporting to speak on behalf of a number of his colleagues, files a grievance when, in fact, he does not speak on their behalf. It is for this reason that we cannot support Motion No. 3.
February 5, 1986

Motion No. 4 provides that each level in the grievance process should render a decision within 30 days. We believe that at the same time as pressure is put and should be put on the system to ensure that decisions are taken as rapidly as possible, we should also not create arbitrary deadlines which, in some cases, simply could not be met. Clause 46(2) of the Bill provides that all proceedings before a board must be dealt with expeditiously. There may be some instances where it is simply impossible to deal with a particular grievance within 30 days. As a consequence, it would possibly be doing an injustice to the individual involved if a decision were forced in less than that period of time. That is why it is important to allow sufficient flexibility for the system to work properly.
The issue in Motion No. 6 is a highly technical one. It is whether or not it is necessary, as proposed by my hon. colleague from Burnaby, that wherever a review is permitted of the Commissioner's decision under Section 28 of the Federal Court Act, review should also be explicitly provided for under Section 18 of that Act.
The Government has looked at this and feels that the provision in question relates to the right of a member to appeal the final decision of the Commissioner to the Federal Court of Appeal. Second, under the Federal Court Act there are two avenues for appeal, the first through Section 18 and the second through Section 28. Section 18 provides for appeals to the Federal Court Trial Division of decisions of an administrative body and/or interlocutory motions such as mandamus, certiorari, etc. Section 28 provides for appeals to the Federal Court of Appeal of decisions made on a judicial or a quasi-judicial basis.
An appeal from the Commissioner's decisions, because they are judicial or quasi-judicial in nature, accordingly, must be brought before the Federal Court of Appeal pursuant to Section 28. It would be legally contradictory to provide for an appeal of the Commissioner's decision under both Section 18 and Section 28 of the Federal Court Act given the varying nature of appeals provided for under these sections.
The fact that Bill C-65 is silent with respect to a Section 18 appeal does not preclude a motion under that section from being Filed when it is appropiate, for example, when a purely administrative issue is to be determined. For that reason, the proposal that is made by the Hon. Member is redundant and unnecessary in this particular case. On the other hand, specifically providing a reference to Section 18 in this section, dealing with appeals from the Commissioner's decisions, would not only be legally incorrect but would also undoubtedly mislead some members into launching an appeal under this section. Accordingly, in order to avoid members using the wrong appeal provision, reference to Section 18 has been deliberately left out.
Finally, the issue with regard to Motion No. 7 is whether the Governor in Council, rather than the Commissioner, should make regulations governing the presentation and consideration of grievances. It is the Commissioner who is charged with the control and management of the force. The grievance
RCMP Act
system is an integral part of the internal management of the Force, and to divest the Commissioner of the power to make rules respecting the representation and consideration of grievances would be to dilute his control and management of the Force.
Having the Commissioner make rules governing the grievance process in entirely consistent with the general principle that a body normally seized with a judicial or quasi-judicial function makes its own rules regulating the proceedings before it. For example, the Federal Court Act and the Supreme Court Act provide for these judicial bodies to make their own rules of practice and procedure. For this reason, Mr. Speaker, the committee and the members of the Government felt that the procedures in the Bill today are the correct procedures.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to restrict my comments to Motion No. 4 with respect to the time period. The motion moved by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) would amend Section 31(6) to read as follows: "as soon as possible after the presentation and consideration of a grievance at any level in the grievance process, and in any event, within 30 days the member constituting the level shall render a decision". The operative words are: "in any event, within 30 days".
This particular amendment is suggested to put a timeframe on the grievance procedure and, in my view, relatives to Motion No. 1. We spent a considerable amount of time dealing with that motion which deals with a member of the Force being suspended. It was my submission, and that of the Official Opposition, that a member of the Force should be suspended with full pay and benefits for the reasons I gave earlier.
As I pointed out in my earlier submissions, on page 154 of the Marin Commission it is recommended:
During a criminal investigation or a service investigation of a serious nature and any subsequent proceedings, a member should be either suspended with pay or assigned to other duties.
In his so-called wisdom the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) decided not to adopt this particular suggestion by the Marin Commission, which recommendation was a good one. I hope the Solicitor General will continue to rethink his position. I am sure that reason will prevail in the long run.
However, if, after serious deliberations, the Solicitor General decides that he will not agree to suspending a member of the RCMP with full pay and benefits and affording a member the same rights as any other Canadian, surely he will consider limiting the period within which the RCMP can investigate a particular complaint.
The Solicitor General went over Motion No. 4 rather quickly. He dismissed it almost summarily, I would suggest. He indicated that he did not want to put any impediment in the way which may affect the investigation of a particular alleged offence. What is needed is some method through which those who are conducting the investigation within the RCMP can move a little faster. We all know how slow an investigation could be in certain cases. The investigation can be speeded up

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
or slowed down depending upon certain circumstances that should not, in my view, be taken into consideration.
If you impose a time period and tell the invetigating body that it must report within the given limited period, that particular step in the procedure will be completed within that time. However, if you do not set out a time, the steps may take weeks, months, or perhaps even years while the officer is suspended without full pay and benefits. You are nodding your head in agreement, Mr. Speaker, and I know that you agree with me. If you were given the opportunity you would make submissions to support what I am saying.
In the portion of the Marin Commission dealing with suspension with pay and benefits it says:
No more than 45 days should normally elapse between the commencement and termination of any service investigation. If the investigation cannot be concluded within that time, the member should be advised of his position and of the current status of the investigation.
That is pretty reasonable, Mr. Speaker, and I see that you are nodding your head again in agreement. It seems that you are agreeing with everything I am saying here today. I would only hope that given the position you occupy in this House you might somehow persuade your junior, the Solicitor General, to see it our way, as well. I cannot understand why the Solicitor General will not agree to at least the Marin Commission recommendation which provides for a time limit of 45 days.
If the investigation cannot be completed within 45 days, Commissioner Marin suggested that the member should be advised of his position and the current status of the investigation. That is all that is being recommended. It is not being said that if the investigation cannot be completed within 45 days it should be terminated. It is being said that if you cannot do it within 45 days you must advise the member of the status and position of the investigation. I suggest that the principles of natural justice would demand that a limitation period be put on the investigation. Any person who is under suspicion and alleged to have committed a breach of the code of conduct or the Criminal Code of Canada is entitled to an investigation and a hearing within a reasonable period of time.
That is another basic and fundamental principle of our criminal justice system. Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms deals with legal rights. I will not take the time of the House to read it but it says that an accused person is entitled to a trial within a reasonable period of time.
I suggest that Mr. Justice Marin's time period or the 30-day period suggested by the Member for Burnaby is a reasonable time within which the RCMP should complete its investigation.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7 were grouped for debate but must be voted on separately. Therefore, the question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 3 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 4 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 4 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 6 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed to the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.
February 5, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 6 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The next question is on Motion No. 7 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 7 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Motions Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 are to be debated and voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 14 at page 35 and substituting the following therefor:
"possible, and in any event, within 90 days render a decision in writing on an".
He said: Mr. Speaker, in making my remarks with respect to Motion No. 3 and the subsequent motions in the previous package-


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry to interrupt the Hon. Member. I believe you just indicated that they were separate motions and would have a separate debate. The ruling of the Chair is that Motion Nos. 8, 9, 10 and 11 should be debated and, according to my interpretation, voted on separately. Are you suggesting that there will be a separate debate on each of the four motions?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: That is exactly what I said. They will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I trust that this motion will meet with the same ringing success as the previous motions. The thrust of this motion is to ensure that in fairness to members of the RCMP, the Commissioner deal expeditiously with grievances.
I made similar arguments with respect to the proposed Motion Nos. 3, 4, 6 and 7. I would simply note that in some cases grievances have dragged on for far too long. The 90-day limit would ensure that the Commissioner would move quickly
RCMP Act
to deal with these important grievances. Once again, it is an additional safeguard to members of the RCMP.


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 Motion No. 8 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the house to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-65 be amended in Clause 15 by striking out line 34 at page 49 and substituting the following therefor:
"having a complaint concerning the activities of the Force in general or the
con-".
He said: Mr. Speaker, this important motion would implement a recommendation which was made by the Marin Commission in 1976, to which there has been previous reference, and by the McDonald Commission which reported some years later. The Marin Commission recommended that the definition of complaint be the following: "Any communication received from a member of the public either orally or in writing which criticizes the behaviour of a member of the Force or alleges the failure of the Force itself to meet public expectations".
As well, the McDonald Commission suggested that any complaints with respect to RCMP operations administration which may relate to questionable behaviour on the part of members or generally should be subject to review by the Public Complaints Commission.
This amendment would permit members of the public to put questions to the Public Complaints Commission concerning the hiring policy of the RCMP or policies with respect to a particular detachment which might not necessarily be related to an individual member's activities. It would ensure that the Public Complaints Commission would investigate such policy oriented complaints as opposed to complaints about the specific conduct of one individual member of the Force.

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
Another example would be a case in which members of a group in a small community might feel that inadequate resources had been allocated to their community. It is not a complaint about a specific member but nevertheless it is a complaint which should be reviewed by the Public Complaints Commission. This amendment would enable them to complain about these matters.
Another illustration of the kind of complaint which could be brought if this amendment were adopted but could not be brought if the wording of the Bill remains as proposed by the Government, is a complaint with respect to hiring policies. I had the honour to serve as a member of the Special Subcommittee on Equality Rights. One of the issues that came before that subcommittee was the hiring policy of the RCMP and its policy with respect to individuals who happen to be gay or lesbian.
I remind the House that the committee was made up of five Conservative Members of Parliament from different provinces in Canada, one Liberal and one New Democrat. The equality rights subcommittee unanimously recommended to the Government that the hiring policies of the RCMP be amended and that qualified men and women not be denied the right to join the RCMP solely on the basis of their sexual orientation but should be judged on their merits as all other applicants are judged.
This amendment would allow members of the public who are concerned about that hiring policy to make submissions to the Public Complaints Commission. We can hope, Mr. Speaker, that perhaps the Government, in responding to the unanimous recommendations of the equality of rights subcommittee on February 25, will implement that important recommendation and ensure that equality is a reality for all Canadians and is not denied to those who happen to be gay or lesbian.
In the event that that important recommendation is rejected by the Government, then surely it should be open to members of the public to complain about those neanderthal and destructive hiring policies of the RCMP. The purpose of this amendment is to allow that kind of policy issue to be dealt with by the Public Complaints Commission.
We have heard from the Commissioner of the RCMP his reasons for opposing this suggestion. I would hope the enlightened Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) might recognize that his colleagues on the equality rights committee were persuaded that the current policies of the RCMP are unjust and must be repealed.
The wording of the amendment in question is very much the wording of the original Act in 1978. In 1978, Bill C-50, one of the many predecessor Bills to this legislation, stated that any person having a complaint concerning the activities of the Force in general or the conduct of any member in particular may make a complaint to the Public Complaints Commission.
Somewhere along the line someone got to the Government and persuaded it that questions of policy should not be brought before the Public Complaints Commission. I would hope the
Government will recognize the significance of the proposal made by the Marin Commission and the McDonald Commission and ensure that it is not only individual complaints of wrongdoing that can come before this Commission but as well members of the public can raise concerns about general policy questions.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will speak briefly to this motion. The Opposition has always supported an expanded definition of a complaint for reasons that were indicated at committee. 1 do not believe there is any necessity to reiterate arguments I made at committee with respect to why we should have an expanded definition of what a complaint is.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Bill before Parliament today establishes an independent public complaint system or structure. The very guts of this new creation is a definition of what constitutes a complaint. In order to set the machinery in action, you need a complaint.
The Government in its at times questionable wisdom decided to provide a particular definition of complaint. It says that any member of the public having a complaint concerning the conduct in the performance of any duty or function under this Act of any member or other persons appointed or employed under the authority of this Act, whether or not that member of the public is affected by the subject matter of the complaint, may make the complaint to, and it goes on to list how a particular individual can file a complaint.
It certainly provides for third-party complaints. It says: "Whether or not the member of the public is affected by the subject matter of the complaint". If you have an RCMP officer punching someone in the nose, the victim does not necessarily have to complain. Someone who saw the incident, or any other person, could complain of the conduct. To allow third party complaints is a step in the right direction.
The restriction causes considerable concern. The complaint has to concern the conduct in the performance of any duty or function under the Act. As was pointed out previously, it does not allow for a member of the public to complain generally about RCMP policy with regard to any particular matter.
I would like to quote again from the report of the Commission of Inquiry relating to public complaints. I referred to it previously as the Marin Report. It provides for a more expanded definition of complaint.
The Marin Report recommends that a complaints system be set up that would essentially be remedial in nature. At page 73 we find:
A public complaint system is remedial when it emphasizes the positive aspects of corrective action and encourages the use of other-than-punitive measures to achieve a change in individual behaviour or performance. Such a system will make possible the identification of changes that are necessary and which affect groups or members of the Force as a whole in response to public complaints.
On page 74 the following is found:
We must begin with a definition of "public complaint" sufficiently comprehensive-
February 5, 1986

Let me emphasize the words "sufficiently comprehensive". It continues to read:
-to serve the remedial design of the new procedures. Accordingly, we recommend that the Commission's own working definition of a public complaint be adopted.
I would like to provide you, Mr. Speaker, the Marin definition of a complaint. It says:
The Royal Canadian Mounted Police should adopt as their definition of a complaint the following: "Any communication received from a member of the public, either orally or in writing, which criticizes the behaviour of a member of the Force or alleges the failure of the Force itself to meet public expectations".
We all agree that one should be entitled to complain about the conduct of a particular member of the Force. Where we disagree is whether the public can complain or allege the failure of the Force itself to meet public expectations. Surely the public should have a right to complain specifically about certain policies of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) no doubt would argue, "Well, I am in charge. I will make sure that policies are developed and rules are followed that are in the best interests of Canadians in Canada generally". That would suggest an opinion of himself that perhaps is undeserved.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John V. Nunziata: I do not know whether Canadians or I- given the Solicitor General's track record with respect to other very reasonable amendments to this legislation-would put our faith in the Solicitor General to ensure that practices are followed in keeping with the best interests of Canadians and that meet public expectations. I think the public should have the opportunity to decide when the Force is not meeting public expectations.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) cited certain situations that might arise that should provide for triggering the complaint mechanism as provided in Bill C-65. I would like to advance one further situation. It was a situation that we in this House dealt with last week concerning certain allegations of sexual harassment by members within the Force. We all know of a newspaper article that originated in British Columbia which alleged that six members of the RCMP had indicated to a particular officer that there was harassment of sorts within a detachment.
We asked the Solicitor General to initiate an external investigation of the complaints. He refused. We indicated how we felt about that refusal in this House and elsewhere.


An Hon. Member:: You went galloping off.


John V. Nunziata: We, in the Opposition, had no alternative but to file a complaint under the Human Rights Act. We filed a third party complaint with respect to those allegations. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) and I were prompted to do so by the inaction of the Government with respect to what we considered to be very serious allegations.
RCMP Act
The Solicitor General, speaking for the Government of Canada, decided that it would allow the Force to investigate itself and that it had full faith and confidence that the investigation would be conducted with dispatch and in an objective fashion, notwithstanding that the Force would be investigating itself, notwithstanding that the allegations appeared to be widespread. Obviously the Commissioner of the RCMP got to the Solicitor General. It appears that the Solicitor General often marches to the tune of the Commissioner of the RCMP. At times one wonders whether he exercises independent judgment when it comes to certain matters of extreme importance facing Canada and Canadians generally. In that particular case one would have expected that the Solicitor General would have initiated an external review of the allegations of certain individuals.
The evidence was there to suggest the very serious problem in respect of the role of women in the RCMP. The evidence, uncontradicted, was that in a two-year period some 68 female members joined the force; that within the same period 67 resigned from the force, leaving a net gain of one additional female RCMP member during that two-year period; and that the male resignation rate was five times less. The point 1 am trying to make is that if one allows for an expanded definition of "complaint", as recommended by the Marin Commission, and given the situation of the allegations of sexual harassment within the RCMP, any Canadian could have filed a complaint and could have triggered the mechanisms provided in Bill C-65 in order to ensure that there was an independent review of the policies and public expectations of the RCMP.
The public expects the RCMP to be non-sexist. The public expects that there will be no harassment, sexual or otherwise, within the RCMP. I see Mr. Speaker is at the edge of his chair. My time is up, but in closing I say that surely the public should have the opportunity to lay a more general complaint against certain practices, including allegations of sexual harassment, or any other general policy of the Force which is not in keeping with the best interests of Canadians. I would hope that the Solicitor General, being the reasonable person he claims to be, will reconsider the particular amendment, regroup with his colleagues behind the curtains, come back and give the amendment unanimous support.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, let me turn briefly, first of all, to the substantive issues which were raised by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). If there is a difference between the presentation which has been made this afternoon by my colleague from Burnaby and the one from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), it is that there is some substance in what was said by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, and I think he is entitled to a serious response.
The issue here is whether or not there is merit in a proposal which would allow for general complaints about general matters of policy relating to the RCMP-


John V. Nunziata: The kid is sensitive; Golden Boy can't take it.

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, is there some disturbance in the House?


John V. Nunziata: Boy, is he sensitive.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be a loud noise coming from the other side.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) has the floor. I hope he can finish his part of the debate.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. The issue here is whether or not the commission reviewing public complaints should be looking at broad policy matters and should have the ability, on the basis of a complaint, to initiate such a review, or whether it should be responding to an individual complaint related to an individual case of behaviour on the part of a member of the force. It is certainly possible for this body to take a look at policies which are relevant to a particular specific complaint. Indeed, the specific issue raised by the Hon. Member related to the hiring practices of the force. Obviously, if an allegation were made in a particular case that an injustice had been done or that the behaviour of the Force was improper, they would have the ability to look beyond the immediate circumstances in the case and back to general policy, if they had an influence on the behaviour in the particular instance. I do not think it would be desirable for us to set up a permanent body of inquiry into policy matters within the RCMP. I think it is more appropriate that we should have a complaints commission which, in looking at specific complaints of specific behaviour, would have a chance to review that and to look at any related information it felt was appropriate. There is no question that it would have the ability to make findings which reflect on policy, and so it should.
Let me now turn briefly to the intervention of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston-


John V. Nunziata: You said you wouldn't.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -which, I say with compassion, was as thoughtful and as intelligent as all the previous interventions he has made today.


John V. Nunziata: Why respond, then?


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is interesting to listen to the Hon. Member, because again he cited a case in which he exhibited deplorable behaviour two weeks ago, in alleging to speak on behalf of members of the Force and in making a complaint with the Canadian Human Rights Commission in which he cited an individual member of the RCMP without ever having received from her, her consent to do so. What we saw taking place was a gross invasion of the privacy of an individual member of the Force by two irresponsible Members of Parliament.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Now there appears to be a sensitive Member on the other side.


John V. Nunziata: The Solicitor General insists upon misinterpreting facts. Given the fact that he claims to be a reasonable person, I would simply ask that he state the facts as they were. Any Canadian is entitled to file a complaint under the Human Rights Act. If he had the common courtesy to read the Act before he speaks-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that that is not a point of order; it is debate. The Solicitor General has the floor.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member referred to facts. Let us go back on the facts here. The fact is that without consulting with the individual in question-


John V. Nunziata: I didn't have to, Perrin.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member says that it is not required under the law that he should respect her privacy. The Hon. Member says that it is not required under the law that he should extend some courtesy to the member in question. The Hon. Member says that it is not required under the law that he should respect her most basic rights.


John V. Nunziata: God, are you obtuse.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yet, what is at stake here is whether there is an obligation on the part of Members of Parliament to act in a way which respects the rights of other Canadians, or whether the sort of disgraceful behaviour that was exhibited was something which simply should not be tolerated.


John V. Nunziata: Read the Act.


Henry Perrin Beatty: What is instructive here is that in this particular case, which the Hon. Member cited as justification for building similar provisions into the RCMP Act, after he and the Hon. Member for Hamilton East (Ms. Copps) went off "half-Coppsed" and filed a complaint purporting to represent the feelings of members of the force, the constable in question specifically said that she wanted no such complaint whatsoever filed. She specifically did that.


John V. Nunziata: She thanked us for filing the complaint, publicly.


Henry Perrin Beatty: She said that it should be withdrawn. Have they withdrawn it? No. Have they extended an apology to a member of the Force who is a well-regarded member of the force? No. Have they demonstrated any respect for basic human rights? No. Yet, the Hon. Member says that right now Parliament should be amending the RCMP Act to give irresponsible people like the Hon. Member for York South-Wes-ton the ability to invade people's privacy on a continuing basis; the ability to smear the force, as was done in this particular instance; the ability to abrogate the basic rights of individual members of the force, without any respect for the feelings of the members of the Force themselves.
If the Hon. Member wanted to defend the position taken by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, perhaps the very worst exam-
February 5, 1986

pie he could cite in support of his case was his own behaviour in the case of the alleged sexual harassment on behalf of members of the force. Certainly the Bill provides, if there are instances where members of the Force believe that they have been subjected to sexual harassment, that they would have the ability to file as complaint and have it fully and fairly investigated. That is the way it should be. However, what the Hon. Member is suggesting is that we should build in a provision which says that in future the Hon. Member for Hamilton East and the Hon. Member for York South-Weston should be able to violate contemptuously the basic rights of Canadians who are members of the RCMP.


John V. Nunziata: What do you know about rights?


Henry Perrin Beatty: It is precisely on the basis of that behaviour that one would have concerns about building in this sort of provision.
The Hon. Member purports to be speaking on behalf-


John V. Nunziata: Save that for the Marin Report.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Obviously the Hon. Member is dissatisfied with the presentation he made earlier because he cannot keep silent now and listen to the truth.
He said that we should hear about the facts. Let us indeed hear the facts. About five minutes ago, the Hon. Member-


John V. Nunziata: Read Marin.


Henry Perrin Beatty: -who cannot listen with his mouth as wide open as it is at the present time, falsely said that the attribution rate among women in the RCMP was five times the rate of that of men.


John V. Nunziata: That's right, five times.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He repeats it and acknowledges to the Hansard reporter that that is precisely what he said.


John V. Nunziata: That's what we were told.


Henry Perrin Beatty: That is absolutely false. The attrition rate is twice the rate. The Hon. Member was 250 per cent too high.


John V. Nunziata: That's not what your officials said.


Henry Perrin Beatty: The Hon. Member would ask if we think it is acceptable for the attrition rate to be twice the rate, forgetting the fact that he gave us a false figure that was two and a half times too high. I certainly do not defend an attribution rate among women that is higher than that among men. Indeed, that is precisely why we are acting to bring in measures to protect the position of women within the Force. If the Hon. Member purports to present facts to the House of Commons, let him do his homework first and let him ensure that what he presents as facts is truthful. If he expects support for his case, he must be able to back it up with the facts.


John V. Nunziata: Read Marin.
RCMP Act


Henry Perrin Beatty: It comes down to a question of basic credibility. Two Members of Parliament were attacking all the members of the Force and the policies of the Force. Two Members of Parliament were depriving an individual and respected member of the Force of her most basic right, the right to privacy and the right to be consulted before her name was used in the way it was. The Hon. Member is making representations with regard to women when it is clear that he simply does not even know what the attribution rate is among members of the Force.


John V. Nunziata: That's what your officials said. You had better replace your officials then, Perrin.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Yet the Member who has done this in such an irresponsible way is now throwing his support, on the basis of these powerful arguments, to the Hon. Member for Burnaby. It is often said that cases have been won until defence counsel rises to speak. Where the Hon. Member for York South-Weston is concerned, that certainly applies. I do not know whether or not the Hon. Member for Burnaby solicits the support of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston on this matter, but I say on behalf of the Government that the argument that was made by the Hon. Member certainly does not convince us.


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


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, in considering Motion No. 9, a motion to amend a new procedure which is being introduced by this Bill, the RCMP public complaints procedure, it seems to me that we should look back to the root of this procedure to see why it is being recommended in the first place. The first police public complaints procedure established in Canada was established in Metropolitan Toronto in the late 1970s. It came about after an incident which occurred in Toronto that caused a great furor, and that was, the shooting of a black man named Buddy Evans by a police officer on the Metropolitan Toronto Police Force.
As a result of the shooting and the subsequent coroner's investigation, racial tensions in Metropolitan Toronto virtually exploded. It was a very tense period of time. People were demonstrating throughout the city. Great crowds were coming before Toronto City Council and various municipal councils in Metropolitan Toronto and great demonstrations were going on in Nathan Phillips Square. In an effort to work out a solution to this situation, the Attorney General of the Province of Ontario proposed a procedure that had been adopted and utilized in some parts of the United States previously, and that was, the citizens' complaint procedure.
This procedure was introduced after a good deal of discussion and negotiation with the various community groups in Metropolitan Toronto, the Police Department, the Police Commission, municipal councillors and the provincial Government. In introducing this procedure, a negotiation occurred in an attempt to balance off the concerns of the citizens and the concerns of the Police Department. There were competing interests and concerns. There was the concern on the part of

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act
the public that police officers could do whatever they wanted to do, but there was the concern on the part of police officers that they could very well be shafted by this whole process and be wronged unjustly.
The procedure that was worked out is the same procedure that appears in this Bill, a procedure in which individual complaints dealing with individual officers may be brought before a complaint board to be dealt with and solved on an individual basis and not on a policy basis. It was not an attempt to pillory the entire Police Department or to introduce some procedure whereby one could debate policy. It was simply designed to deal with individual police complaints. That is the procedure that is before us today and it seems to me that that is the procedure we should adopt rather than considering the amendment that has been put forward by the Hon. Member for Burnaby.
If we consider the Hon. Member's amendment, we will tamper with the entire theory of the complaint procedure. We will tamper with the confidence the police and individual citizens have in the procedure. If we destroy that confidence, we will destroy all benefit of this procedure. It has been proven in the past, and certainly in Metropolitan Toronto, that this procedure has solved a really serious problem. We have before us a mechanism by which we can head off serious problems which may occur with the RCMP, and I think we should certainly adopt the Bill as put before us and reject the motion.


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, I rise to support the amendment put by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I would like to deal with two or three reasons for my support.
Let me begin with the question of hiring practices. In my time here, I have supported the concept that Canada is bilingual and I have supported the proposals put by the former and present Governments to encourage more Fracophones to become members of the federal Public Service. I cannot say the same of all Manitoba Members of Parliament who sit on the government side.
I received a complaint recently from one of my consistitu-ents. At a time when the RCMP is encouraging applications and hiring people, he applied to become a member of the RCMP. He met all the qualifications except for one. The RCMP was engaged in an effort to increase the number and percentage of Francophone members of the Force.
I made inquiries about this matter and found that the situation is quite an interesting and complicated one. In Ontario and Quebec, the Provinces of Canada which are the largest in size and population, there are provincial police forces and therefore the RCMP plays a relatively limited role in those two provinces. It deals only with matters which comes under federal jurisdiction. However, in all the other provinces, and particularly in the rural areas, the provinces contract with the RCMP to do all the regular police work.
Many people, not just in Manitoba but in other provinces I am sure, are concerned about the policy of the RCMP to increase rapidly the number of Francophone members.
Although roughly 30 per cent of the country's population is Francophone, in terms of the policing which the RCMP carries out in the eight provinces and the territories, the Francophone population is very small. I am not saying they are wrong. I am saying that it was a legitimate question asked by my constituents. It was a difficult problem for me to try to think through. I think it would be helpful for the RCMP, and for the people of Canada, to have an independent review committee look at this type of problem, and not having necessarily to wait for an invidual person to make a complaint.
I would now like to deal with two other matters. I recognize there is a problem with respect to drugs. The illegal use, purchase and distribution of drugs is a tremendously complex problem. I do not pretend to be an expert on the matter, or to have an answer as to how this type of problem can be dealt with. However, I can remember not so many years ago when the public, the courts and police forces considered possession of marijuana, for example, much more seriously than it is now considered. It was the belief that the possession and distribution of marijuana should be dealt with in a much more tough way than it is today. I am sure defence lawyers received many complaints concerning allegations that RCMP officers working in the drug field were frequently involved in entrapment. I repeat, I am not an expert on this matter. I am not prepared to say that, perhaps, the RCMP had to do the things which they did at the time. I suggest to the Minister that when this type of problem arises, an independent review board could look at it and lay down some general principles as to the way the Force should deal with the situation. That would be helpful both to the RCMP and to the public in general.
The last illustration I wish to draw is with respect to complaints which frequently arise from Indian reserves in different parts of the country. I am speaking of complaints from individual members of groups of people who live on the reserves who are not satisfied with the treatment they have received from the RCMP. I recognize that there are tremendous problems with alcoholism, and all sorts of other problems which I will not go into, which occur in and around native reserves. I recognize that the police forces which deal with these problems have an extremely difficult task. However, I suggest to the Minister that if some independent board could look at the complaints and lay down some general policies then it would make things much easier for the RCMP. Their activity would be much more acceptable to the public, particularly to the people who feel that they have been mistreated.
Without prolonging the debate, I have tried to give three illustrations which I think have some merit. I think an independent commission, given the powers which my colleague the Hon. Member for Burnaby has suggested they should be given, would be worth-while. This is an amendment which should be accepted by the Government.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, I was not planning to participate in this debate in light of the fact that there are some very able representatives here, both from our
February 5, 1986

caucus and from the NDP caucus. However, I was sitting in my office listening to the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) and I felt it was incumbent upon me to come down to the Chamber, not only to set the record straight but to suggest that the Solicitor General in his about-face-and I would call it a complete about-face-with respect to the issue of sexual harassment in the RCMP shows what hypocritical action he has taken with respect to this issue. In fact, it shows how he has twisted his role as Solicitor General to serve his own political ends.
I make this challenge in the full knowledge that the Solicitor General some two weeks ago said that he was so concerned about published reports, which included comments from six women members of the RCMP who were concerned about the possibility of harassment, that he immediately ordered an inquiry. I remember that that was on a Sunday. The Solicitor General said that he wanted this situation investigated immediately, that these were serious charges and he wanted to move ahead with them. Two days later, when he was faced with questions in the House by the Opposition with respect to the question of harassment as it had been placed before the Subcommittee on Equality Rights, not only did he deny the existence of such allegations, and not only did he challenge us to put forward a name, but when a name, which had been provided as part of a public presentation, was submitted in the House he took the unprecedented and, I believe, illegal step of personally contacting that person to determine what that person's actions would be in respect of a general complaint to the Canadian Human Rights Commission. I ask the Minister how he expects the Canadian public to have any faith in his operation of the RCMP if, in fact, he has shown in other cases this same type of abject irresponsibility and, indeed, total disregard for the law as he did in this particular case.
I felt that there was enough evidence for a general complaint to be laid before the Canadian Human Rights Commission. That position has been supported by people such as Doris Anderson, former President of the National Action Committee on the Status of Women, who said that individual officers in the RCMP are afraid to speak out. I do not blame them. If I were a woman in the RCMP who was being harassed, I would not want to speak out either because I would not want to put my individual relationship with the force on the line.
Quite clearly, the combination of events, including the press reports and studies which have been conducted by Professor Linden of the University of Manitoba, which study was commissioned by the office of the Solicitor General, points out that the number of women who quit the Force is at least double that of the number of men who quit. It has been pointed out that the women in the Force have very low morale because they do not receive much support when they raise issues. This was pointed out in statements made before the subcommittee which dealt with equality rights. The Minister has refused to conduct an independent inquiry, or even to seek one from the Human Rights Commission. He has stood in his place in the House and said that he called this woman-and he knows of whom we speak-not once but twice. I ask Hon. Members
RCMP Act
this: If you were an ordinary constable in the RCMP and you received two calls within a couple of days from the Solicitor General of Canada, would you proceed with your complaint?


John V. Nunziata: Of course not.


Sheila Maureen Copps: I suggest that that phone call was even more heinous-


Henry Perrin Beatty: How do you spell that?


Sheila Maureen Copps: h-e-i-n-o-u-s.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I thought it was pronounced "heenous".


Sheila Maureen Copps: The Minister knows about what I speak. That phone call was worse than the phone call which was made by the former Solicitor General, which ultimately led to his shuffle out of his position because he had shown himself to be so irresponsible. Elmer MacKay, the former-


Some Hon. Members:: Order, order.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -Solicitor General received a phone call and met in private with a person involved in the events and about whom we are quite clearly aware. I wish to know why the Solicitor General took it upon himself to call a constable of the RCMP in an attempt-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. Is this relevant to the debate?


Sheila Maureen Copps: It is absolutely relevant.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I hope the Hon. Member will get back to the motion. I appreciate what is happening here. However, I think the Hon. Member should
get back to the motion.


Sheila Maureen Copps: The motion deals, Mr. Speaker, with the possibility of an independent review, and quite clearly, when the Solicitor General, has taken the law into his own hands on this issue and has refused to consider any involvement, even from the Canadian Human Rights Commission, with the general problem faced by women in the RCMP he has failed in his responsibility to provide a mechanism for independent review. That is specifically the amendment as proposed by the Hon. Member. It calls not only for an independent review but for the outside capacity to investigate. By hamstringing the powers of review, as is currently the case without this amendment, the Minister and the RCMP will only be allowed to have internal investigations and the review board will be allowed to review that evidence but will not be allowed to conduct its own investigation.
I would suggest that the Minister should be more interested in getting to the bottom of problems within the RCMP and less interested in grandstanding and scoring political points-


An Hon. Member:: You should talk.

February 5, 1986
RCMP Act


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and less interested in tampering with justice in the way he has done with this particular case-and I will say it outside the Flouse because I think the phone calls the Minister made to that particular constable were totally beyond the call of his duty-


John V. Nunziata: He harassed her. He deliberately harassed her.


Sheila Maureen Copps: -and totally reprehensible.


An Hon. Member:: You are out of your mind.


Sheila Maureen Copps: So I would suggest that the only way the public will have confidence not only in the RCMP Force as a Force, but also that justice is being done, is to provide a mechanism for independent review through an organization like the Canadian Human Rights Commission, or other similar organizations. That is provided for in this particular amendment.
If the Minister is really concerned about increasing participation of women in the Armed Forces, and if he is interested in looking at issues about the lack of Francophone representation in the Armed Forces-which was raised by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-he will agree that in order to get to the bottom of some of these problems we sometimes need an outside investigation which looks at the general nature of the problem. By tying this particular Bill to individual complaints or third party complaints about a single specific action, the Minister is saying he does not believe that the Canadian Human Rights Commission should have the right to carry on general investigations.
If the Minister believes that women in the Armed Forces, in the RCMP and in other organizations are afraid to speak out, one way of facilitating the search for information in a general way in order to make positive changes would be to allow an independent external investigation. Without that particular external investigation we can continue to expect that those women who face harassment will remain silent. They will not be able to speak out because of the potential difficulties within the promotional system if they do speak out on their individual cases. All of us know that these problems exist. If we really want to get to the bottom of them, then let us provide for an external mechanism which would not only have the power to review internal investigations but also have the power to investigate in an external way.
I believe that is what this amendment calls for and that is why I support it.


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 Motion No. 9 standing the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those in favour will please say yea.


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 9 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15
(a)	by striking out lines 41 and 42 at page 53 and substituting the following
therefor:
"has previously investigated, or instituted a hearing to inquire into, the complaint under section".
(b)	by striking out line 45 at page 54 and substituting the following therefor: "with the complaint before the report under subsection (3) or the interim".
(c)	by adding immediately after line 48 at page 54, the following:
"(3) On completion of an investigation under paragraph 45.42(3)(c) or subsection (1), the Commission Chairman shall prepare and send to the Minister and the Commissioner a report in writing setting out such findings and recommendations with respect to the complaint as the Commission Chairman sees fit unless the Commission Chairman has instituted, or intends to institute, a hearing to inquire into the complaint under that paragraph or subsection."
(d)	by striking out line 8 at page 58 and substituting the following therefor: "subsection 45.42(3), 45.43(3) or 45.45(14), the".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is unanimously agreed.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Towers) agreed to.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-65, be amended in Clause 15 by striking out lines 7 to 37 at page 58 and substituting the following therefor:
"45.46 The final decision on action with respect to public complaints will be
made by the Public Complaints Commission."
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of this motion which in many respects goes to the very heart of this Bill. There are two central elements to the legislation which is now before the House. The first, of course, deals with the question of establishing a grievance procedure to ensure that the neanderthal labour policies which are currently the case within the RCMP are at least brought forward somewhat. The Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) still refuses to give the elementary right to full and free collective bargaining and freedom of association, but that is a debate for another day.
This motion deals with the second element of this question, and that is, who will have the final say on complaints made by the public with respect to activities by members of the RCMP, either individually or in a group. I want to read the motion
February 5, 1986

because I believe it sets out very clearly what our recommendation is "The final decision on action with respect to public complaints will be made by the Public Complaints Commission". As the Bill is now worded, it is the Commissioner who has the final word, so a member of the public who feels agrieved, whether on a policy question or an individual grievance, will file that grievance with the Public Complaints Commission. The Public Complaints Commission will investigate and perhaps hold a hearing and then will make a recommendation to the Commissioner. Following that recommendation, the Commissioner can accept or reject the recommendation. I believe that that totally undermines the integrity of this process. We have heard from a number of witnesses on this point. I would remind Hon. Members of the House of the representations which were made by a very distinguished criminal lawyer from Toronto on this particular motion. I am speaking, of course, of Mr. Clay Ruby. He said that the Government's Bill in leaving the final decision on a complaint by a member of the public against a member of the RCMP to be decided by the RCMP itself is completely unacceptable, and I quote:
The independent commission of inquiry can be ignored by the RCMP. Based on their track record of ignoring ministerial directives, the law of the land, the Criminal Code and standards of ordinary decency, this does not give one much room for hopeful expectations.
When will politicians understand that the public is no longer prepared to accept that it is proper, fair or just for a police force to investigate itself and make decisions about what disciplinary action to follow from its own misdeeds?
Of course, Mr. Ruby was referring to the sorry chapter in the history of the RCMP, which was very clearly documented by the McDonald Commission, the incidents of breaches of the law and, in some cases, very serious breaches, by the Security Service Operation Checkmate, for example, involving a series of breaches of criminal law and other federal legislation.
What did the Commissioner of the RCMP do in response to that, Mr. Speaker? He said that there will be no disciplinary action whatsoever. "But even if there is to be disciplinary action", said the Commissioner, "I am not going to tell the public what it is". Surely, in a democratic society that kind of response is not acceptable.
The purpose of this motion is to ensure that at the end of the day, after the complaint has been reviewed by the Public Complaints Commission, after there has been discussion with representatives of the RCMP-perhaps, including the Com-
RCMP Act
missioner-the final decision will be in the hands of the Commission itself. I would note as well that the McDonald Commission very clearly and explicitly opposed the suggestion that it should be the Commissioner of the RCMP who had the final say on complaints. The McDonald Commission stated the following, and I quote:
In this regard, we part company with the strongly held view within the RCMP and other police forces that the final judge in complaint matters should be the head of the force. In Bill C-50, to which we have previously referred, which was introduced in 1978 but not passed, the traditional approach was maintained.
Then it states:
But we feel there cannot be public confidence in the complaint procedure if the final arbiter belongs to the force whose conduct is under review.
Surely, that must be the case. Surely, it is not acceptable that the individual in charge of the Force which is being reviewed, the individual in charge of the Force against which a complaint has been laid by a member of the public, should be the person who, at the end of the day, decides whether or not to accept the recommendations of the Public Complaints Commission on that complaint. That makes a mockery of any motion of independent investigation and review of complaints by the public. It undermines the whole thrust of this important step forward involving review by a Public Complaints Commission.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, point of order. There had been agreement that report stage and third reading would be completed today. I understood there was a gentleman's agreement and I am just wondering what happened to that agreement.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to indicate on behalf of the NDP that we are prepared to continue this debate, if necessary, in line with the understanding we had and conclude third reading and report stage today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Only by consent. Is there consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is not consent.
It being six o'clock p.m., this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at eleven o'clock a.m. pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.01 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, February 6, 1986