1986-06-18

Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, the weak response of Canada to the grave injustice and insult of apartheid in South Africa is certain to cause a crisis within the Commonwealth. Canada has the opportunity now to take the lead by imposing strong economic and diplomatic sanctions against the South African Government. The black nations of the Commonwealth can only feel a sense of dismay at our feeble protests in the face of flagrant disregard for human rights by the oppressive regime of apartheid in South Africa.
Mr. Ramphal, Secretary General of the Commonwealth, has said: "If the Commonwealth is to be true to itself, it has no option but to be in the vanguard of the final push against apartheid". The late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker would have added eloquently to those words by concerted action. Why are we doing so much less?


INDUSTRY
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, Bruce Stanley did not understand what the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion meant when the Minister said he was seeking a private sector solution to the problems at White Farm Equipment in Brantford. However, Mr. Stanley knows now. First, the Government refused to give loan guarantees to the company. That meant White Farm was forced into receivership and Bruce Stanley lost his job. Then the receiver took control of the pension fund as an asset of White Farm. That meant Mr. Stanley lost his pension. For his 14 years of service he was offered $2,000 in cash or an RRSP. He needs the money now, but when he takes the measley two thousand bucks, the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Miss MacDonald) will cut off his unemployment insurance.
Now Bruce Stanley fully understands the Government's private sector solution. It means he lost his job, he lost his
pension, and he lost his unemployment insurance. If anyone on the government benches wants Mr. Stanley's phone number, I would be happy to provide it. I do not know what to say to him.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Jean-Pierre Blackburn (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to draw your attention to the fact that Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean residents are anxious concerning the proposed establishment of a new paper plant in Matane.
No, Mr. Speaker, people in my region have nothing against a new project which would create jobs in Matane. Far from it, Mr. Speaker! We in the so-called remote regions know only too well how difficult it is to stay afloat, and how much we have to work to attract new job-creating investments to our regions.
Appreciative though we may be of such job-creating projects, the management and staff of the Abitibi Price Company are increasingly worried.
Are we about to create new jobs in Matane, only to the detriment of other workers in the Saguenay-Lac Saint-Jean region, more particularly in Jonquiere and Alma where Abitibi Price is investing $218 million to upgrade its products?
I do not have the answer, Mr. Speaker, but this is a serious matter. I think it is imperative that my constituents be given the full details about this project before our Government decides to award grants.


SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Louis-Hebert):: Mr. Speaker, on Thursday, June 5, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) was in Sainte-Foy to announce the start of construction on the National Optical Institute.
14604

June 18, 1986
This project was made possible as a result of the Canada-Quebec subsidiary agreement on scientific and technological development.
This world centre for excellence has received a mandate to become self-financing within five years. The institute is a private company, which means that close co-operation with the private sector, government and all parties in the industry is essential to its success.
Thanks to this major project, Quebec City is becoming one of the most important hi-tech centres in Canada, and as a Member from that area, I am very, very proud.
This is one more example of the emphasis placed by our Government on the development of high technology, cooperation with the industry and national reconciliation!


TRANSPORT
Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, next Tuesday the Government of Canada will announce that it will continue the Newfoundland Railway. I welcome the announcement. It is no more than the people of Newfoundland deserve, and no more than this Party did when it was in Government by putting $77 million into the railway. However, that does not absolve the Government of Canada from reaching a comprehensive roads agreement. Newfoundland urgently needs roads to be built-the TransLabrador Highway, a road across the northern peninsula to Roddickton and Englee, a road around Hare Bay, and the Trans-Canada Highway itself. The Government of Canada has an obligation to build those roads in Newfoundland and, while I welcome the announcement next Tuesday of the continuation of the Newfoundland Railway, I call upon the Government to make a long-term commitment to building the necessary roads in Newfoundland and Labrador.


EMPLOYMENT PLANNING
Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State (Youth) (Mrs. Champagne) recently announced a series of projects that were approved as part of the Innovations Program, one of the components of our Canadian Jobs Strategy.
Mr. Speaker, one of these projects is the human resources acquisition program for the mining industry. It is aimed at setting up a practical training and placement program for graduates in mining technology. Over the next 19 months our Government will be investing nearly one million dollars for Canadian youth.
As a Member of a responsible Government and a Member representing from a mining area, I have complete confidence in the ability and skills of our young people and we will continue to do everything we can to help them become integrated in the labour market in Canada and in Abitibi.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, this week on Vancouver Island, in the spirit of protecting the earth and her children from radiation and nuclear war, people from Campbell River in the north and Victoria in the south will walk toward Nanoose to protest the Canadian Forces maritime experimental test range. To the best of our knowledge the Government has not yet signed the agreement allowing for the continued use of the Base by the U.S. Navy. People fear that the Americans may be pushing for a further expansion of the Base as they did successfully in 1967 when the present agreement was signed.
In the meantime, while our Government continues to be very secretive about negotiations with the Americans, U.S. submarines, armed with nuclear weapons, continue to use the Base at an accelerating rate. This Base does not serve Canadian interests and is a continuing threat to world peace. It must be converted to peaceful use.


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Mr. Speaker, last Monday night the Leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) went on national television to talk about the problems Canadians have in trade with the U.S. He spoke of the shakes and shingles issue, of the softwood lumber issue, and the number of import harassments that Canadian businessmen face when they trade with the U.S.
He went on to say that Canadian businesses could not compete with the Americans because they have 260 million in
June 18, 1986

their market-place. That, Sir, is just the point. That is the very market that we want to open up to Canadian businesses. We want our businesses to enjoy the economies of scale that the Americans enjoy. I want to thank the Leader of the New Democratic Party for making the case so clearly in favour of the free trade negotiations which have started.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mrs. Pauline Browes (Scarborough Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Jobs Strategy is not only a worth-while training and employment development program, it is also proving to be of major benefit to disabled Canadians.
Under the Job Development Initiative $1.4 million has been allocated to date to help make public and private buildings accessible to disabled persons. These funds have been used for structural modifications and the purchase of special equipment for the disabled.
Job training that benefits the disabled-what an excellent way of not only helping unemployed people gain valuable work experience, but also of providing greater accessibility for the disabled.
That is the kind of combined benefits that the Canadian Jobs Strategy is having for all Canadians from coast to coast.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to bring to the attention of this House the peculiar situation in which Prince Edward Island farmers find themselves.
Unlike other consumers, farmers are charged two different prices for fuel. When they fill up at a gas station they pay one price, but when they buy in bulk for the farm they pay a higher price. It costs about ten cents a litre more for gas to plough a potato field than it does to fill up for a Sunday drive.
Why should farmers put up with this undeserved discrimination when the fruits of their labour is cheap food for Canadians? That does not make a lot of sense to P.E.I. farmers.
I call upon the Government to instruct Petro-Canada to lower the price of bulk fuel sold at the farm gate. After all, is Petro-Canada not supposed to be working for Canadians? Does that not include our hard pressed farmers?


BANKRUPTCY ACT
Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, a task force on insolvency commissioned by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has recently presented the Government with recommendations that have won support from business, labour, creditors, and consumers.
Everybody who has had to work with the current Bankruptcy Act knows that it is sadly out of date and places many hardships on employees and suppliers in particular. Change is long overdue and I hope the Minister will put legislation before the House as soon as possible.
The recommendations in the report that would give adequate and reliable wage protection to employees at little cost should be endorsed by all Members of this House.
Unfortunately the Minister's task force did not recommend any measures to help businessmen who might have supplied inventory to a bankrupt firm. If suppliers are not protected, one bankruptcy might very well push a supplier himself closer to bankruptcy.
I ask the Minister to consider allowing unpaid vendors the right to reclaim goods supplied up to two weeks prior to a bankruptcy or receivership. Small businesses are leading our recovery and we should try to help them in every possible way. Bankruptcy legislation is no exception.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, when the tritium recovery plant at Ontario Hydro's Darlington nuclear station is completed in 1987 Canada will begin exporting tritium to the United States and probably other countries possessing nuclear power. The Department of External Affairs and the Atomic Energy Control Board have approved Ontario Hydro's export plans despite the fact that tritium is not included in any non-proliferation treaty between Canada and the U.S. This is despite the fact that over 90 per cent of all tritium goes into making new hydrogen bombs, into refreshing existing bombs, and into neutron bombs. This is also despite the fact that tritium is the U.S. military's number one weapons priority, and the U.S. has the power to seize all available supplies of tritium within its jurisdiction.
At best, the export of Canadian tritium will boost the nuclear arms race by freeing up U.S. stocks of tritium for military purposes, and by lending moral support to the current weapons build-up. At worst, Canada could provide enough strategic material to add hundreds of extra nuclear bombs to the U.S. stockpile. I call on the Government to reverse this misguided and dangerous decision.

June 18, 1986
Orals Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Prime Minister I would like to direct my question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
First, however, I would like to call to the attention of the House the seventy-eighth birthday of our friend and former colleague, the Hon. Stanley Knowles.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Napier Turner: The Prime Minister has said that the Auto Pact is not to be reopened, and that our cultural industries are not on the negotiating table. Once again the Prime Minister was contradicted by a key American official, Clayton Yeutter, the U.S. trade representative. He responded on behalf of the American Government to the Prime Minister's speech on Monday night. He said:
President Reagan and Prime Minister Mulroney have agreed all issues should be on the negotiating table.
Will the Secretary of State explain for the Government and the Prime Minister, once and for all, whom are we to believe?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, let me say that I agree with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in congratulating the Hon. Stanley Knowles, as do all Members on this side of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In looking for guidance as to the American negotiating position, it would be well to listen to Mr. Yeutter. In looking for guidance as to the Canadian negotiating position, the Leader of the Opposition can rely on the words of the Prime Minister of Canada.
[ Translation]


GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Napier Turner: Apparently, the Americans seem to sense a conflict, because they are constantly contradicting not just what is said by the Prime Minister but also by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. They claim that everything is negotiable, whatever the Minister and the Prime Minister may say to the contrary. Are the main U.S. parties right and the Prime Minister wrong, and how, in these circumstances, can Canadians be expected to believe our Prime Minister?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there is no contradiction. The Americans are talking about what they want to discuss. We talk about the things Canada wants to discuss.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Napier Turner: They certainly have a different understanding of what it is about. I am afraid the Secretary of State will be in for a rude surprise.
What about a contradiction by one of his own Ministers and colleagues? Despite the fact that the Prime Minister cited the Auto Pact, which is a sectoral agreement, and cited other sectoral agreements in Toronto, the Minister for International Trade said in Winnipeg yesterday: "We are not-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is not my habit to interrupt, as the right hon. gentleman knows, but perhaps he has a question, please?


John Napier Turner: It is a Wednesday, Mr. Speaker.
The Minister of International Trade said: "We are not in any way moving toward a sectoral type of agreement." Will the Secretary of State explain why the Prime Minister continues to recite examples of sectoral trade yet is contradicted by his Minister of International Trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am in agreement with the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that it is Wednesday.
There is no contradiction, as the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would know if he paid the House and the people of Canada the courtesy of quoting the Prime Minister in entirety. The Prime Minister made very clear, both in his speech to the people and in his speech in Toronto on Friday night last week, that we are seeking a comprehensive trade agreement. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition should have more respect for the people of the country than to leave a contrary opinion.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. The Prime Minister continues to speak favourably of the benefits of the Auto Pact for the Canadian manufacturing sector and many Canadian workers. Will the Minister accept the strong representations of the existing Canadian auto industry, both workers and management, and immediately require all companies selling into the Canadian market from offshore, including the Korean and Japanese, to
June 18, 1986

meet the current Canadian Auto Pact requirements with respect to content in this country, parts and equipment, as well as production, in order to preserve the benefits of this industry for the Canadian manufacturing sector? Will he make that commitment today?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion):: Mr. Speaker, these are representations which have been received and are being considered. Certainly it would be our hope that all manufacturers in the auto industry would, in due course, achieve the target to which the Hon. Member refers.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I just want to ask the Acting Minister why, when it comes to the offshore companies, the Koreans and the Japanese, it is enough to be a matter of hope. Does he not realize that the 133,000 Canadian auto workers in the hundreds of communities dependent on the well-being of the auto industry expect more than pious hope from this Minister? Why will he not make a commitment to make the offshore manufacturers play under the same rules for content and production as the North American manufacturers? Why does he want to put this healthy Canadian industry at risk? Give us a commitment today.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I will certainly take the representation of the Hon. Member into consideration and note that he is against the Koreans and the Japanese and other foreign-


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I never said that.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: -manufacturers investing in the Canadian automobile industry, and I regret that very much.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: That's twisting the facts, and you know it.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-AUTO PACT
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of External Affairs. Auto manufacturers, parts producers, and Bob White told us this morning that the safeguards in the Auto Pact have created the progress and jobs in this sector to which the Prime Minister referred on Tuesday night. Will the Government clearly state that the safeguards in the Auto Pact must continue for the sake of the future of this industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, replying, I think, for the eleventh time, the Government of Canada believes that the Auto Pact serves
Orals Questions
Canada's interests well, and we do not see any purpose in changing a system that works. May I ask the Hon. Member if he had the permission of the Hon. Member for Oshawa to meet Bob White?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, we had the permission also to meet Moe Closs, the head of Chrysler, who had exactly the same message as Bob White about the future of this industry and the dangers that it faces because of lack of policy from the Government.


NEGOTIATOR'S INSTRUCTIONS
Steven W. Langdon: My supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, is the following. Since Simon Reisman has rejected the need for safeguards in the Auto Pact, can the Minister assure the House that Mr. Reisman has been told by himself or by the Prime Minister that he must fight to preserve these auto pact safeguards despite his personal views?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, may I thank the Hon. member for his response. I can assure him, for the eleventh time, I think-


Some Hon. Members:: Twelfth.


Charles Joseph Clark: -that Mr. Reisman follows the instructions of the Cabinet of Canada in carrying out the negotiations.


Steven W. Langdon: I must say, Mr. Speaker, it is very hard to understand what the instructions could be. There are so many varied signals.


REQUEST THAT AUTO PACT PROVISIONS APPLY TO KOREAN AND JAPANESE COMPANIES
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, will the Government now, at this stage, also extend these safeguard requirements to the Korean and Japanese companies so that there is a level playing field here in Canada and fairness that exists for all the companies that are producing in the automobile sector and producing jobs for our people?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not think that suggestion is properly directed to me but on behalf of the Government I will take the representation of the Hon. Member as notice, and it will be considered with the attention we accord to all of his suggestions.


REQUEST THAT PROVISIONS APPLY TO OFFSHORE AUTOMOBILE COMPANIES
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, I do have a question to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who has told us, now several times, how important it will be to maintain the Auto Pact. How is it

June 18, 1986
Orals Questions
possible to maintain the sanctity-the sacred trust, if you like-of the Auto Pact when 30 per cent of the automobile market in Canada is now being taken by offshore producers who are not subject to the same rules of the Auto Pact? Is it not important that those auto pact rules be applied to offshore foreign auto producers in order to ensure the negotiation and the Auto Pact can be totally safeguarded and protected?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Hon. Member if that question is put to me in my capacity as chairman of the committee of Cabinet responsible for the negotiations with the United States?


Mr. Deans:: We didn't know you were.


Mr. Rodriguez:: You answer the questions, not ask them.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, if the Minister does not know what his job is, I do not know why he is asking me to determine what it is. We are quite aware of the confusion that is going on now that we have had it confirmed.


RESTRICTIONS ON AUTOMOBILE IMPORTS
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister another question in his capacity as Secretary of State for External Affairs, if he wants to answer it. Does the Government intend at a very early date to extend the existing import limitations or restrictions on offshore foreign automobile makers as an interim measure until such time as they agree to meet fully all the auto pact requirements under the present North American Auto Pact agreement?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I certainly cannot dispute that, if one wanted confusion, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry is the source.
As regards the rest of his question, which appropriately lies in the domain of another Minister, I will take it as notice.


APARTHEID
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, the South African Government has completely muzzled the press, thus giving the South African Government licence to slaughter the black population, while Ambassador Babb is free to cross the country painting a picture of racial harmony in South Africa. We have now been informed by officials in External Affairs that the Canadian diplomatic corps is subject to the same limitations. Will the Secretary of
State for External Affairs confirm that these restrictions are being applied to our diplomatic corps? Has the Minister invited the South African Ambassador in to give notice of Canada's protest against the imposition of these restrictions on both the press and our diplomatic corps?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, Ambassador Babb was called in and the very strong objections of Canada to the state of emergency were expressed in that consultation. I could not help but be struck by an observation made by Oliver Tambo in Paris today, that a state of emergency is not a Government.


REQUEST FOR IMPOSITION OF CANADIAN DIPLOMATIC SANCTIONS
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the question I originally asked with respect to the restrictions on our diplomatic corps has not been answered. But let us take it as a given that these restrictions are being applied.
Is the Secretary of State for External Affairs willing to warn the South African Government that if these restrictions are not removed from both the press and our diplomatic corps that we will have to impose additional, appropriate sanctions against the South African diplomatic corps?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly prepared to consider that. I hope that the Hon. Member would agree with me that our principal preoccupation now must be to do everything practical we can to bring a speedy end to the regime of apartheid. In our view that means turning great attention in the weeks to come to the possibility of the Commonwealth, in which Canada plays a leading role, being able to move forward against apartheid.


FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS-CULTURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Jacques Guilbault (Saint-Jacques):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Mr. Speaker. We have the impression that the Government does not want culture on the table in our free trade negotiations with the United States. This has been said several times, and most recently, on May 22, by the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I will not quote him. In any case, it is in Hansard. But then, how can he let two members of the Canadian negotiating team say what they said on Monday: "The question of copyright and intellectual property will be on the table with the Americans", a statement that could well upset the Minister of Communcations. What I want to know
June 18, 1986

is: How can the Government let our negotiators negotiate culture, if the Government's policy is to exclude culture from these negotiations?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I may point out to the Hon. Member that cultural matters are not what is at stake in trade negotiations.


REQUEST THAT OFFICIALS STOP SAYING CULTURE IS NEGOTIABLE
Jacques Guilbault: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary. The Minister is repeating the answer he gave before. My question is: in that case, how can the Government let its officials repeat they are going to negotiate matters connected with culture? Doesn't the Minister realize this is creating a great deal of concern in cultural circles in Canada? If culture is not on the table, we should instruct our officials to stop saying so.
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware that the article he is quoting-I think it appeared in La Presse- was based on a briefing for several officials, which dealt with the general subject matter that will be discussed during the negotiations. This reporter put a certain interpretation on that briefing. I think the question is whether culture can be discussed within the context of trade negotiations, and the answer is no.


U430)   INDIAN AFFAIRS MANITOBA REGION MALADMINISTRATION-MINISTER'S MEETING WITH CHIEFS
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. After arranging a meeting with Manitoba Chiefs to discuss follow-ups to last week's report substantiating their charges of widespread abuse and maladministration in the Manitoba region of his Department, the Minister would meet with only eight Chiefs rather than the 23 who had come to represent their bands. Why was the Minister not willing to meet with all of the Manitoba Chiefs so that they could present their plan for dealing with problems in their area? Why did he announce his plan without consulting the Chiefs, the people who are most affected?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Mr. Speaker, this gives me the opportunity to advise the Hon. Member that I met three times this morning with Indian people from Manitoba, once entering the office, prior to 8 a.m., once with a smaller delegation in my
Orals Questions
office and later on outside with a number of the groups. There was no plan passed at all. I indicated to them, as I indicated in the House on previous occasions, that the action plan will be developed in conjunction with the Indian people of Manitoba and the independent auditor. The independent auditor returns from Germany this weekend and he will begin that process next week. That is the way we intended to proceed, and that is the way we will proceed.


REQUEST FOR CONSULTATION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister commit himself to meeting with all of the Manitoba Chiefs who are present in Ottawa today to discuss and consult with them the way in which he will go about dealing with the very serious problems in the Manitoba region of his Department? Will he have a proper consultation?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, last week it was determined by all parties that the appropriate way to deal with this would be to have an action plan developed by the independent auditor. At stake, of course, is the credibility of our programs in the whole of Manitoba, and indeed this affects all the Chiefs, all the Councils, and all the Indian people in the Manitoba region, not merely only those who come to Ottawa. My task is to make sure that Indian people in Manitoba know that we are carrying out a process that is going to be effective for all of them and not only those who speak to the Hon. Member.


PLAN PREPARED BY MANITOBA CHIEFS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and is on the same subject. I want to know if the Minister is aware of the very carefully drafted plan that has been drawn up by the Manitoba Chiefs, first to clean up the mess in the Winnipeg regional office of Indian Affairs, and second to replace it with a new system, a system of Indian self-government that has been carefully designed within that plan.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, indeed I am. The plan was presented to me. I made sure that the independent auditor had a copy of the plan and he is aware of it as well. The reason I gave the answer I did to the previous question was to make sure that people understand that we already have the plan. It is important to make sure that the independent auditor, having the plan in hand from the Indian people, will be able to develop an action plan that will be effective and will rectify the situation.


ROLE OF CHIEFS
B. Keith Penner: Mr. Speaker, because of the seriousness of the situation in Manitoba and the fact that the allegations have now been substantiated by the

June 18, 1986
Orals Questions
auditor, can the Minister advise the House how quickly we can expect to have this mess completely cleaned up? Does the Minister intend to involve the Chiefs at each step along the way in that process?


David Edward Crombie: Yes, Mr. Speaker, we intend to involve the Chiefs, Councils, and the Indian people of Manitoba. Second, it is hard for me to put a date on it. I met with the independent auditor last Thursday. He left to go to Germany on Friday and he is returning Sunday. I will see him as soon as he gets off the plane.
We have no intention of fooling around with the matter. I indicated at the outset that we are going to rectify the situation with all due speed. We want to do it well, and that is why we are proceeding in the way we said we would proceed.


CANADIAN JOBS STRATEGY
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. I am sure she is very supportive of and recognizes the contribution of non-profit and volunteer groups in this great country of Canada. Since she has now had plenty of time to consider the Colleen Stewart memo from Toronto, will she now reject one of the recommendations referred to in the memo which is to reduce the wage subsidies in the jobreadiness stream used by non-profit organizations from 100 per cent to 50 per cent? Will she today say in the House that she will keep the wage subsidy at 100 per cent and not reduce it to 50 per cent which would kill off many of those volunteer groups?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, we have been very pleased with the co-operation we have received from both the non-private and the private sectors in developing the Canadian Jobs Strategy. We think it is very successful. The proof is that we have so many more applications for that program than there have ever been for any other program. We will continue to involve both the private sector and the non-private sector in the programs under the Canadian Jobs Strategy in the future.


SIZE OF WAGE SUBSIDY
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, for once I would like to get an answer from the Minister. I would like to ask her very specifically whether or not she will reject the recommendation made in this memo that the wage subsidy be reduced from 100 per cent to 50 per cent. Will she reject that recommendation, yes or no?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, we will be only too glad to look at
any contributions that the private sector wants to make to this program. We do not have a majority of the projects presently being awarded to the private sector. In fact, in the major program, Job Development, some 73 per cent of the projects go to the non-private sector, to non-profit organizations and to educational institutions, and they are all funded 100 per cent.


FOOD AND DRUGS
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. What is the Minister's response, or the response of his Department, to Dr. Davies' report made on behalf of the International Joint Commission in Toronto recently relating to dioxin found in ordinary, everyday foods of Canadians?


Hon. Jake Epp (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, in reply to the Hon. Member, I have stated in the House before that the samples Dr. Davies used and the very narrow base upon which the findings were conducted have been seriously questioned by a number of other scientists. As well, I would like to tell the Hon. Member that the Department, through HPB, has been determining levels of dioxin for at least the last 10 years. All studies indicate that there has been no increase in levels.
The monitoring systems and machinery we use enable us to identify trace amounts. We will continue to do exactly that kind of work. I can state very clearly that, from our findings, the food-chain is not at risk. Should there be any difficulties discerned even with that system, we will obviously take action.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct a question to the Deputy Prime Minister.
Today's newspapers report that spring in Paris for the Prime Minister and his retinue cost over $500,000. We also know that the tab for meals and hotel accommodation was close to $329,000.
I should like to ask the Deputy Prime Minister how he can possibly justify such expenditures while expecting Canadian families to accept a lower indexation of family allowances?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, one of the highlights of the Prime Minister's trip with certain Members of the Liberal Party and
June 18, 1986

the New Democratic Party was the convening of a conference of francophone countries, a first ever in history. This is something the Canadian Governments had been seeking to achieve for quite some time. It was only a dream for the previous administration, but this Government made it reality and a source of pride for Canadians.


Sheila Maureen Copps: Mr. Speaker, Canadian pride does not carry a price tag. Canadian pride is not up for sale!


COST OF PERSONAL SERVICES
Sheila Maureen Copps: How can the Secretary of State for External Affairs justify inclusion in that specific bill of springtime in Paris for the Prime Minister and his entourage? Included in that bill is $27,630.72 for unspecified personal services. Who or what were those unspecified personal services?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, I have no lessons to learn from the Hon. Member for Hamilton East on the contribution of the House of Commons or of anyone in public life to pride in the country, nor does the Prime Minister.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The delegation to the first Francophone summit not only involved representatives of the Liberal Party and of the New Democratic Party in this House-


Some Hon. Members:: One each.


Charles Joseph Clark: -it also involved representatives of provinces in which there is a significant Francophone presence. It involved a number of representatives of Francophones hors Quebec. It was not simply a demonstration of the effectiveness of Canada in international diplomacy. Without Canada the conference would never have come to be. It was also a clear demonstration to the nations of the world that the Francophone reality of Canada is a reality across our country.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Will she confirm the fact that her Department has either decided or is about to decide to eliminate funding for statutory pay for students of community colleges under
Orals Questions
CEIC funding and apprenticeships? Will she confirm that her Department has cut off statutory holiday pay for these people?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, Mr. Speaker, I will not confirm that.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Would she immediately undertake an investigation to find out why community colleges in Ontario have been advised that in fact that is about to occur, and to ensure that it does not happen? Will she do that?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I will be glad to take the Hon. Member's representation into consideration.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ted Schellenberg (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. It will probably be the only question of substance he will receive in this Question Period.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ted William Schellenberg: As the Minister is aware, the agreement between Canada and the United States for the joint operation of the Canadian Forces Test Range at Nanoose Bay, British Columbia, is due for renewal. Could the Minister indicate to the House when that agreement will be renewed, what the term of the agreement will be, and whether there is any substantial change over the previous agreement?


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, just before coming into the House I was informed by officials that the Nanoose agreement had indeed been signed for a period of 10 years. I have yet to confirm that, but I have no reason to doubt the information which was conveyed to me.


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. Yesterday in the House the Minister indicated that he was not prepared to intervene in the situation at the Cape Breton Development Corporation

June 18, 1986
Orals Questions
because of the elections for union officers which were taking place. I remind him that the elections are over. The new president and the new officers support whole-heartedly the cause of the seven labour leaders who are occupying management offices. Will the Minister use his rightful authority to intervene and meet with the new president of UMW and those labour leaders to address their serious concerns about job displacement in the coal industry?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am advised that Mr. Burke, the newly elected president, will in fact meet with those who are staging the sit-in to familiarize himself with the issues and to get a broader understanding of their views. I would expect that the Hon. Member would want him to take a certain amount of time in developing his strategy insofar as what transpires next. Perhaps he might be able to convince his fellow workers to remove themselves from the offices of Devco.


David Charles Dingwall: I thank the Minister for his response.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER MEET UNION REPRESENTATIVES
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, I talked with the new president, Mr. Burke, an hour ago. He has already met with the seven labour leaders, and he has jointly agreed with them to end this occupation of the management offices if in fact-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member has a question, I hope.


David Charles Dingwall: Is the Minister prepared to meet with the new president and those labour leaders forthwith? If he gives them an affirmative answer, they are prepared to end the occupation of those offices. It is in the Minister's court.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware-at least I have not been informed-of whether Mr. Burke has attempted to reach me or contact me. That may have been the case, but I am unaware of it at the moment. My office has been in touch with the Chairman of the Devco board to see whether in fact members of the board or my office might play a useful role in trying to resolve this difficult problem. However, I assure the Hon. Member that we will take his suggestion seriously. We would hope that a satisfacatory resolution can be arrived at, and I assure him of my fullest co-operation.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. He is fully aware of the dangerous situation his Government
has designed and promoted regarding the salmon fishery in British Columbia, particularly on the Skeena. Could the Minister reveal to Canada and to the House any policy on enhancement and allocation, or does he expect the policy regarding the fishery to be created by the courts and the media?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, I think I can respond to the Hon. Member's question. He, perhaps above others in the House, would know that on May 5 the Minister of Fisheries and I met in Vancouver with all interested parties in the salmon fishery. We established a joint working committee to look at matters respecting conservation, preservation, and enhancement of the fishery, and at a co-management scheme. As I recall it, the Hon. Member applauded that at the time.


CO-MANAGEMENT PROPOSAL-REQUEST FOR MINISTERIAL MEETING
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, as I am sure the Minister will recall, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans was thrown out of the meeting and the co-management proposal was publicly withdrawn. Will the Minister attend a public meeting, along with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, before the end of June somewhere in the B.C. northwest, or is this issue not important enough for the two Ministers to put it on their agenda?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is absolutely wrong when he says that the Minister of Fisheries was thrown out of the meeting or that indeed the co-management scheme was withdrawn. It is absolutely untrue. I think it can be said that the consultative process is beginning to move nicely. One difficulty was that there was a perceived legal uncertainty in respect of the four by-laws. As the Hon. Member knows, recently I have taken steps to ensure that the legal uncertainty with regard to those by-laws was removed during the time the process of discussion and consultation with the joint work group was in place. I wish the Hon. Member would quit playing politics with this matter and help us along.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PUBLIC WORKS
Mr. Jean-Guy Guilbault (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Public Works. Federal surplus real estate disposal program phases I and II began a few months ago.
June 18, 1986

Can the Minister tell the House if this process has enabled Treasury Board to make savings and attract private sector investment capital, and does he expect similar fall-outs from phase III of the program?


Hon. Roch La Salle (Minister of Public Works):: First, Mr. Speaker, Hon. Members will be pleased to learn that this Government is committed to encourage significant private sector investments.
As to our Government's decision to dispose of surplus buildings, the answer to the Hon. Member's question is this: 250 real estate deals have been concluded so far; $60 million will be added to the public treasury; Canadians will save close to $4 million in terms of taxes and services related to vacant buildings; and, finaly, more interesting still, we have learned that the private sector might invest in excess of $1 billion. That, Mr. Speaker, is what we on this side of the House call good business!


REGIONAL INDUSTRIAL EXPANSION
Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion. On May 30 the Minister told a press conference in Cape Breton that the Government had created 844 jobs in that area since the new tax incentives came into effect. There are a lot of unemployed Cape Bretoners who would love to know exactly where those jobs are. Will the Minister table today a breakdown of exactly where those jobs are?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to provide the Hon. Member with that information. In addition to that, I am advised by my colleague that through the work programs under her auspices 1,372 additional jobs have been created in Cape Breton.


Mr. Gauthier:: Table those too.


GOVERNMENT POLICY
Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, there were less jobs created by the Department of Employment and Immigration than were created last year. The Government is so busy patting itself on the back that it does not realize we are losing jobs daily. If the Minister's job creation program is so great, will he tell us why there are fewer jobs in Cape Breton today than there were a year ago?
Orals Questions
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Acting Minister of Regional
Industrial Expansion): Mr. Speaker, I certainly disagree with the premise of the question. I can assure the Hon. Member that there are many more projects and participants in the Canadian Jobs Strategy which will create more jobs in the future. They will be long, durable jobs, rather than the kind of fluff the Hon. Member created when his Party was in office.


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It has to do with the peregrinations of the Prime Minister who took three trips costing close to $1 million. I am particularly interested in the New York sojourn which cost $62,000. The Prime Minister rented a room for $1,200 a night, and Fred Doucet, his assistant-


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


Mr. Benjamin:: That wasn't the YMCA.


Lloyd Axworthy: It might have been the YW.


John R. Rodriguez: Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that this is the kind of example the leadership of the country should be setting with respect to restraint? Is this what he calls giving an example, or is he like the preacher who says, "Do what I say, not what I do"?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Name names.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I think that the colleague of the Hon. Member who put the question indicated the ridiculous nature of this kind of grasp for headlines in the House of Commons. He suggested that the Prime Minister of Canada, when representing this country at the fortieth anniversary sessions of the United Nations, should stay in the YMCA.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Why not?


Charles Joseph Clark: Why not? I thought that that was a casual suggestion. Obviously it was not. Obviously that is the position of the New Democratic Party. In our view this is a country of standing and pride in the councils of the world. We should act that way, as we do.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Now we know why the Iron Ore Company is laughing all the way to the bank.

June 18, 1986
Orals Questions SIZE OF SPENDING


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. I am not asking the Prime Minister to stay at the YMCA.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Why not?


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I am.


Lloyd Axworthy: How about the Holiday Inn?


John R. Rodriguez: Does the Prime Minister think that this kind of lavish spending, like some Middle Eastern sheik, is the kind of example that Canadians-


Some Hon. Members:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Order!


Lloyd Axworthy: The word is "potentate".


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the Hon. Member could complete his question quickly.


John R. Rodriguez: Does the Deputy Prime Minister think that this kind of lavish spending, like some Middle Eastern potentate, is the kind of example we should be holding up to the Canadian people while at the same time cutting back on their services and programs?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we now have evidence of division in the NDP on the YMCA.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Was it Visa or Master Card?


Charles Joseph Clark: I guess the only way we can judge that is to see where Premier Pawley stays when he next comes to Ottawa.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: He takes his own tent wherever he goes.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: He stays at my place.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if I might ask the Hon. Member to refrain from making inflamatory comments about the Middle East.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of National
Defence. At a House of Commons National Defence Committee meeting on April 17 the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance for the Department of National Defence told us that while there was no specific provision in the Estimates to pay for Low Level Air Defence, the Department had in fact identified funds within its present budget to pay for the Low Level Air Defence system.
Will the Minister tell us now from what items of the National Defence budget money is going to be taken in order to pay for the system? Will the transfer of such funds adversely affect the present or future status of any one of the 33 military bases in Canada?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, the Assistant Deputy Minister of Finance was exactly correct in his answer. The Low Level Air Defence was approved by Cabinet within the last two weeks. It will be in next year's Estimates. You do not put it into Estimates until it has been approved.
With regard to how this will affect military bases, it will be a great boost to our base in Chatham which will be the school for Low Level Air Defence It will have a positive effect on that base.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: He did in fact say that there was money in there for it.


ALLOCATION OF FUNDING
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, will the Minister of National Defence assure the people of Canada today that the presidential designs and theatrical ambitions of the Prime Minister of Canada will not be a financial drain on the Department of National Defence by, for example, using the Hercules aircraft to make his own home movies? Will he assure us-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, order. Order, please! Perhaps the Hon. Member has a question that is supplementary to his first question. This is not a supplementay question. Does the Hon. Member have a supplementary question?


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Will he assure us that all such money, with reference to Low Level Air Defence, will be properly allocated to the Canadian Armed Forces where it belongs?


Harvie Andre: Mr. Speaker, of course it will be properly allocated. The capital budget of the Canadian Armed Forces represents approximately 27 per cent of the total budget. That capital is allocated in such a way as to provide the military with the equipment it needs to make up for 15 years of neglect by the previous Government. We are trying to do that as orderly and quickly as we can.
June 18, 1986


RAILWAYS
Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Canadian National says that Canadian General Electric has expressed an interest in a locomotive manufacturing plant in Moncton. The chief executive officer of Canadian General Electric says that intensive negotiations will begin shortly.
Considering the nebulous state of these negotiations, how can CNR be so specific about the number of people that CGE would keep, the number that would be laid off, the number that would be retrained, and the number that would be retired early?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: What is going on in the negotiations-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! The Hon. Member has been more than a minute already on that question.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, in an attempt to be forthcoming, on the part of both CNR and Canadian General Electric, and to inform the workers of the extent of their plans, they have used the figures which were in the press release as a basis for the negotiations. They may not be entirely accurate, but on the basis of the preliminary discussions those are the numbers they have come up with.
I think it is encouraging that, of the 1,022 employees, 800 jobs will be secured and 200 people will be eligible for transfer or other benefits pursuant to the corporation. I think it is a good deal for everyone.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It is three o'clock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: I have a supplementary question.


Mr. Speaker:: I am sorry, it is three o'clock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: This is a good time to tell me.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Perhaps if the Member had not taken so long on his first question he would have had time for a supplementary question. Unfortunately it is three o'clock.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, I took no longer than anyone else.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please! Order, please.
Statements by Ministers



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 67(2), I rise to table in both official langages a report on the administration and observance of the Code of Conduct concerning the employment practices of Canadian companies operating in South Africa. A limited number of complete sets of the annual public reports issued by 14 of the 17 companies covered by the Code are available from my office. I understand the three reports still outstanding will be submitted shortly.
If I may, I want to add a word of thanks to the administrator, Mr. Albert Hart, and the Canadian companies who cooperated with him and whose annual public reports are now for the first time available.

Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to inform the House that the Government has undertaken a major reform of its policies governing classification of information and personnel security screening. The current policies have been criticized from all quarters, and justifiably so. Too much information has been classified and far too many security clearances are being requested by departments. The policy on security classification of individuals is a full three decades old, dating back to 1956. Cabinet Directive 35, which guides the security screening process, dates from 1963.

Mr. Speaker, it's time that the Governement brought its security system into the eighties. We are particularly conscious of the mounting cost of the security clearance program and the growing backlog of requests from departments for clearances based on these old policies. In far too many cases, security clearances are unjustified and unnecessary. Such a system undermines security, instead of ensuing its effectiveness.

I am announcing measures today which will ensure a significant reduction in the demand for security clearances, and require that security clearances undertaken are justifiable, equitable and effective. Our new policy is guided by four basic principles. First, we want to ensure that only Government

June 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers
information in respect of which protection from unauthorized disclosure is essential to the national interest is classified for security purposes, and that this information is effectively protected.

Second, we want to reduce the number of positions in the Government of Canada that require the incumbent to be security screened.

Third, we want to better protect the rights of individuals affected by the Government's administrative security system.

And fourth, we want to upgrade the security of Canada by more effectively managing the resources dedicated to the security screening and information classification and protection programs.

Under the new policy, information will only be security classified if it falls into one of six areas: national defence; international affairs; national security, including hostile and subversive activities and threats to the country's security; confidences of Cabinet; federal-provincial affairs; and selected economic interests of Canada. I want to underline that in no way will this new classification system have any effect whatsoever on a person's right to access under the access and privacy legislation.
To reduce the number of positions which require the incumbent to be security screened, the test will be whether an individual has regular and consistent access to classified information as part of his or her official duties. The level of security clearance will be tied directly to the degree of injury the incumbent or contractor could cause if he disclosed information or material assets classified in the national interest.
Based on the degree of injury there will be three levels of security clearance. I believe the vast majority of classified information can be held in the first level, the lowest level. Much tighter control than is now the case will be exercised on the information placed in secret and top secret categories, therefore reducing the necessity for higher level clearances.

The criteria to be used in rejecting a candidate for a security clearance must be up-dated and made more equitable. Security investigations must also be done in a completely fair and defensible fashion and with the consent of the applicants, ensuring that the rights of any individual subject to security screening are upheld.

Our security screening criteria will be brought fully into line with the provisions of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. The Government has redefined the rejection criteria so that to be rejected on grounds of disloyality there
must be reasonable grounds to believe that individuals are engaged in or may engage in activities which fall within the definition of a "threat to the security of Canada." Under CD 35 a person could be rejected if considered unreliable, not because he is disloyal. This is no longer supportable. Under the new policy, doubts concerning an individual's reliability must be linked to loyality for the employer to reject a candidate for a security clearance. The employer must have reasonable grounds to believe that a person is unreliable.
I want to emphasize to the House that I will soon issue a formal directive to CSIS governing the provision of security assessments which will give the Service detailed guidelines on how the Government expects the new security policies to be put into action. Under my new directive, CSIS may not conduct any security clearance investigation for a department or agency unless the written consent of the individual is first obtained. I will also direct that CSIS conduct all investigations for security clearance purposes in a manner consistent with this consent by the individual and the principles of natural justice, including obtaining consent for the recording of any interviews. CSIS may interview individuals in order to give them an opportunity to resolve any security concerns which might have arisen in the course of the investigation.

I also reaffirm the Government's commitment to a fair and equitable review procedure for those denied security clearance. Under the CSIS Act, the Deputy Head must notify any person denied a security clearance within ten days and of their right to complain to the Security Intelligence Review Committee.

The CIRC has demonstrated its value as a review mechanism by the careful, thorough and fair manner in which it has investigated and reported upon those cases which have so far come before it, and the way in which it has brought the principles of natural justice into play in those cases.

Mr. Speaker, to direct this new system effectively, the Government has charged Treasury Board with responsibility for the overall management of the new policies. The Treasury Board will assist each department in implementation of the program and monitor compliance with it. CSIS will maintain a central index of all security clearances to assist the Treasury Board and the deparments in the management of the screening program.

The new policies I have announced today are based on two requirements: the need for more responsible management of the Government's security system to improve national security; and the need for a fairer and more equitable treatment of public servants and others who do business with the Government.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to respond to the Solicitor
June 18, 1986

General's statement. I would like to take this opportunity to thank the Minister for providing the Opposition with a copy of his remarks in advance of his statement in the House. It is a courtesy which members of the Opposition appreciate and indeed require if they are to comment in an informed manner on various Government initiatives. I would only hope that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) will in future extend the same courtesy to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) before he goes on national television to make statements about free trade.
We in the Opposition welcome the initiative which the Solicitor General has taken regarding reforming the Government's security policies. My colleague from York Centre, a former Solicitor General, has commented on a number of occasions on the need to revise the Government's security policies. Indeed, it can probably be said that the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) got the ball rolling toward setting in motion the review and reform we now have before us. The reforms we have before us today are in some respect the culmination of significant reforms initiated earlier in this decade by the previous Liberal Government. For instance, the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service Act, which reformed the security service in this country, gave us a much more precise definition of what, in fact, constitutes a threat to the security of Canada.
This is defined as follows: one, espionage or sabotage that is against Canada or is detrimental to the interests of Canada or activities directed toward or in support of such espionage or sabotage; second, foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada and are clandestine or deceptive or involve a threat to any person; third, activities within or relating to Canada directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state; and fourth, activites directed toward undermining, by covert unlawful acts, or directed toward or intended ultimately to lead to the destruction or overthrow by violence of the constitutionally established system of government in Canada.
Another piece of Liberal reform legislation which has a significant bearing on these new security policies is the access to information and privacy legislation passed by the Trudeau Government in 1983, and currently undergoing a thorough review by the Committee on Justice and Solicitor General. In fact, the access to information legislation forms the basis of this new policy by adopting the same definition of information subject to security classification.
Under this policy announced by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) information will be security classified if it falls into one of the following areas: national defence, international affairs, national security, confidences of Cabinet, federal-provincial affairs, and selected economic interests of Canada.
Statements by Ministers
Of course, the major piece of reform legislation implemented by the former Liberal Government was the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The new security policy has had to take the Charter into account in so far as it respects the rights of the people affected. It has had to take into account that Canadians now have freedom of conscience and religion; freedom of thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press and other media of communication; freedom of peaceful assembly; and freedom of association. I am informed by officials in the Department of the Solicitor General that they believe this new policy is in accord with the Charter, and with the equality rights committee's report. Certainly we in the Opposition will follow closely the administration of this policy.
As the Solicitor General pointed out, the policy on security classification is almost as old as I am, going back to 1956. Cabinet Directive 35, which governs the security screening process, dates back to 1963. Indeed, the 1956 policy, which will be replaced under these new initiatives, talks about sealing wax to protect secret papers in transit. In an age when high speed coded electronic messages are, in most cases, standard operating procedures, it is clear that the old security policies are just about as antiquated as the Minister of Justice's new pornography legislation relating to the general definition of pornography.
It is clear that the old procedures had simply broken down. The volume of information being classified is staggering, and the number of security clearances for public servants and contract employees with the federal Government was getting completely out of control. In 1982 there were 76,000 security checks conducted on public servants. In the last fiscal year this number was reduced to 69,000. Officials in the Solicitor General's Department have said that these new policies could reduce the number of security clearances in most Departments by about 25 to 30 per cent. In some Departments, I am told, the figures could even be higher. If that is the case, then it is a welcome development.
In terms of cost alone the old policies placed a heavy burden on the federal treasury. I am told that a standard field investigation for an individual security clearance could cost anywhere between $1500 and $4000. With the number of people requiring clearances under the old policies it is evident that not only was it ineffective, it was also costly.
Again, with respect to the reduction in the number of security clearances required, we in the Official Opposition will be watching the numbers carefully in the future to ensure that the new policy is, in fact, having the desired effect.
In conclusion, once again I would like to thank the Solicitor General for providing me with an advanced copy of his policy. We welcome the initiative taken by the Solicitor General. It is the culmination of an effort that began a number of years ago. We all agree that the present system is not adequate and we anxiously await the implementation of this new policy which the Solicitor General has introduced today.

June 18, 1986
Statements by Ministers


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, I would first echo the comments of my colleague the Hon.Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) in thanking the Solictor General (Mr. Beatty) for having provided me with an advanced copy of his new policy, as well as a briefing by his officials, which was most helpful.
The whole question of security clearances and the classification of documents is one that has been a matter of serious concern for a number of years. We have waited far too long for these important changes. In 1983 the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, Mr. Gordon Fairweather, appearing before a committee of the Senate said, "unnecessary security clearances, unnecessarily high levels of classification, and unnecessary snooping into the lives of individuals are not only wasteful of our resources, are not only morally repugnant, but they are discriminatory".
Those are strong words, and clearly in my view those words are merited by the current policy. What we must look at is the extent to which the new changes announced by the Minister in practice are going to get rid of this very serious attack on civil liberties, which is the basis of current policy in this area.
Cabinet Directive 35, which was dated in 1963, in fact was effectively superseded by the 1984 Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. There is a mechanism for review of security clearances and so on.
In examining the early decisions of the Security Intelligence Review Committee on denials of security clearance, I must say that those decisions are not encouraging at all. The decision involving Mr. Andre Henrie, for example, or the decision involving Jack Gold, in both of those situations, was really quite disturbing in a free and democratic society.
It is when we examine the fine print of the Minister's proposal that I believe in many respects these proposals are giving the illusion of change. Unfortunately the discretion which is left to Deputy Ministers is so broad that there may be no effective change at all.
What are the definitions that the Minister relies on for the classification of documents? He relies on the definitions which are found in the access to information legislation. The definition sections in the access to information legislation have been criticized by witness after witness appearing before the Justice Committee as being far too sweeping, as, in effect, allowing the Government to hide any information it wants. Those are precisely the same definitions this Minister is using to classify government information. That is no progress at all.
What about the second major element, the definition that is to be used for security clearances? What we find the Minister saying is we will use the definition from the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act of threats to the security to Canada. Once again, that definition is so broad, so openended that, in effect, those Canadians who are not engaging in any unlawful activity whatsoever could be targetted by it. If, for example, a Canadian sends money to a church group in South Africa which supports the African National Congress that individual
could be targetted under the definition of threats to the security of Canada.
By adopting the sweeping definitions in the access to information legislation, and the wide open definition in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Bill on threats to the security of Canada, we have seen no effective change at all.

Mr. Speaker, these measures give only the illusion of change. The definitions used by the Government are so vague and allow so much discretion tht there is no real change.

Two groups in particular affected in the past by the security clearance provisions will see no effective relief, or at least there is that possibility. Members of parties in this country that many of us might disagree with, but which are legal parties, are targeted still by this definition. The Communist Party of Canada, which is a legal party in Canada and which is entitled to run candidates, and indeed has elected candidates provincially and federally in the past, would deny a person a security clearance.
With respect to homosexuals, the old policy denied homesex-uals the right to security clearances. I have a letter from the RCMP, Assistance Officer in Charge of Internal Security, who states that homosexuality is a reliability weakness identified in Cabinet Directive No. 35. There is no guarantee that that policy is being changed either, despite the recommendations of the equality rights Committee.
My concern about the announcement of the Minister is that we are really getting the illusion of change. What we are effectively seeing is smoke and mirrors, with no real substantial change at all. In fact, we may be moving backwards, because hidden in the Minister's announcement is a suggestion that much tigher control than is now the case will be exercised on the information being placed in secret and top secret categories. We are moving backward in this area, rather than moving forward with effective whistle-blower legislation, for example.
I am pleased that the Minister has eliminated the secret tape recording of public servants. I commend him for moving quickly on that once I drew it to his attention.

Mr. Speaker, I repeat, there has been no effective change. [English]
The changes are largely illusory and the criticisms which were made by many Canadians, including the head of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, remain well founded. These provisions continue to be discriminatory and excessive.
Finally, I suggest that in view of the fundamental importance of these measures, they should be comprehensively
June 18, 1986

reviewed by the Standing Committee on Justice and Solicitor General soon, hopefully early in the fall.


PETITIONS
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker,
I have the honour to present to the House a series of petitions, about 20 of them, asking the House in Parliament assembled to urge the National Capital Commission and the Governor General to make the grounds where the Governor General's residence is located accessible to the general public and that the decision to close access to these grounds be revoked, so that all Canadian citizens may enjoy a visit to Rideau Hall.

I want to thank all those who have sent me these petitions in order to attempt to change this decision.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table in the House a petition signed by many residents of my constituency of Burnaby who recognize the concern that the telephone pricing scheme known as local measured service, or charging for each local call, means that having a telephone will cost significantly more for most people, particularly senior citizens and the handicapped and those who rely on their telephones, such as voluntary agencies. They call upon Parliament to direct the CRTC to deny to telephone companies such as B.C. Tel, the right to charge for each telephone call and to order the retention of a monthly rental for telephones.


James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition calling for a full public inquiry into the need for staffing lightstations on the West Coast of British Columbia as a result of the directive of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to eliminate staffing of lightstations at Lawyer Island, Boat Bluff, Pointer Island, Chrome Island, Trail Island and Pointer Pass. The same Minister has also directed staff reductions at Lucy Island, Putteney Point, Cape Mudge, Pt. Atkinson and Saturna Island. The petitioners humbly pray that the House will take action.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: It is my
pleasure to present a petition on behalf of a number of
Introduction of Bills
residents from Halifax and Prince George, Sicamous, Revel-stoke and Kamloops, British Columbia. They ask that the Government of Canada reconsider the decision to have pension benefits deducted from unemployment insurance benefits, thus effectively eliminating the benefit to the worker of the pension package. They are asking the Government to ensure that all retired employees keep their pension benefits and receive their unemployment insurance benefits without the deduction from pension income.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, I have the honour and privilege to present a petition signed by approximately 100 residents of rural Thunder Bay who object to the possible decision by Canada Post and the Government to eliminate the individual mail box delivery to its rural customers and replace it with central mail boxes many miles away. They call upon Parliament to direct Canada Post to halt its discriminatory cut-backs in service to rural residents and to maintain individual mail box delivery on its rural routes.



CANADIAN HUMAN RIGHTS ACT


Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River) moved: for leave to introduce Bill C-290, An Act to amend the Canadian Human Rights Act (non-discriminatory practices).


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Albert Glen Cooper: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this Bill is to allow some flexibility and opportunity for churches and religious organizations. This requires some amendments to the Canadian Human Rights Act, which this Bill will accomplish.


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

Hon. Barbara McDougall (Minister of State (Finance)) moved:: June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
That, further to the notice given on Tuesday, June 17, 1986, by the Minister of National Revenue and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117 in relation to Bill C-96, An Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and
That fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
She said: Mr, Speaker, soon after it came to power, this Government introduced a program for economic renewal, which accompanied the economic and fiscal message of November 1984. In it the government envisaged the possibility of limiting the rate of growth of transfers to the provinces as part of a strategy to correct our fiscla situation and stabilize the state of our finances.
More than a year ago, in May 1985, the federal Government announced its decision to limit the rate of growth of transfers under Established Programs Fianacing. At the time the growth of most other categories of expenditures under federal programs had either been reduced or stopped altogether. Transfers to the provinces could not completely be insulated from the Government's efforts to reduce its deficit.
There were no secrets and no surprises.
Bill C-96 was introduced after extensive and prolonged consultations with provinces which began in November of 1984 and continued through to December of 1985. The subject of transfers was discussed with provincial finance Ministers on at least six separate occasions: November, 1984; January, 1985; May, 1985; September, 1985; November, 1985; and December, 1985. EPF was also discussed at the First Ministers Conference in Halifax in November of 1985.
As a result, the provisions of the Bill reflect these federal-provincial discussions and our desire to achieve deficit reduction in the most balanced and reasonable way possible.
The Bill was drafted in early 1986 and given first reading on February 14, 1986. Second reading began in May, and the Bill was referred to committee. The legislative committee on Bill C-96 heard from 18 groups representing a wide variety of interests: organized labour, academics and students, doctors, nurses and other health practitioners, health consumers, and so forth. The Bill was subsequently reported without amendment.
I testified before the Standing Senate Committee on National Finance in the course of its "pre-study" of Bill C-96.1 tabled an explanatory paper for the information of Senators and Members of Parliament. I also testified before the House legislative committee on Bill C-96. I have responded to opposition questions and made clear the case of the Government.
This Bill has now been debated for 11 days. This Bill has been debated for 37 hours. There have been 125 Hon. Members who have spoken. Hansard will show that the debate is exhausted and the argumentation has become repetitious. Enough is enough.
There is always much talk about the national debt and the need to do something about it. The previous Government talked a lot about deficit reduction. In November of 1981, the Hon. Allan MacEachen, then Minister of Finance, said, "I believe we must reduce our deficit and borrowing requirements substantially". He went on to say, "Some restraint must be applied to our transfers to provinces". This Minister boldly proclaimed: "Now I have set myself the task of cutting back the deficit". As we all know, the deficit was not cut back. Government expenditure grew, and debt charges mounted. That is the situation which compelled the Canadian electorate to defeat the former Government. That is the legacy our Government was elected to rectify. Now we must act. Nothing will be gained by delay or protracted indecision. Indeed, much will be lost.
Public debt charges are growing in size and gaining in momentum. If this situation is not addressed, debt charges will erode our ability to sustain the vital social services Canadians now enjoy. More and more federal revenue will be eaten away by spiralling debt charges, and less and less will be available for vital social services. Ultimately, we can only provide what we can afford.
We have carefully reviewed our resources, and the provinces were involved in that discussion. We are collectively working to reduce our over-all debt load. The provinces are also concerned about the federal deficit and the obstacle it represents to continued economic growth of our entire country. Reducing this obstacle to growth benefits both levels of Government. Provinces now enjoy the benefits of Canada's strong economic performance. Provinces will continue to benefit from lower interest rates, increased employment, rising housing starts, and a growing economy.
This transfer to provinces will grow at rates which can be sustained. EPF transfers will total $90 billion over the next five years. That is $25 billion more than over the last five years. Surely this is ample evidence of the federal commitment to health care and post-secondary education. I urge Hon. Members opposite to join with us in support of a measure which both confirms the high priority given by this Government to these social services and the urgent necessity of confronting the federal deficit.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I must say at the outset that I am very astounded that the Government would use Standing Order 117, an order which places time allocation on third reading debate on this most important Bill.
I noticed that the Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDou-gall) had a little problem with her voice in speaking, and maybe she needs a doctor. I think this very Bill that we are discussing this afternoon is one that will have a tremendous
June 18, 1986

effect on our health care system, on our doctors, our hospitals and our senior citizens. Every individual in Canada who requires some measure of health care will be affected by the Bill. I am astounded that the Government would use time allocation, a Draconian measure, to silence the voice of the people for further debate on an issue as important as this.
I say that I am astounded that the Government is cutting off debate. The reason I say that is that just yesterday I received a telex by special delivery, as did other Members of Parliament, from 128 of the 147 physicians practising medicine in the Province of Prince Edward Island. I will read the telex into the record today. It is addressed to me and it states:
The following list of P.E.I. physicians hereby petition our Members of Parliament, and Parliament, to give favourable consideration to the recommendations of the Canadian Medical Association related to Bill C-96;
1)	That this legislation be restricted to a short-term basis only-and only if absolutely essential to the future economy of the country:
2)	That the financial disadvantages to the Atlantic provinces be excluded from the provisions of this legislation, i.e. that they continue to receive increasing financial support for health care programs on the basis of the existing, established program-funding formula:
The existing formula, now in place, before the legislation changes it-
3)	That the federal and provincial Governments immediately proceed to negotiate a formal agreement for the future financing of health care in Canada. That agreement should: (a) clearly delineate to the Canadian public the constitutional, fiscal, moral and political responsibilities of both levels of Government to finance health care and (b) provide a level of federal financial support that is inversely related to the fiscal capacity of the provinces or otherwise recognizes and compensates for the fiscal inability of some provinces to provide health services that are reasonably comparableed to those of more affluent provinces.
That telex has the signatures, as I mentioned before, of 128 of the 147 practising physicians in the Province of Prince Edward Island.
The Minister of State for Finance just said, "We have had extensive and long discussions with the provinces and different groups". In other words, she said, I believe, they met six times. Well, what kind of discussions were those? When we find that the Canadian Medical Association, universities and provinces are condemning this legislation, we must wonder what kind of two-way conversation took place. It looks to me as though they went to meet with the provinces and with different organizations, and they said what they are saying by Standing Order 117; "We will talk, we will talk so long, but it will be a oneway conversation".
For the Government and for the Minister to stand in her place today and bring down this sort of a Draconian measure with respect to a Bill as important as this is evidence of the desperate situation in which the Government finds itself.
A couple of my colleagues and I attended some hearings in Atlantic Canada with respect to the issue of EPF. We met with hospital administrators who told us, as I am sure they will tell any other Member of Parliament who takes the time to inquire how this Bill will affect them, that they are already
Time Allocation
overburdened, They are already underfunded in terms of meeting the real needs of health care in their areas.
We also met with student unions, groups of students who are having extreme difficulty obtaining some sort of education in the out-lying areas of this country. They are finding it extremely difficult to do so because they know that if this Bill goes through and passes, as it is, their tuition fees will increase. These people are already in areas of the country in which they are unable to obtain half-decent summer employment. Some of them in my area will not be able to find any jobs at all this year. Where will they obtain the money to go to university? It is just an impossible situation. As a result, the educational system in the country will deteriorate, and once again we will have second-class citizens in different parts of the country. That is not at all what we should be striving for in this great country of ours. There should be universal access in every part of the country to the education system.
A news release put out by doctors in Atlantic Canada spells out quite clearly that some 87 per cent of doctors in that area have petitioned their Members of Parliament not to reduce extended federal funding for health services by over $21 million over the next five years. That is what it will cost in Prince Edward Island alone. It is also pointed out in the news release that in addition to the losses cited for P.E.I., Newfoundland stands to lose $95 million, Nova Scotia stands to lose $145 million, and New Brunswick will lose $117 million. These are the very areas of the country which can least afford it.
The Minister mentioned that the Government was elected on a policy of economic renewal. We now find out what that term means. It means shifting the tax burden from Ottawa to the provinces. If the provinces are to try to keep up with any sort of a national health care system or educational system they will have to increase their taxes. That is just what the Government is trying to do. It is trying to reduce its deficit while increasing the deficit of the provinces. My constitutents tell me that tax is tax, whether they pay it to the federal Government or to the provincial Government. Why should there be this extra tax burden? The Government may be able to show on paper, in a couple of years, that the deficit is decreasing, while the provincial deficits will be increasing as a result of its actions. I feel that the Government is certainly headed in the wrong direction by trying to shift a tax burden of $8 billion over the next five years from the federal Government to the provinces. That is just not the way to go about it.
In the last election campaign we heard a great deal about co-operation, this great new co-operative spirit between the federal Government and the provinces. I guarantee Hon. Members that as a result of this Bill that co-operation will disappear. I cannot see any provincial Premier of any political stripe agreeing to this sort of Bill.
I know my time has almost run out. However, I would like to go on. I would like to be able to expand on some of my arguments as to why this Bill should not go ahead. However, under Standing Order 117 I am not permitted to speak at any

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
greater length. I believe the Government will receive its just desserts when it goes to the polls the next time around. I tell every Member opposite that this legislation is very severe legislation for any Member of Parliament who is trying to get re-elected, particularly those from Atlantic Canada. We cannot afford this very unjust legislation, this Draconian measure which is being brought forward by the Government.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand the Government's proposal. I think it does not realize the kind of problems this measure will cause for the provinces, both for our education system and our health care system, for young and old. A provincial Government cannot maintain these systems without sufficient funding. I am positive the system will start breaking down in a matter of years. I think the Government fails to realize the problems that will result for most provincial Governments. I am sure that in a few years, the federal Government will have to review this legislation.

As I see it, the problem is that the Government has moved with undue haste, not so much in closing off the debate, although I confess that is a bit of an aggravation, but in its effort to cut back on the expenditures at the federal level. It has done one of two things. First, it has either transferred the responsibility to the provinces or it has decided that the systems, both the post-secondary education system and health care, should be reduced as to their effectiveness and openness.
We in Canada have prided ourselves for years in the educational system that we have been able to provide, both for the young and for those who seek to continue their education as necessity requires throughout their lifetimes. Equally, we have prided ourselves for many years in terms of the accessibility of our health care system. We need only look to the Province of Ontario to see what occurs when there is insufficient funds made available for the provision of necessary services. The strike by the doctors, albeit motivated more by greed than by good judgment, I think, nevertheless reflects a fundamental problem of funding within the health care system.
Over the years I have seen, as have many other Members, Governments moving to close wings and remove beds from hospitals which, frankly speaking, were necessary if the level of health care we had up until a few years ago was to be maintained. What I find most disconcerting is that for reasons yet to be explained the Government has decided to run serious risks with the future of accessible health care-accessible in both senses; that is, from the point of view of geography and from the point of view of finances.
I do not think there are many Members of any age in this House who do not recall the problems of the early 1950s, and prior, when there was limited access to health care other than through private plans. Those Members will recall-and if they do not personally recall they would find out about it through discussion with people who lived during that period and were
parents of young families-the amount of debt that they were encumbered with as a result of requiring extensive health care.
What will happen as a result of these measures, the one affecting health in particular, is that we will return to a time when there will not be the accessibility that we have come to expect. In our judgment, we are doing that unnecessarily and without justification. We are now embarking upon the taking of risks without adequate justification, and I could predict the end result of that. My predictions are not always correct, I admit, but nevertheless, in this case I think it is based on some factual information. I predict this will have serious deteriorating effects on the availability of hospital and medical care for Canadians throughout the country.
We are not talking only about the Province of Ontario but about every province. In fact, some provinces will be hit harder by the cut-backs than others. The fact is that even after 20 or more years we have not yet been able to achieve that system of health care that affords to everyone reasonably accessible health care within some fair and definable geographic area. I know that in some parts of northern British Columbia, in northern Ontario and Quebec, in the Maritimes and in substantially large parts of the Prairies, getting to a hospital is a chore in itself. If one happens to be unfortunate enough to live in a less densely populated area which once had a small cottage-type hospital available, given the propensity of Governments to cut back in recent years the chances are that that hospital has been either cut back or closed. The chances are that that particular service has not been replaced by any adequate means of transportation. How often have we heard of elderly and sick requiring care who cannot be transported at a speed sufficient to arrive at hospital in time to be looked after?
With those things in mind, it causes me and my colleagues great concern when the Government moves to reduce the amount of money available for the health care system. That is exactly what the Government has done.
I spoke the other day about this same Bill and I dwelt at some length on the question of post-secondary education. Having said that, I would like to refer anyone who is interested to that particular speech. However, I want to spend a moment or two right now talking about the problem of health care.
For years we have argued that before any decisions are made about the suitability of the level of funding we must take a look at the health care system as it exists, and we must modernize it and bring it up to date. We must make sure that it does in fact use the latest technologies and that we are not overlapping responsibilities. We must ensure that we are taking full advantage of all of the new methods and are not encumbering doctors with jobs that could be done by other health care practitioners. We should try to understand that there are various levels of health care required for different people. For instance, the aged do not necessarily need to be in old age homes if they are provided in-home care, but they are not. It has been proven over the world that in-home care is
June 18, 1986

cheaper than institutionalization. If we were really looking for a way to cut down on the costs of health care, we would be doing a reasonable and accurate analysis to determine whether we are now using all of the most modern and acceptable techniques across the country. However, we are not doing that.
As I am sure many Hon. Members did, last night I watched on television an account of the events taking place in Ottawa and other parts of the country at emergency care units which are being closed down. Doctors decided that they are not going to work. I am not going to argue with them if they do not want to work. I suppose there is nothing I can do about that. There is nothing worse than to be sick and have a reluctant doctor, I suppose. There is nothing worse than to need an operation and have it done by a fellow with a scalpel in his hand and a bitterness in his heart. Whether we or someone sends them back to work or not, clearly they are not going to do the kind of work they ought to be doing. I think that is fair to say.
I was sickened to learn that emergency rooms decided that they would not provide any care at all. Most emergency units, with or without doctors, ought to be able to provide some level of emergency care for people who are in need. The nurses and interns who were in the emergency units ought to have been able to continue to run the units. There should have been a clear delineation of responsibilities in order to take full advantage of all aspects of the system.
Therefore, I suggest that where the Government is falling down lies in the fact that it is looking at only one thing. It feels that if we squeeze the pot smaller, we will in one way or another improve the system of health care. I suggest that that is wrong. It may well be that we could in fact spend fewer dollars, but I do not know if that is true or not. One thing I do know for sure is that that decision cannot be made until we first decide if the system is adequate in its provision of care. We have not yet made that decision and that is why in essence we find this legislation unacceptable and we find the closure motion inappropriate.


Mr. Pierre H. Vincent (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to what the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) and the Hon. Member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) had to say about Bill C-96.
Mr. Speaker, as you know, Bill C-96 has been the subject of 125 speeches in 11 days of debate in the House, which is a lot more than 30 hours of debate altogether.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government believes in post-secondary education. The Conservative Government is aware of the important of medical and health care services in each of the provinces.
However, Mr. Speaker, the Conservative Government is also aware of the national debt, that Liberal legacy worth more than $200 billion, yes, I said $200 billion, while in 1968, and when the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) was
Time Allocation
Minister of Finance and until 1975, there had been no debt or very little.
Mr. Speaker, between 1968 and 1984, the national debt rose to over $200 billion. And in 1984, if we had not been careful, our deficit would have been $39 billion per year.
I think that, in this debate, we should remember that we are not talking about cuts in transfer payments to the provinces, we are talking about a reduction in the growth of those transfer payments. And that, Mr. Speaker, is entirely different.
We took drastic measures. In the last Budget of February 1986, Mr. Speaker, we said: All departmental expenditures will be limited to a 3 per cent increase, the only exception being transfers to the provinces which will continue to rise 5 per cent annually.
In my estimation, Mr. Speaker, it goes to show what this Conservative Government is prepared to do with respect to post-secondary education and hospital services. But it shows as well that we are respectful of the mandate we were given in 1984, which was to work towards reducing both the annual deficit and the national debt, Mr. Speaker. And this is in addition to job creation.
We have been working hard since September 4 and I think the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) is to be commended for his outstanding performance. We have made it a point to boost the Canadian economy from coast to coast. The evidence of that can be seen in Quebec, among other provinces. We have reached a settlement with Quebec, and the equalization payments have been reduced precisely because the economy has improved in Quebec, as in most other provinces. This is why the equalization payments were lower. This is something we can be proud of. Although post-secondary education and health care come under provincial jurisdiction, the federal Government has decided to help the provinces. But this is a federal statute, no agreement has been signed, Mr. Speaker, and tomorrow morning the federal Government could conceivably decide not to make transfer payments to the provinces, yet it would no be contravening the provisions of the Constitution or of any federal or provincial law. I think we must realize this. Transfer payments to the provinces are made by the central Government on a voluntary basis to help them pay for education and health care.
Again, Mr. Speaker, there is absolutely nothing to force the provinces to report to the federal Government concerning how these funds are spent, be it for post-secondary education or health services. The provinces decide, the money is theirs.
Mr. Speaker, 125 Members have spoken to a Bill that has been discussed since November 1984 with the provinces went through first and second reading and was referred to a legislative committee, where it received no other recommendation except that the House proceed with third reading and passage of the Bill. The Legislative Committee made no further recommendation.

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
The eighteen groups were heard on Bill C-96 before the Legislative Committee, Mr. Speaker, eighteen groups which came to voice their concerns. I kept in constant touch with Members of the Government who attended the committee sessions, to find out what these groups had to say. They expressed their concerns, but their concerns involved areas that fall under provincial jurisdiction: health care and postsecondary education. Each province, with the Budget it will receive from the federal Government under this legislation, will decide whether in Quebec, in the Maritimes, in British Columbia or Alberta, whether in each of these provinces they will continue to offer the same services or will cut down on these services. That is entirely a matter of provincial jurisdiction, not the federal Government's.
The Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs has also finished its "pre-study" of Bill C-96. All is well, Mr. Speaker, except for the Opposition. The Opposition has simply decided to prevent Bill C-96 from taking its normal course, otherwise it whould have already gone through the third reading stage by now.
It is really too bad because we have some important Bills. We have a lot of business to finish before the end of the session, but the Opposition, as I said earlier, insists on bringing in an incredible number of speakers who all say the same thing. Every Member who spoke-I was here for the first reading and second reading-repeated what the previous speaker had said, and the same applies to the amendment tabled this week.
I think we are wasting precious time which should be used to consider all the other Bills we have to deal with, Mr. Speaker. I could mention C-90 and C-103, which have been prepared by the Department of Finance. All our departments have Bills. We are being held up for no good reason on C-96 which has been discussed with the provinces since November 1984. If the Opposition had its way, we would even celebrate the second anniversary of the date on which the subject was first discussed by the federal Government and the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, I think it is high time the Opposition realized that there are no cutbacks, and that for the last five years the federal Government has given the provinces $65 billion in transfer payments. There will be $90 billion over the next five years, Mr. Speaker, and no matter how you figure it out, $90 billion less $65 billion works out to $25 billion more over five years. If Hon. Members of the Opposition cannot understand that over the next five years $25 billion more will be given as compared with the five previous years, then we will buy them an adding machine, have them take accounting courses-


An Hon. Member:: They will not be able to use it!


Pierre H. Vincent: -we will have to do something because they are wasting the time of the House; indeed we will increase transfer payments to the provinces over the next five years.


An Hon. Member:: We are responsible people!


Pierre H. Vincent: Mr. Speaker, they will increase faster than the expenditures of federal departments. They will go up 5 per cent a year, whereas the federal departments will be limited to a 3 per cent increase.
Mr. Speaker, I think Hon. Members have to be logical and realistic. I see that my time is up, so I simply want to stress the fact that we do need to invoke closure, go on to other impor-tants questions as soon as possible and end the debate on Bill C-96 which has the support of most Members of the House.


Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I feel obligated to rise and speak on Bill C-96 this afternoon. As everyone who has paid attention to the debate over the last few days knows, Bill C-96 will have the effect of cutting $8 billion from health and educational services by 1992. We have heard individuals say that there will not be any cuts.
On a more serious note, we have heard a Member on the Government side say that we are wasting the time of Parliament and of Canadians. Nothing could be further from the truth. Today we also have an additional component, namely, for the tenth time in this Parliament the Government, with its absolute majority, has the temerity to cut off debate. The Opposition recognizes that with the numbers in the House we cannot win any vote in the life of this Parliament. We knew that; Canadians knew that. However, what Canadians and the Opposition do not accept is that we are unable to debate the business of the country in this Chamber. That is the greatest irony.
We have a Government with an absolute majority which is afraid to discuss issues and to give the Opposition a chance to articulate the concerns of Canadians from one coast to the other on the two crucial elements which form the basis of Bill C-96. It is a shame that with over 200 Members the Government does not have the courage to listen to what Canadians are saying through their elected Members of Parliament. However, despite what I have said about closure, the Hon. Member said that we were wasting time. I would submit, with all due respect, that the Member reflects how out of sync are the Government and the Conservative Party with the aspirations of average Canadians on the street, whether the street happens to be in Newfoundland or in Victoria, British Columbia. If government Members chose to travel and to meet with individuals in their own constituencies, they would know that this particular piece of legislation cuts across two elements of society-on the one hand, the young vis-a-vis education and, on the other hand, the old vis-a-vis health services. They are two crucial programs.
As an hon. friend said earlier, there is only one taxpayer. There may be three levels of government, but there is only one taxpayer. Whether it comes from the federal, provincial, or municipal coffers, that taxpayer wishes to have the services which are part of the social contract of the individual with the country.
June 18, 1986

When we travel across the country-and it is the same in my constituency of York West-and talk with senior citizens, we find out what issues they are concerned about. To a certain degree they are concerned about the pension issue. However, they are also concerned about the health issue, the standard of health care, the delivery of health care, the affordability of health care, and the accessibility to health care. Those are their concerns and they are our concerns with this Bill. We are not wasting the time of Canadians when discussing the merits of this legislation. The Government may believe that it is okay to cut $8 billion by 1992 from health or education if we debate the issue for 25 hours. We are not saying that 30 or 40 hours of debate will make this any better. However, this is the only forum that the Opposition has to prevail upon the mindset which seems to paralyse the Conservative Government. One hopes that because of this debate the Government will finally see that there is something to be said about the Opposition's position.
When I travel across the country and meet with young Canadians the topic of education always comes up. I attended a youth forum two weeks ago at the University of Toronto with Senator Hebert. Virtually the only thing we talked about was accessibility to education. When the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and his Cabinet Ministers talk about Canada moving ahead with new technology in the 21st century they always bring up education. They say that our institutions must provide our young people with the know-how to compete in the international community. They say that young people must have a chance to grow and develop through our university and college system in order to have the tools to work with in the market-place so that our country and their own lot can be improved.
What are we to tell the young people? What is the Government telling the young people by cutting $8 billion from education and health services in eight years? What are the young people to say about the leadership at the national level? Very often we say that young people do not have fire in their belly any more. In the 1960s and 1970s young people did not talk only about youth issues and education. They talked about the issues of the day. They articulted on the type of world they would like to have. They talked about the disparity between rich and poor. They talked about the gap between the "haves" and "have nots". They talked about war and peace.
Yes, there is now a silence among the youth of the country. Is that any wonder when they do not have motivation, when they are not inspired by their Government to move on to greater things? The Government is moving backwards. It tells the people that although it speaks of education they are not getting the dough to improve their opportunities. You cannot do that with either the young people or the old.
With regard to health care, we in Ontario are witnessing what happens when medical doctors begin to pull away from the medical system. We have seen the reaction. Last weekend
Time Allocation
the Hospital for Sick Children had a telethon on the CTV network. Why should it be necessary to have a telethon for the Hospital for Sick Children? The York-Finch Hospital in my own constituency has been engaged in a door-to-door campaign to raise funds. Constituents are asking me why they should give to the York-Finch Hospital. It is not that they do not want to give; everyone will find $5 or $10 to give to the York-Finch Hospital or the Hospital for Sick Children. The point is that they assumed that part of the tax moneys they have to pay each year goes toward health care, toward acquiring new equipment for the York-Finch Hospital and toward building the new wing at the Hospital for Sick Children.
The hospitals are forced to campaign to raise more funds. They are forced to ask Canadians to give a little extra. They are forced to be the recipients of telethons. They do not like that. They do not like to go door-to-door and almost beg for money in order to be able to provide the health care system which we need and deserve. They, like other Canadians, look to their governments for that leadership. They expect the Government to have the foresight to provide that system.
In 15 years ours will be an aging population. Unless we build the infrastructure now to care for that aging population we will be out of step with the needs of Canadians. If we do not plan now we will not be able to provide the services that will be required in the future. The same applies to education for our young people.
I would like to emphasize once again that Bill C-96 is a betrayal of Canadianism. It is a betrayal of two unnegotiable essential services which Canadians have come to enjoy and expect as part of their citizenship. We have been able to show world leadership in education and, perhaps more important, education. If this Bill is allowed to pass, today will be a sad day for Canada with respect to educational opportunities for our young and a health care system for our aged.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, it is indeed with a great deal of sadness that we must stand today to deliver a speech on the closure motion which the Government has now introduced on one of the most important Bills that this House will deal with in this session of Parliament. Bill C-96 will cut $5,600 million from the post-secondary education and health care budgets of the country.
This is possibly the best example we have had recently of the tyranny that a huge majority of government Members can provide. The Government has now introduced closure 10 times. It has said that it does not want to hear any more discussion or debate. It does not want to hear Parliamentarians from all sides of the House present the views of their constituents on this issue.
I can understand why the Government would bring in closure today. I can understand why the Government would take the position that it does not want any more discussion. This Government measure is quite Draconian, extremely

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
regressive and antipeople. If I was introducing such a negative Bill I suspect that I, too, would like to minimize debate.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mrs. McDougall) stood in her place and said that this Bill went to committee where 18 groups appeared. She omitted something very crucial, that virtually every one of the groups represented at committee spoke against this government initiative. They said that Bill C-96 should not be proceeded with as the Government was attempting. That gives more fuel to the argument that in its present form this Bill is premature. That is why we decided to attempt to hoist this Bill for six months. We wanted to give Members of Parliament a second look at this process and hoped to convince the Government that to cut billions and billions of dollars over the next five years from post-secondary education and health care is wrong.
I must tell you that over the last few weeks, when I returned to my constituency, I made a point of asking people if they knew the Government had a Bill before the House to cut back spending on education, training, research and health care. The typical reaction was sort of a blank stare and gaping mouth. People could not believe the Government of Canada was actually cutting back on health care and post-secondary education. What western industrialized nation other than Canada is cutting back on the money invested in their most important resource, the people of their country?
When you look at the record of that Government it has not always cut back in all areas. It spent $1 billion for the bank bail-out. That is $1,000 million it found over the weekend to help the banks. Then there was the $1 billion tax deal for Dome Petroleum. That did not cause any concern. There was another $1 billion on the Gulf Oil sale. That did not cause any concern. Then of course we get into some other things such as the billions in tax concessions of one sort or another to the corporate sector, for which we get very little in return. By the Government's own admission that is costing billions and billions of dollars in lost taxes. If the Government was interested in cutting back, it could cut back there, to say nothing of the $500,000 capital gains exemption. All those people selling race-horses or jewellery or speculating in land in foreign countries or on foreign stock exchanges do not pay any taxes on the profits from those transactions. We say this is unfair. To give away hundreds of millions of dollars, nay billions, to corporations and wealthy individuals and then say we can no longer afford to invest as we have in health care and post-secondary education is wrong. It is for those reasons that we in the New Democratic Party, along with representatives of the Liberal Party have said, let us pause at this point and examine this matter.
Members of this House from British Columbia have seen the educational system in that province literally fall apart. You would have to look long and hard to find a single educator or any other person seriously interested in education who would say that the Province of British Columbia has not devastated
its educational system. People with special needs no longer have appropriate teachers or classrooms. Gifted young people no longer get the kind of education which will enable them to develop their skills and talents as they should. People who live in the rural areas of British Columbia do not have access, because of geography or financial circumstances, to proper educational opportunities. In the province from which I come education has been cut to the bone. As a matter of fact, even the bone has been cut into. When I see that as a result of Bill C-96 some $650 million will be cut from what that Province would normally get for post-secondary education and health care, I just shudder. What kind of educational system will we then have in that part of Canada? I suspect a similar case can be made for other parts of the country as well, and we are very, very concerned.
Many witnesses came before the committee and literally begged the government Members to give second thoughts to what they were doing with Bill C-96. Delegations representing various elements of the health care and post-secondary education systems came before the committee and literally cried to government Members to stop proceeding with this Bill. I do not think there was a single representative who said, proceed with the Bill.
Are members of the Conservative Government really representing the views of their constituents? I would be very surprised if there are many Members of the House, and I would certainly like to hear from them, who have gone back to their constituents, explained that the Government is cutting $5.6 billion over the next five years from education and health care, and then heard them saying go for it. That is a great idea. I suspect those of us who have held public meetings on these issues in our constituencies will all say that the reaction has been total and universal; stop proceeding with this Bill. Do not go ahead. The country cannot afford to take this regressive step.
If we feel that cutting back our investment in health care is the way to resolve the challenges and issues facing the country in that area, we are very wrong. While recognizing that rationalization of the system must occur, we must also recognize that there should first be an examination and analysis of the system regarding the allocation of funds before we hack away at the money invested. For that reason we are disappointed that this Bill is even before us, and even more disappointed that the Government has introduced closure so we can no longer have the opportunity to reflect the views of our constituents on this legislation.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate on the motion for time allocation with respect to Bill C-96. I was in the House yesterday, Mr. Speaker, and I think we have been hearing the Opposition for quite a long time on this subject. They are not offering any alternative solutions. They propose amendments but no real alternatives. And it's all just talk, talk, talk, along the lines of: It's a sad day for Canada, and it's
June 18, 1986

this and it's that. Always the same old song, except that when I look around in my riding, Mr. Speaker, everything is fine. My constituents are not sure why, but the economy is in good shape. It costs less to take out a mortgage, so they can go to the bank and refinance the mortgage on their house. When they want to go on a trip, they go and see their bank manager and they say: Well, since interest rates are lower, I suppose we could afford a trip this year. In any case, things are o.k., or at least a lot better. They don't quite know why but they are just fine. So I think that in the next election, Mr. Speaker, we will be able to present Canadians with some really concrete achievements.
The other day, for instance, I was listening to the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), and I don't know what the definition is for b.s. where he comes from, but where I come from, when we say someone is shooting b.s., it is not exactly a token of respect. Where I come from, it is not a term of endearment. The Hon. Member said that Mr. Roger Hamel, President of the Chamber of Commerce, was shooting b.s. I don't know what he meant, and I wish he would tell me. In any case, I thought it was a bit odd, because it is not a term that is generally used to be nice to someone. The Opposition says the Government promised consultations and co-operation. The Minister's Parliamentary Secretary just said, Mr. Speaker, and I don't know what they mean by consultation, but we have had 125 speeches in eleven days of debate. The Legislative Committee, is a product of our parliamentary reform, is meant to give Members a chance to express their views on a Bill before proceeding with second and third reading in the House. Speaking of parliamentary reform, it is high time Opposition Members said: All right, we agree with the Government because the deficit. .. The Opposition always got itself elected, Mr. Speaker, by wasting the money of the Canadian people. They just turned on the money tap, as wide as it would go, and they practically gave it away, without bothering to make many financial projections. There comes a time when you realize you are living beyond your means. It's like a family, where the father realizes he has a problem when his income is so much per year and his expenses are more than that. There comes a time when he asks his children to sit around the table and talk. My father used to do that. He would say: Listen, Dad has a problem. There isn't any more money. That new bicycle you wanted to buy this year will have to wait another two or three years.
Dad cannot give you money to go out tonight because he does not have any left. As a federal Government, Mr. Speaker, we are taken to task for legislating on the back of the provinces, but I wonder who did benefit from that money in the past 20 years. Somebody did. Perhaps the friends of the Liberals did somehow, because we Conservatives have not been on the receiving end of the Government generosity over the last 20 years.
Mr. Speaker, we know that making cut-backs is not a very popular approach. Of course not. If you cut yourself it hurts for a few days, you end up with a small scar and then forget all
Time Allocation
about it. For the time being we are trying to rationalize, and that is not very popular.
Mr. Speaker, I listened to the Hon. Member, and I go back to the remarks of my colleague, the Member for Port au Port-I am having a hard time with the name of his riding- the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) who said he wanted to see a Parliament where Members sometimes find enough courage to assume their responsibilities. Well, it so happens-


John V. Nunziata: I would ask that you note that there are fewer than 20 Members in the House. I would ask you to note the lack of a quorum.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. There is a quorum, not including the occupant of the Chair. Debate shall accordingly continue.


Lise Bourgault: Mr. Speaker, I think my colleague from York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) wanted-because what I was saying made sense, so he took a moment to raise a point of order.
Mr. Speaker, it so happens that the courage of the Conservatives is to face facts and say: Look, we have been living beyond our means, it is just like a credit card bill, when you get it, you pay. If you fail to pay, they take the card away from you. That is what courage is all about, and this is what we have been doing since September 4.
Mr. Speaker, this is the House of democratically elected representatives, and we were elected on September 4 to carry out this rationalization. It is frustrating! I can understand the reaction of Hon. Members opposite watching this Government accomplish things which the Liberals and even the NDP Members-this is something they do not talk about-but the Liberals were in office during 20 years, they could have done something, but no, they just made sure they were elected and then spent money like drunken sailors.
It takes courage, and the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) has that kind of courage. He is not afraid to talk about difficult years like 1986, years when time has come to tighten our belts and say: Listen, if we want to leave a prosperous country to our children, we must now make difficult decisions, but they have to be made-


Mr. Champagne:: -they have not been made-


Lise Bourgault: -they have not been made by the Liberals, and I thank my colleague from Champlain.
So the parliamentary reform-and I am getting back to that, Mr. Speaker-consists in admitting that the Government is right. Why not? That is what Members of the Opposition wanted. To admit that the Government is right. And now and

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
again, I must admit it and we said so on many occasions in the House, we did accept amendments introduced by the Opposition. We have admitted that indeed Her Majesty's Loyal Opposition was right in certain instances. We agreed to bring in the amendments they had recommended.
Now the time has come for them to do the same thing and admit that we are right with respect to Bill C-96, that we have been talking about it for the last 11 days, and that we ought to put an end to the debate.
Mr. Speaker, those are the few remarks I wanted to make on this closure motion. I hope the debate will come to an end so that the House may go on to other important matters in the next few days.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, it is with considerable regret and chagrin that I rise in my place today to speak to this closure motion by the Conservative Government. I would like to begin by commenting briefly on this particular motion. It has been referred to as a Draconian measure by this Conservative Government. Indeed, it is. As we look across the aisle in the House of Commons we see 200, and I guess it is nine Conservative Members of Parliament. We had two defections from the Conservative ranks over the last two years. So there are 209 Conservative Members of Parliament. This is the tenth time in less than two years that this Government has invoked the undemocratic measure of closure.
One would ask why it is necessary for this Government to use such an irresponsible, undemocratic and Draconian measure to silence the Opposition. We are few in numbers on this side of the House, 69 members in the Opposition against 209.


An Hon. Member:: Only one. Where are they now?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope Hon. Members would not reflect on attendance in the House.


John V. Nunziata: Sixty-nine versus 209, an overwhelming majority, indeed. Why the necessity for closure? There are rules in this House that say Hon. Members can only speak once to a particular motion before the House. It is not as if we could prolong this particular debate ad infinitum. There are limits. Indeed, we had quite a number of speakers, but we were nearing the end of our ability to prolong the debate with respect to this very crucial piece of legislation. Why then would the Government invoke closure? It makes absolutely no sense at all. It is indicative of how this particular Government operates.
This is a measure that we consider to be one of the most important pieces of legislation that this House has dealt with over the last two years. The Bill proposes to cut $8 billion from health care and education in Canada. The ramifications will be absolutely and utterly devastating to every region in the country. Yet this Government, in a callous and irresponsible
fashion, is ramming this Bill through and silencing the Opposition. I do not know whether the Government can cite any group or organization or individual in Canada that is supportive of this Bill except, perhaps, the 209 Conservative Members of Parliament.
Witness after witness appearing before the committee objected to this legislation. Every last provincial Government in Canada objected to this legislation. Why then is the Government insisting on passing it?
We in the Opposition have pointed out the inadequacies of this legislation. We have pointed out what the negative impacts will be on all regions of Canada. We are simply asking that the matter be held in abeyance for six months in order to give an opportunity for the Conservative Government of Canada to understand that the people of Canada do not want this legislation, that it is harmful and dangerous and pierces the very heart of our nation.
When you start attacking education, when you start attacking health care you are attacking the heart of our country. These are values which we hold very dear. These are institutions that help make our society the best country anywhere in the world. Our educational system and our health care system are the envy of every last country in the world. We have the best system of education and health care. I am convinced of that.
This Government with this particular piece of legislation cutting $8 billion from those two very important areas is going to render health care and post-secondary education, not to second-class, not to third-class, but to last class, because the Members across the way have no class.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, and I know that at times you are embarrassed to admit that you are a Conservative Member of Parliament, that the Government-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I would hope that the Hon. Member would not reflect on the Chair in one way or another. I enjoy listening to the Hon. Member's speech, and I hope he will keep to the debate.


John V. Nunziata: Out of great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, because I have the ultimate respect for your deliberations and fairness, I will refrain from commenting about the Chair. Let me comment about Conservative Members of Parliament generally.


Mr. Cote (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Comment on the Bill.


John V. Nunziata: Conservative Members, before and during the election campaign, stood tall and told the people of Canada to elect a Conservative Government and they would guarantee to every Canadian a new era of national reconciliation. They talked about a new era of reconciliation and national consultation. They told the people of Canada that they would listen to their views about legislation, rather than ram it through. Those
June 18, 1986

words ring hollow today. Where was the consultation? Where is the new era of national reconciliation with respect to Bill C-96? Perhaps the Government listened to a limited number of groups and organizations, but every one of them objected to this Bill. If the Government was true to its word, which invariably is not the case, then it would not pass this regressive legislation.
Is it any wonder that after less than two years in Government the Conservative Party has frittered away its mandate and has frittered away its trust with the people of Canada, because they no longer trust the Government or the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)? The electorate has a right to expect its politicians to fulfil their promises, including their promises not to do certain things. The Government, lead by a Prime Minister who is greatly lacking in credibility, honesty and integrity, has frittered away its mandate. The Conservatives had overwhelming support on September 4, 1984, and shortly thereafter, but it has gone. Every public opinion poll that has been published in the last number of months indicates that the Liberal Party is leading the Conservative Party in popular support. Indeed, in the Province of Quebec the New Democratic Party, of all political parties, is leading the Conservative Party. The Hon. Member who spoke previously stood in her place and said: "Everything is well in the state of Denmark". But everything is not well for the Conservative Party. Is it any wonder, when the Conservatives ti y to ram through legislation like Bill C-96?
Bill C-96 will render our health care and post-secondary educational system third class. In my Province of Ontario there will be $3 billion less in federal transfer payments over the next five years. Imagine the impact of this on health care and post-secondary education in the Province of Ontario. There will be fewer hospital beds, and if we think there is a problem today with the doctors' strike in Ontario and the closure of emergency wards in an increasing number of hospitals, wait until we see what happens when a total of $8 billion is withdrawn from health care and post-secondary education.
We in the Opposition have tried to make the Government understand that this legislation is not only bad, it is wrong. The impact on our economy will be devastating. Rather than listening, the Government has decided to invoke closure. The people of Canada are watching and they understand what is happening with the Conservative Government.
I note that you are about to indicate that my time is up, Mr. Speaker. It is regrettable that we are not given an opportunity to further discuss this important piece of legislation. I would ask for unanimous consent to carry on with my remarks, and I am sure you will find that unanimous consent opposite.


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


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Time Allocation


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired.


Michel Champagne: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak to the motion presented by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall) with respect to Bill C-96, which concerns transfers made by the federal Government to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, if we consider the total time spent on debating this Bill and the number of Members who have had a chance to speak in the course of eleven days of debate, during the 37 hours at least of debate we have had on this Bill, I think there comes a time when a Government that is responsible and has consulted all ten provinces, that has consulted with the Opposition, both Liberals and New Democrats, a Government that is concerned about the country's financial situation and has a concern for social justice and fairness to each of the provinces, there comes indeed a time when that Government must decide to deal with the question once and for all.
That is what the Minister of State (Finance) has done with this motion. It means that enough time has been wasted by the Liberals and the New Democrats on useless verbiage, and that we should now proceed with more important matters, with measures that will stimulate the Canadian economy by means of new legislation and new regulations introduced, not on a partisan basis but for the benefit of all Canadians, fairly and equitably.
Mr. Speaker, when the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) spoke earlier of a sad day for Canada, a day to remember, because the Conservative Government was cutting transfer payments, when he said this I think he was completely mistaken. Why was he mistaken? I will explain. When the Liberal Party was in power, there were increases of roughly 7 and 8 per cent a year. I don't think mistaken, but if I am, I am sure someone will say so. Seven and eight per cent per year on transfers to the provinces, at a time when inflation hovered between 12 and 15 per cent. That was the situation when the Liberals were in power. We are giving a 5 per cent increase. Less than what the Liberals gave, granted. However, thanks to the sound management principles of the Progressive Conservative Government, the inflaton take is now around 4 to 4.5 per cent.
So in terms of net gain, the provinces are better off with what we are giving them than they were under the Liberals, because even when they were getting a 7 per cent increase, they had to forego the 5 per cent they needed to keep up with inflation. The increase we are giving them is a better deal, because the inflation rate has gone down.
Mr. Speaker, that is what I call responsible government. This is a Government that is serious about its responsibilities, that negotiates with each province and considers which areas should be given priority treatment. We are aware, Mr. Speaker, that post-secondary education is important. We realize, Mr. Speaker, that health problems are a serious

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
concern. However, Mr. Speaker, we must be realistic. And the fact is that we were left a deficit of $200 billion by the Liberals.
When we were elected on September 4, 1984, Mr. Speaker, it was not to make empty promises, it was not to waste money as the Liberals did during their 20 years in office, but it was to restore economic order. By restoring economic order we are in a better position to be more generous with the provinces, to make sure that they get fair treatment rather than mere promises. They expect concrete measures, Mr. Speaker, and that is what we are now giving them.
It has been said over and over again that 125 Members have spoken to this Bill, that they were able to tell the Government everything they wanted to say, so I would suggest the the Liberals are mistaken when they claim that we do not consult. Mr. Speaker, they are more mistaken still when they say that we did not speak to the provinces.
Mr. Speaker, there were more than six meetings with the provinces on this subject during the past year alone. These meetings involved discussions with every provincial Minister of Finance. I think it is perfectly normal that the Ministers of Finance of each province are not quite satisfied. But if we look at the provinces' individual budgets, we see that they also have to put their finances on a sounder basis. Each province has certain choices it must make. We saw this with the Liberal Peterson Government. We saw it with the Liberal Bourassa Government. They are cutting back too. And these are Liberals. I don't understand why the Federal Liberals keep telling us they would not make cuts, but on the other hand, I do understand because spending was a habit with them. And they tended to ignore who was paying the bill, but in fact, it was the average Canadian taxpayer who was paying, Mr. Speaker, and they are the ones we want to help today. It doesn't make sense to let the federal Liberals say things that in the final instance would penalize Canadians, because where would the extra money they want to spend come from, Mr. Speaker? From the taxpayers' pockets? No, we won't do that. We have rationalized public spending in order to stimulate the Canadian economy.
I can hear the federal Liberals in Quebec saying: You have cut back payments to Quebec, and that is outrageous. I may remind them that in 1985-86, we are going to spend $4,091 billion, and in 1986-87, it will be $4,329 billion. Of course, they don't understand about increases because Liberals don't know how to count. That we have seen. The New Democrats, who believe the Liberals, think they are right, but then, they don't know how to count either. Mr. Speaker, the message we want to get across in the House and to the Canadian people is that we have to give a reasonable increase that takes into consideration two basic factors: the federal Government's ability to pay, which is very important, and that each province receives a fair and equitable part of these federal transfer payments.
Mr. Speaker, when we sit down and establish these two equations, the inevitable result is a fair deal, and we must not
forget that we have to give 5 per cent today, even if it is more than the inflation rate, because we have to live with a situation we inherited from the Liberals. We have no choice. We have to live with it. However, Mr. Speaker, first of all and above all, we want to protect transfer payments to the provinces over the long term. We do not intend to throw money around recklessly and thus jeopardize a transfer program that is so important and so vital to our provinces, especially to Quebec. That is why, Mr. Speaker, I fully support the motion presented by the Minister of State (Finance) (Mrs. McDougall), and I take my hat off to her, because at last we have a Minister of State (Finance) with character and the guts, unlike the Liberals.


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I am very sorry to have to be speaking on such an important subject as Bill C-96 on a motion of closure. This is a very important matter for Canadians concerning the cuts in funding by the federal Government for post-secondary education and health care to the provinces. The reasons we were given for closure by the Minister were very unacceptable. She pointed to the large number-actually, not a terribly large number, but a respectable number shall we say-of witnesses who came before committee, and the committee heard them. Here we have a perfect example of the kind of consultation we are getting from the Conservative Government. Yes, 18 witnesses from 18 organizations were heard, and they all told the Minister that the Bill was unacceptable, that it would cause a great deal of harm to the health care system and to post-secondary education. The Government listened but it did not act. It is not really a question that we need more hours of debate; it is that we need a Government that is prepared to listen to people, to listen to good sense and to listen to good recommendations.
One of the promises the Conservatives gave in Opposition was that they would go back to the 1977 formula for funding. Of course, what we see in Bill C-96 is that they are not going back to the funding in 1977; worse, they are cutting what was promised since then. This is an entirely unacceptable and, indeed, very dangerous proposal they have presented us. They would have us believe that these cuts are necessary for other economic purposes, and they talk very piously about cutting the deficit. The deficit, of course, is not even being cut. It will grow at least by $29 billion this year. They would like to think that if they keep it under the magic Figure of $30 billion they are doing us all a favour. The estimate of $29 billion is probably an underestimate, because the Conservatives have not been very good at estimating interest rates or petroleum prices. We will probably have an even higher deficit than $29 billion.
The Conservatives are not cutting the deficit, so what are they doing? They are continuing spending and, indeed, increasing spending in some other areas dear to their hearts, such as trips for the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), on the
June 18, 1986

Prime Minister's Office, the camera crews, and all of these frills. They have not shown any kind of restraint in these areas. We would certainly like to see restraint in those areas as a first priority, instead of cuts in post-secondary education, in the training of our young people and retraining for others so they will have the skills for the new technological age in which we live, and adequate health care. Instead, what are they doing? They are diverting money from these social programs into other areas of expenditure. The option they have is simply to collect more taxes.
The Government is indeed a continuation of the previous Liberal Government that simply provided enormous loopholes to the corporations. If the Government began to close some of these loopholes it would have more money for post-secondary education, for research and for health care. If we look at the scale of these loopholes we find it is quite instructive. Let us look at what is being collected: personal income tax, $37.7 billion; corporate income tax, $11.7 billion; sales and excise taxes, $18.9 billion; and other taxes and revenues up to $13.3 billion. These amount to a total of $81.6 billion.
What the Government does not tell us about is the very substantial number of giveaways. We can only make guesses as to precisely what these are, and by my calculation this raises the figure up to $26 billion for 1986-87, when we include the corporate giveaways which are listed, and of course we do not even have them all. For much of the data that the Department of Finance reports it is stated that the figures are not available. It is not to say that they do not exist, but that they are giveaways, which make these a very conservative estimate. Of course, we also have unpaid deferred corporate taxes. This figure now totals $32 billion. If one collected even the interest on that, that would be in excess of $4 billion. That kind of money is very substantial, yet we have a Government that is not prepared to go after money. Instead, what it is doing is cutting the social programs. If it needs to cut spending why does it not look at some other areas of Government spending?
For example, just to give an outline of the very high expenditure items, Armed Forces and veterans expenses are more than $11 billion; External Affairs, even if we do not count aid and export development, which are not strictly speaking External Affairs, but rather subsidies to the business sector, amount to more than $1 billion-$1.3 billion; for the courts, for police, for regulatory work, for legal work, the amount is $3.26 billion. That is an enormous amount of money going toward building prisons, including a new prison for the riding of the Prime Minister. Money is spent on legal advice; so there are more contract lawyers. Much of this involves paying off political favours. This is an enormous amount of money. If I were looking for restraint I would look to these items rather than to social programs, the training of our young people and the retraining of others to allow them to obtain better jobs.
In the area of tax collection and finance the total is $3.5 billion a year. That is the amount of money it takes simply to
Time Allocation
manage financial affairs, to run a big department and to collect taxes. That is a great deal of money. I am sure that there could be economies there. Other administrative charges amount to over $2 billion a year.
However, instead of looking at these important areas the Government cuts into the social programs. The Government admits that our young people, people coming into the labour force, good scientific training and research and development are part of the engine of growth. Yet it has cut into this engine of growth, an extremely misguided move.
The last Conservative Member who rose to speak on this issue defended the Government. I think it is worth referring to what the Quebec Government's reaction was to these cut-backs in federal transfer payments to that province. Quebec, as well as the other provinces, is very much concerned with the losses it will suffer as a result of the passage of Bill C-96. I would like to quote from a letter written by Premier Robert Bourassa to an NDP representative. He wrote:

I am sure you know that Quebec Finance Minister Gerard-D. Levesque announced during the budget speech that his Government had been forced to impose a corporate surtax. The purpose of this surtax is to offset the Quebec treasury revenue shortage due, first to a $66 million payment which Quebec did not receive under the equalization program, second to the $82 million health and post-secondary education transfer payment reduction. The Government of Quebec has promised it would reconsider this surtax imposed as a result of federal cut-backs if the federal Government lives up to its commitments concerning equalization, withdraws Bill C-96, and begins immediate negotiations with the provinces.

The same could be said for other provinces, in the sense that they have asked for negotiations, as was the case back in 1977 when the change was made. This was a negotiated change. We would certainly like to see a negotiated arrangement with the provinces, one that would be acceptable to them and would meet their needs in the important areas of health care and post-secondary education. Instead, more money is being collected in the years in which these cut-backs in postsecondary education and health care financing will be made. However, the Government is directing that money into the private sector. It is continuing its corporate give-aways while adding to other programs, such as export development, which is basically a bonus to Canadian businesses. Even the SEED Program is a way of steering money away from programs which used to be in the non-profit community support sector. That money is now being steered into the private sector.
I see that my time has expired. I simply want to say in closing that this closure motion is shameful. The provinces need this support. It is an important part of Canada's social structure. We should go on to discussing reasonable arrangements with the provinces in these fields.

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
[ Translation]


Clément M. Côté: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to speak to the Bill C-96 debate closure motion. Since April 25 more than 125 Members have had an opportunity to take part in the debate on this very important Bill. Mr. Speaker, had they done so to make interesting observations and make suggestions which might have benefited all Canadians, it would have been excellent. But most of them saw this as a chance to make every kind of accusations against our Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), against Ministers, and against Members of the Conservative Party.
Mr. Speaker, since April 25 these Members have done little more than peddle falsehoods. To say that transfer payments to the provinces will be reduced as a result of Bill C-96 is a false statement. There has never been any question of reducing transfer payments.
The Party in office has stated over and over again that the purpose of this measure is to slow down the growth of transfers to the provinces, not to reduce them. As everyone knows- including Opposition Members-$25 billion more will have been paid by 1990.
Mr. Speaker, to try to say and make Canadians believe that these measures will endanger our education system and our health system, that the number of beds in provincial hospitals will be reduced is, in a way, a form of exaggerated demagoguery.
Mr. Speaker, this Bill has nothing whatsoever to do with cutting down the number of hospital beds or reducing health and education services throughout Canada. Quite the contrary, the purpose of this Bill is to protect and continue to help support these services. Because if the number of services increases and the same high quality we have today in Canada is to be maintained, we must ensure that the provinces receive funds from the Canadian Government every year, funds that are to be increased annually in proportion to the rate of inflation.
Of course we all realize that no one can give more than he has or spend more than he earns. And every time we ask Canadian taxpayers for more, Mr. Speaker, the same taxpayers are always paying for these services.
If we were to continue increasing transfers to the provinces in accordance with the policy adopted in 1977, it is clear we would very shortly reach spending levels that would be unacceptable and unrealistic.
Mr. Speaker, in September 1984, Canadians decided to elect a responsible Government, a reasonable Government, a Government that would try to control spending, a Government that would try to control the deficit, a deficit that was leading us to bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, if you want us to go on debating this Bill ... it has been discussed for many hours with the same things being said over and over again, at first, second and third reading.
They have been saying the same thing all along. That is why I was very happy to speak to this motion for time allocation.


Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the Hon. Member who just spoke. I do not know to whom he is listening, but obviously he cannot be listening to the same communities to which I am listening. I do not know what the post-secondary education community in Quebec has been telling the Hon. Member, but that community has been telling me that this particular measure will mean disaster for that community and, indeed, disaster for the young people of Canada.
I suggest to the Hon. Member that the implementation of this particular measure along with other measures the Government has brought in may be responsible for the present standing of the Tory Party in the polls in Quebec. I suggest to him that when the time of accounting comes, these measures will all be before the people. I hope we keep a record of who has said what on this debate, of who has spoken for this measure and who has spoken against it.
The Hon. Member has said that we are slowing down the rate of growth, not cutting funds to post-secondary education. That is a question of semantics. What is the difference between slowing down and cutting? If one cuts back on speed while driving a car, one slows down the car. What is the difference? The reality is that in my own Province of Newfoundland, over the next five years we will receive $187 million less than we had anticipated-


Clément M. Côté: Not true, you're going to receive more.


Bill Rompkey: Less than we had anticipated. We will receive $187 million less than we expected to receive, $187 million less than had been agreed to by the Government of Canada and the province. The reality is that the Government of Canada unilaterally abrogated an agreement between the Government of Canada and the province-


Pierre H. Vincent: It's not an agreement, it's a law.


Bill Rompkey: The Government has told Newfoundland it will receive $187 million less than it promised to pay that province.


Clément M. Côté: It's not true.


Bill Rompkey: It is absolutely true, Mr. Speaker. The facts are incontrovertible. I challenge the Hon. Member's veracity on that point. Clearly he is not being straightforward. What he is saying is not in accordance with the facts. There will be $187 million less going to the Province of Newfoundland over the next five years than the Government of Canada had agreed to spend in a formal arrangement agreed to with the provinces.
June 18, 1986

The Government abrogated that agreement unilaterally and that is the reality.
I do not care if we call it cuts or slowdowns or whatever, the fact is that the province that has the least fiscal capacity in Canada is going to receive, in order to deal with the education of its young people, its most prized possession, $187 million less over the next five years. That is the reality and those are the facts. Government Members can say whatever they like about the difference between cutting and slowing growth.
The Hon. Member has said that no one can give more than he has. I agree with that. I also agree with the principle of reducing the deficit but the Party opposite was elected to govern and therefore elected to make choices. It is choosing to reduce the deficit by cutting back on a section of society which, I would suggest, is the most important we have that is young people.
Yes, we do have to reduce the deficit but we have to make choices as to where those cuts will be made. I say that when the day of reckoning comes at the time of the next election the people will be able to choose who were for young people and who were against them. I say in all honesty and with all sincerity that this measure hits directly at young people.
University professors are leaving Canada by the hundreds. Research is at an all-time low. Our system of post-secondary education is not just second-rate now, it is third-rate. At a breakfast meeting this morning attended by government Members we heard from the Canadian Association for Continuing Education. At that meeting it was very clearly stated by the teachers themselves that there is probably not one first-class institution left in Canada. That is the reality.
Yes there is a deficit, and yes we have to cut that deficit. Yes, we have to make choices, but do not choose to fight the deficit on the backs of the very people in Canada to whom we should be giving an opportunity. We can talk all we like about industrial strategy, economic policy and free trade, but if we are not going to give young people an opportunity to take part in the jobs the Government says it will create, where is the justice? Where is the fairness of it?
The Government has now added insult to injury. Not only has it told young people that it will fight the deficit on their backs, it has told the Opposition that we cannot talk about it anymore. The Government has now taken from us the last power we have as an Opposition. We do not have any more power. We are 40 and 30 against 211. The only power we have is to hold Bills up and talk about them. The only power left to us is our voices, and we were put here to use our voices in the first place. That is what Parliament is all about.
The Government is going to bring in this measure, but more than that it is going to stop opposition Members from talking about it. It is going to take away from the Opposition the only power it has left. That is the reality of what is happening today and that is what is shameful. That is how the Government has added insult to injury.
Time Allocation
I would like to make one more plea to government Members. This is about the fifth time I have spoken on this Bill in the House. My colleagues have spoken as well. One more time, we want to say this to government Members. For God's sake, look at the matter again. If they are going to reduce the deficit and make choices, do not choose against young people. Choose against trips abroad and bank bailouts to cut the deficit, but do not choose to take away from those people the only opportunity they will have to take part in the kind of country government Members tell us they will create. Again, government Members should change their minds before it is too late because the day of reckoning is going to come. During the next election campaign the young people of Canada will size up those who were for and those who were against this Bill. If the standing of the Tory Party in Quebec is low now, it will be absolutely wiped out at that time.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, here we are again with another government Bill and another closure motion designed to reduce the amount of time Hon. Members may speak on a very important piece of legislation. Let me say at the outset, with all due respect to the government House Leader, that this is yet another example of the Government's inability to control the schedule of the House of Commons. This Bill has been before us for quite some time, as have a number of other importance pieces of legislation. In the final days of the sitting of this Session we find that the Government is trying to ram some Bills through. It is regrettable.
Let me deal for a few moments with the ramifications of this Bill. Let me begin by talking about my home Province of Ontario and what we see as being the impact of this legislation that is now being rushed through on the ability of the Province of Ontario to provide for the health care and post-secondary education needs of its many citizens.
Earlier today we heard an argument about whether there would be a cut-back or a reduction in the amount going to the Province of Ontario, or to any of the provinces, or whether it was a slowing of the growth of revenue sharing. An arrangement was made a number of years ago between the provinces and the federal Government which set out some rules. In fact, it was a long-term plan. It provided the provinces and the federal Government with a long-term understanding of how revenues would be transferred from one to the other. It provided provinces with the ability to make long-term plans for the provision of services, such as the reconstruction of universities, and for the provision of moneys for instructional staff and materials, to ensure that future generations received the kind of education which was appropriate and needed.
Let us look at the Province of Ontario. In 1986-87, it will receive $146 million less than it would have under the previous agreement. In 1987-88, it will be $243 million less; in 1988-89, $388 million; in 1989-90, $547 million; and in 1990-91, $722 million, for a total reduction of over $2 billion over that five-

June 18, 1986
Time Allocation
year period in the transfer of funds from federal income tax and corporate taxpayers to the Province of Ontario. In turn, the province will transfer those funds to post-secondary educational facilities and the health care system throughout the province.
By reneging on that agreement, the Government is in step with the previous Government. It is finding ways to shift the burden on to provincial Governments. In turn, partially because of that and partially because of their own philosophy, they will transfer the burden to the local level, whether it be in the form of a reduction in provincial support to municipalities, a reduction in grants to universities and community colleges, or a reduction in the amount of money available for hospitals and medical services. Ultimately it ends up back at the property taxpayer level, one of the most regressive forms of raising money for the public good. That form of raising money is not based upon one's ability to pay but upon the value of one's property and how much that value has inflated over the years, not through anything one has done but because the market-place has set the worth of the property.
By continuing that process, once again the Conservative Government of Canada has indicated that it is not much different from past Liberal Governments. It is just that the Conservatives are in power and the Liberals are not. If there were a switch and the Liberals were back in power, it is guaranteed they would be doing the same thing. They are great in opposition, but the same is not true once they are in power. It seems as if there is a disease on that side of the House.


Lynn McDonald: How great are they in opposition?


Iain Francis Angus: They are great. They oppose everything. They are the saviour of the average Canadian. However, when they are in power, they forget about that and get back into bed with their corporate friends.
In the moment or two remaining, I want to mention that the reaction of the Province of Ontario was really quite an interesting one. The Liberal Premier of Ontario met with the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) at the First Ministers' Conference back in November and said:
We are also dismayed by the federal Government's plans to cut established program funding transfer payments for post-secondary education and health. These cuts will amount to about $6 billion over the next five years. These cuts, which were announced without consultation, speeded up by a year without discussion, will weaken our country in the very areas where we must marshal our greatest strength.
That is what he said last November. However, what has he said since? Where is that great white hope of Ontario? He has been silent. Why has he been silent? It is because deep in his heart he agrees with what the federal Conservative Government is doing and finds it difficult to oppose those actions.
As a result of the Bill, more and more pressures will be placed upon our hospitals, our health care system, our colleges, and our universities. Today, Ontario does not have funds to do what it needs to do. For example, northwestern Ontario does not have the funds to provide a proper continuing education program, not in Thunder Bay, but in Atikokan, Kenora, Rainy River, Lake Nipigon, and other such areas. They cannot go out to where people live to provide them with the same opportunities which are available in Thunder Bay or downtown Ottawa.
In conclusion I say that this is a very regressive step. I hope the Government will learn to regret it through time.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being 5.27 p.m., the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion before the House have expired, pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117. Accordingly, it is my duty to interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary to dispose of the said motion.
The question is on the motion of Mrs. McDougall:
That, further to the notice given on Tuesday, June 17, 1986, by the Minister of National Revenue and pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117 in relation to Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-Secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, one sitting day shall be allotted to the third reading stage of the said Bill; and
That Fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for the consideration of government business on the above-mentioned sitting day, any proceedings then before the House shall be interrupted, if necessary, for the purpose of this Order and, in turn, every question necessary to dispose of the said stage of the said Bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the Members.



QUERY RESPECTING EXTENSION OF SITTING

[Stage Direction]
(Division No. 275)
++YEAS
Members
Andre	Fretz	MooreAttewell	Friesen	NickersonBeatty	Gagnon	NielsenBinns	Gass	OberleBlackburn	Gervais	O'Neil(Jonquiere)	Gormley	OostromBlais	Graham	PetersonBlenkarn	Guilbault	PietzBourgault	(Drummond)	PorterBoyer	Gurbin	RavisBrightwell	Halliday	RedwayBrisco	Hamilton	ReidCaldwell	Hawkes	ReimerCarney	Hnatyshyn	RicardChampagne	Hockin	St. Germain(Saint- H yaci n the- Bagot)	Holtmann	St-JulienChampagne	Horner	Schellenberg(Champlain)	James	(Nanaimo-Alberni)Clark	Jardine	Schellenberger(Brandon-Souris)	Jelinek	(Wetaskiwin)Clifford	Jepson	ScottCochrane	Johnson	(Hamilton-Wentworth)Cornea u	(Bonavista-T rinity-	ScowenCook	Conception)	SparrowCooper	Kelleher	SpeyerCorbett	Kempling	StackhouseCossitt	Kilgour	StevensCote	Kindy	Stewart(Lac-Saint-Jean)	Ladouceur	SulukCrofton	Lawrence	TardifCrombie	Lesick	(Charles bourg)Crosby	Lewis	Taylor(Halifax West)	MacDougall	ThackerDantzer	(Timiskaming)	TowersDarling	Mailly	TupperDaubney	Mayer	TurnerDella Noce	Mazankowski	(Ottawa-Carleton)Desjardins	McCain	ValcourtDick	McCrossan	VankoughnetDorin	McCuish	VdzinaDuplessis	McDermid	VincentEdwards	McDougall	WarnerEllis	(St. Paul's)	WilsonEpp	Mclnnes	(Swift Current-(Provencher)	McKinnon	Maple Creek)Fennell	McLean	WinegardFerland	Merrithew	Witer-124.Fraleigh	Minaker	NAYS	Members	Ailmand	Gauthier	NunziataAlthouse	Gray	NystromAngus	(Windsor West)	OrlikowAxworthy	Heap	OueiletBenjamin	Henderson	ParryBerger	Hopkins	PennerBlackburn	Hovdebo	P6pin(Brant)	Isabelle	Prud'hommeBlaikie	Langdon	RiisCaccia	MacLellan	RobichaudCopps	Manly	RobinsonDeans	McCurdy	Rompkeyde Corneille	McDonald	Tobinde Jong	(Broadview-	WaddellDingwall	Greenwood)	Young-44.Foster	Nicholson	Fulton	(Trinity)
["Order, please. The hour provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.\nPursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper."]
Mr. Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: May I, with the indulgence of the House, raise a point of order? It is 24 years today that our House Leader in the Liberal Party was elected to the House. I would just like to underline that event.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I think we should also call to the attention of the House that today is the twenty-fourth anniversary of the election to this House of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow).


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cook:: Mr. Speaker, I think it should be brought to the attention of the House that yesterday was George Hees seventy-sixth birthday and he has been here forever.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Mr. Speaker, the House should also realize that the 12 surviving members of this place out of 96 elected in 1968 will be celebrating the occasion under the auspices of your Assistant Deputy Speaker at 1800 hours today and none of the rest of you are invited.


Mr. Speaker:: In which case I am not paying for it.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, my real point of order was to the House Leader on the government side, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn). Given the mood of celebration, will the Minister give us the undertaking that the additional minutes today on Statements by Ministers will not be added at ten o'clock so as to allow us to celebrate the twenty-fourth anniversary of Mr. Gray?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I will take it as a representation. I am very irritated when I am not invited to a party.



[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. Doug Lewis (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, question No. 564 will be answered today.


Mr. Parry: 14636

June 18, 1986
Motions for Papers
1.	Does the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, directly or indirectly, pay allowances to students studying away from home and, if so, does the Department pay (a) $150 per year for clothing allowance (b) Grades 8 to 11, $10 per month for personal allowances (c) Grade 12, $20 per month for personal allowances (d) are these allowances uniform across the country?
2.	On what date were these allowances last increased and from what levels?
3.	Does the Department have any plans, at present, to adjust these allowances for inflation?


David Edward Crombie: 1. The Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development provides clothing and personal allowances to eligible students studying away from home, through payment directly to the student or by funding an Indian Band or organization for this purpose.
The clothing allowance provided varies across the country in regard to both eligibility and amounts provided or allocated, and in many cases reflects local circumstances. In some circumstances, the annual per student clothing allowance provided by the education program extends to a maximum of $350, while in other circumstances, the clothing allowance is not provided by the education program.
A personal allowance of $10 per month is provided to eligible students who are in Grade nine or higher or who are of the age of 14 years to 17 years. A personal allowance of $20 per month is provided to eligible students who are 18 years of age or older. Generally, these personal allowances are uniform across the country, however, some exceptions exist where Bands manage the allowance services and where students are given an allowance along with the responsibility for making their monthly room and board payments.
2.	The rates for personal allowances and the approach used in providing clothing allowances were established on April 22, 1970 in an Education Assistance Policy issued by the Department.
3.	Although there is no plan at present to adjust these rates, I have asked my Department to include a review of the Education Assistance Policy in departmental work plans for the upcoming years.


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


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: I must inform the House that because of the ministerial statement, this day's sitting will be extended by 21 minutes.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Philip Derek Lewis: If I might draw to the attention of the House the matter of Private Members' Business. There have been some adjustments in the order of business as a result of discussions among the Parties and I have a draft order here. I am not sure that I need to read it because it has been distributed.
The effect of the order is that the order for consideration of Private Members' Business on Thursday, June 19, 1986, Wednesday, June 25, 1986, and Thursday, June 26, 1986, shall be changed to read as follows: Thursday, June 19, 1986 Motion No. 118, Mr. Caccia; Wednesday, June 25, 1986, Bill C-208, Mr. Isabelle; and Thursday, June 26, 1986, Motion No. 86, Mr. Attewell. The order has been distributed. Rather than take up the time of the House I think you will find a disposition to accept the draft order as distributed because it simply refers to routine matters thereafter.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent necessary for its introduction granted by the House?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the order carry?


Some Hon. Members:: 
PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PRIVATE BILLS   INTERNATIONAL LAND BOUNDARY ACT (CANADA-ALASKA) MEASURE TO ENACT
James Ross Fulton: June 18, 1986
International Land Boundary
To discuss or negotiate the A-B line from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon into the Portland Canal would be wrong at law. Such an attempt by the Government, whether it is involved in free trade negotiations or trying to cozy up to the U.S. administration, would be wrong because any negotiation of that would lead to giving up part of Canada's sovereignty. It would give up major anadromous fisheries, particularly sockeye, but other species as well that come down south of Cape Muzon and Cape Chacon and can be intercepted by the U.S. fleet. There is the military question regarding the entrance and exit of U.S. Trident nuclear submarines which the Americans have been advocating. There is the access to gas and oil rights under the Dixon Entrance, as well as the prospects of poly-metallic sulphides which have been discovered under the area.
I hope that Members of the House will address this Bill with a sense of urgency so that it may go to committee where any questions by Members, officials or scholars can be addressed and any required change of wording can take place. The Bill could then return to the House for its final process of debate and be voted on by the House and entrenched in law in the interest not only of this generation of Canadians but all future Canadians.
As I stated earlier, to negotiate the A-B line and consider any such move is treacherous at best and treasonous if there is to be any consideration of moving that boundary in the interest of the United States. I look forward to hearing other Hon. Members support the entrenchment of the A-B line.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, were it only so, I would be the first to support the Bill by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton). However, the Hon. Member has substantially misinterpreted the actual situation.
Bill C-270 purports to recognize and declare that the Canada-Alaska land boundary is the boundary established in 1903 by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal. Indeed, that is a fact. The boundary that divides the lands of Canada and Alaska, in this area, is undoubtedly the boundary established in 1903 by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal. No one would dispute or challenge this, in Canada or in the United States.
So far then, the only criticism that should be levelled against Bill C-270 is that it is redundant and unnecessary. It merely states the obvious. What is wrong with that? The trouble with redundancy is that it can make certainty uncertain at times. A solution without a problem may all too easily create a problem. Of course, the boundary dividing the lands of Canada and Alaska is too well established to be threatened. However, Bill C-270 could only give this boundary a different status than that enjoyed by the rest of Canada's long boundary with the United States. Why should it have a different status? Which is the superior status, and which the inferior? Either way, Bill C-270 could raise troubling questions not only for British Columbia but for all other parts of Canada that share a common land frontier with the United States.
It seems, however, that Bill C-270 is intended to deal with more than the boundary dividing the lands of Canada and Alaska. Clause 2 of the Bill states:
For greater certainty, the Canada-Alaska boundary includes the A-B line running from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon to the mouth of the Portland Canal, and a line running headland-to-headland from Cape Muzon to Langara Island.
There is some indication here that the Bill is intended to define not only the boundary for the land but also the maritime boundary between Canada and Alaska. Unfortunately, however, this intention has not been translated into clear legislative drafting; quite the contrary. As a result, it risks prejudicing Canada's position, not advancing it.
There is no doubt that the A-B line was indeed established by the 1903 Alaska Boundary Award and that it divides the lands of Alaska and Canada. That is the common view of both Canada and the United States. The United States, however, insists that the A-B line is, strictly speaking, a land boundary only, in the sense of a line for the allocation of land territories alone, and not for the allocation of sea areas under the sovereignty or jurisdiction of either country. Canada, on the other hand, has always taken the position that the A-B line is not only a boundary dividing the land but a maritime boundary as well, and that the waters south of that line are Canadian, together with the seabed below them.
Regrettably, because of its imprecision, Bill C-270 could be seen to adopt something like the U.S. view of this matter instead of the Canadian one. The language of the Bill, given the history of this dispute, requires greater precision if it is to avoid being interpreted in such a way. Clause 2 states that the land boundary includes the A-B line but does not make clear that it divides the sea as well as the land.
There is yet another anomaly at the end of Clause 2, where the boundary is said to include "a line running headland-to-headland from Cape Muzon to Langara Island". Unfortunately, the line from Cape Muzon to Langara Island was never part of any line established by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal in 1903. As a maritime boundary between Canada and the United States, moreover, a line running from Cape Muzon to Langara Island would make no sense from Canada's perspective, because such a boundary would give the United States a far greater sea area than it has ever claimed west of this line. Clearly, Bill C-270 not only tends to confuse the U.S. and Canadian positions but it also mixes apples and oranges, lateral limits and outer limits in the sea. If it is intended to clarify matters, it really has not succeeded very well.
I have no doubt that the Hon. Member sponsoring this Bill had the most laudable intentions in mind when he put it forward. But it would be too easy to say, "Oh well! Why fuss about a few technical drafting problems? Let's deal with what was intended rather than what was said". These so-called "technical drafting problems", however, could have unfortunate consequences for Canada. Certainly, it is possible to correct them; but these problems are symptomatic of other
June 18, 1986

difficulties that arise even if we ignore the language of Bill C-270 and address its intentions instead.
Let us imagine for a moment that the Bill before us did enshrine in clear statutory form the longstanding Canadian position with regard to the A-B line in Dixon Entrance. We would still have to ask ourselves whether such a Bill would truly achieve its objectives, or whether it might harm the very interests it sought to protect. I assume that these objectives and interests would be to secure Canada's maritime sovereignty in Dixon Entrance beyond all doubt or challenge. But can any Bill do this any more than a Bill stating that rainfall of North Dakota is not permitted in Manitoba?
The answer is clear. No domestic law or other unilateral action can of itself resolve a boundary dispute with another sovereign state. International law and practice lay down a few basic guidelines for the settlement of maritime boundary disputes between neighbouring countries. I would bring these to the attention of the Hon. Member for Skeena. These were well stated by the Chamber of the International Court of Justice in its 1984 decision in the Gulf of Maine case as follows:
No maritime delimitation between states with opposite or adjacent coasts may be effected unilaterally by one of those states. Such delimitation must be sought and effected by means of an agreement, following negotiations conducted in good faith and with the genuine intention of achieving a positive result. Where, however, such agreement cannot be achieved, delimitation should be effected by recourse to a third party possessing the necessary competence.
Of course, it can be said that the A-B line in Dixon Entrance is itself the result of a third-party settlement by the Alaska Boundary Tribunal. That, indeed, is Canada's position regarding the status of the A-B line as a maritime boundary. The United States, however, does not accept that position. Successive Canadian Governments have recognized that the only way forward in this matter is either by negotiation or international adjudication. So far, negotiation has been the preferred route, although it has not yet brought about the result we in Canada would like to see. Any Bill enshrining the A-B line as a maritime boundary in Canadian law might well rule out the possibility of a negotiated settlement and virtually force Canada to refer the dispute to third-party proceedings. Is that what the Hon. Member for Skeena wants? Is that what this House wants? International adjudication is a valuable last resort, but one to be entered into by design rather than by mere accident.
Hon. Members will be aware that discussions on the West Coast boundaries were suspended in 1979, pending the conclusion of the Gulf of Maine case. With that case behind us, the United States has suggested that the time may now have come to revert to the other maritime boundaries, at least to see if there may be a basis for some negotiated settlement. The Hon. Member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark) has taken this proposal under advisement and has sought the views of the B.C. Government to assist him in determining where Canada's best interests might lie. And he has made it clear that he will only decide the matter in accordance with Canada's best interests.
International Land Boundary
Whether we negotiate now or later, or whether it is ultimately decided to refer the question to third-party settlement, we must still ask ourselves whether any version of Bill C-270 might advance the Canadian position. I have already indicated that domestic legislation would not solve the problem under international law. But could it have some effect on the United States? Let me ask the question another way. How would Canada react if the U.S. Congress were to adopt a law of its own regarding the maritime boundary in Dixon Entrance? Such a law, we can be sure, would incorporate an equidistance line dividing Dixon Entrance equally between Canada and the United States.
That, of course, is the U.S. position regarding the maritime boundary in Dixon Entrance. So far, the United States has only declared its position in a public notice in the U.S. Federal Register, and has done so on the express condition that such notice is without prejudice to any negotiations with Canada. A law adopted by the U.S. Congress in response to some variation on Bill C-270 might not-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I would ask the Hon. Member to conclude since his time has expired.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: Mr. Speaker, I will conclude. I would like to point out again that the way to solve this problem is through negotiation and, as a last resort, through an international tribunal. To pass Bill C-270 would only confuse the issue and weaken Canada's bargaining position.


George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, I just want to add some brief remarks to the debate on Bill C-270. First, I want to say that we in the Liberal Party support this Bill. I wish to congratulate and applaud the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) who has brought this Bill before the House today. As I read the Bill, and as has been pointed out quite clearly, we are talking about the Canada-Alaska boundary, commonly known as the A-B line. In this respect there was a settlement back in 1903 by an international tribunal.
The Bill also states that there is evidence to indicate an attempt on the part of the United States to expand its de facto maritime control in the Alaska Panhandle region. I certainly agree that there is evidence to that effect. I will not go into the history of that, nor will I go into the history of the boundary line since that was clearly put on the record by the Hon. Member for Skeena. He has put a great deal of work into presenting this Bill to the House today.
I wish to make some remarks on the comments of the Parliamentary Secretary. He stated that the Bill is not clear in its legislative language and that there are technical drafting problems. I certainly do not see that in the Bill. However, if we were to refer the Bill to committee, then if there are some technicalities which need to be changed in drafting to make it somewhat clearer, by all means let the committee perfect it so

June 18, 1986
International Land Boundary
that we can have a Bill which gives us some certainty. It is stated in a clause of the Bill:
For greater certainty, the Canada-Alaska boundary includes the "A-B line" running from Cape Muzon to Cape Chacon to the mouth of the Portland Canal, and a line running headland-to-headland from Cape Muzon to Langara Island.
As I understand the purpose of the Bill as set out by the Hon. Member for Skeena, it is to enshrine in law the boundary established by an international tribunal in 1903 between Canada and the United States. Because of situations which have arisen over the last few years in terms of disputes between Canada and the United States concerning boundaries, especially as they relate to fisheries, if there is any way that Parliament can clear up and allow greater certainty through legislation, then by all means we should go ahead as expeditiously as possible and pass this Bill. We should do this for for the protection of Canada and for the protection of our fishermen and our mineral resources.
Those are my comments, Mr. Speaker. I once again wish to congratulate the Hon. Member for Skeena for bringing this Bill before us today. I hope it will receive the consent and approval of all Members of this astute Chamber.


Nelson Andrew Riis: 
Mr. Patrick Crofton (Esquimau-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, at the outset, I would like to read into the record a letter which might be helpful in this debate. The letter is addressed to the Hon. Member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) and is from Mr. Edward J. Derwinski, Counselor, Department of State, Washington, D.C., and pertains to this particular matter. The letter reads as follows:
I want to assure you that negotiations on Dixon Entrance are not taking place. They will not begin until your Government informs me that it has consulted with the affected fishermen and is ready to proceed.
I understand that representatives from External Affairs are still dicussing the matter with Canadian fishermen.
As you are aware, since the 1930's, our Governments have made efforts now and again to resolve maritime boundary issues. These talks have included the Dixon Entrance area, where the A-B line drawn by the 1903 arbitral panel is deemed by Canada to be a maritime boundary and by the United States to allocate islands. (The U.S. claims an equidistant line.) In 1976, when Canada and the U.S. each declared 200 mile fishing zones, these differences became more prominent.
George Shultz and Joe Clark have a gentlemen's understanding that they would work together to try to solve some of our longstanding differences, like the Pacific Salmon Treaty and acid rain.
Dixon Entrance falls into this category. For our part, we firmly believe that discussions on Dixon Entrance have to take place after each side fully consults with its fishermen. Whenever the Government of Canada is ready to meet, we are prepared to sit and talk about this.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for North Vancouver-[DOT] Burnaby (Mr. Cook), indicated that negotiation is the best way to resolve this difference and international adjudication is the last resort. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) might well respond that Canada cannot be forced into third-party proceedings against its will. Strictly speaking, he would be right since the United States and Canada are under no binding reciprocal obligation to refer their disputes to adjudication. However, if we reject negotiation and refuse adjudication, the result is an impasse. An impasse can lead to incidents
International Land Boundary
and incidents can lead all too easily to confrontation in the disputed area. Each side scrambles to stake out its claim at the expense of the other. I need hardly spell out the implications of such a development in the Dixon Entrance area. Currently there is a modus vivendi in the area that is relatively satisfactory to both sides. To be sure, there have been incidents from time to time, but thanks to a policy of mutual restraint, these have been isolated and have remained manageable.
Any version of Bill C-270 would put this delicate equilibrium at risk with unpredictable implications for fishing patterns and offshore resource exploration in the disputed area. The impact on the halibut fishery could prejudice local interests. What about the implications for the Pacific salmon treaty? Surely the last thing we should contemplate at this stage is to say or do anything that might interfere with a successful implementation of the salmon treaty.
We have other outstanding maritime boundary questions to resolve with the United States: seaward of Dixon Entrance; seaward of Juan de Fuca Strait; in the Beaufort Sea; and both landward and seaward of the boundary fixed by the International Court of Justice in the Gulf of Maine area. In addition, we have boundaries to settle with Denmark in the Lincoln Sea and with France off the coasts of Newfoundland and St-Pierre-et-Miquelon.
I have only spoken of the possible implications of Bill C-270 on Dixon Entrance. I do not wish to address its possible implications on other areas in question at this time. Let me only say that I doubt that they have been given adequate thought in the preparation of Bill C-270. That Bill is flawed not only in its drafting but in its very approach to maritime boundary problems.
We do not need legislation to protect Canada's position in Dixon Entrance. We do not need it to convince ourselves of the rightness of Canada's position there. We do not need it to convince the United States of our own convictions. Finally, we do not need it for the greater certainty that Bill C-270 promises but does not truly deliver.
Other speakers on this and earlier occasions have discussed the historical background to the A-B line, the matter we are discussing today. I would like to update that history with some of the more recent events. Since World War I, various incidents have occurred which tend to support Canada's position regarding the status of the A-B line. For example, in 1924, a United States cruiser seized a Canadian fishing vessel in Clarence Strait seven and one-half miles north of the A-B line and over five miles from the nearest United States shore. The U.S. reportedly justified this seizure on the grounds that the vessel was fishing well north of the international boundary. This incident would appear to suggest that the United States considered the A-B line to be a boundary for both land and sea.
It is also worth noting that until at least 1931, the International Boundary Commissioners concerned with fixing the Alaska boundary did not treat the A-B line differently from

June 18, 1986
International Land Boundary
other sections of the Alaska boundary. In particular, during the 1920s, the American Commissioner tried to persuade his Canadian counterpart to agree to request their Governments to move the boundary line from Cape Muzon to the middle of Dixon Entrance because its position at Cape Muzon was anomalous as it meant that there was no United States territorial sea off Cape Muzon. In the 1940s, there were unsuccessful attempts to settle the issue by negotiation. Efforts to negotiate a settlement were made again in the 1970s, but these efforts too did not succeed.
Throughout the years from the late 1890s to the present, Canada has maintained that the waters of Dixon Entrance are Canadian and Canadian practice since that time has been consistent with that position. In this regard, several more recent Canadian measures are particularly noteworthy.
For example, in 1964 when the fishing activities of Russian and Japanese vessels off Canada's West Coast began to increase, the Canadian Government issued them a warning to stay out of the Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait. Both Governments heeded the warning and apart from a few minor incursions, their fishing vessels have not entered these waters.
In addition, in 1971 under the authority of the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act, Canada delimited its exclusive fisheries jurisdiction within Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait by means of the A-B line and a line drawn across the Dixon Entrance from Cape Muzon to Langara Island. This action by Canada was protested by the United States. Nevertheless, Canada's position on the status of Dixon Entrance and Hecate Strait has remained unchanged.
Before closing, I would like to refer briefly to Bill C-104, the Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act, which was introduced in the House on April 11, 1986, by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Crosbie). That Bill is designed to reinforce Canadian sovereignty by creating a more comprehensive legal regime for Canadian offshore areas. The Act would put an end to uncertainty about the application of Canadian laws in all these areas by extending both federal and provincial laws to the offshore.
Of special significance in the context of today's debate is the fact that the proposed Canadian Laws Offshore Application Act includes a provision in Clause 16 that deals with the question of historic waters. That clause is a consequential amendment to the Territorial Sea and Fishing Zones Act. When read together with the definition of internal waters in the same Act, it will amply confirm, if any confirmation is needed, that our historic waters form part of Canada's internal waters and are therefore subject to Canadian sovereignty in the fullest sense of the term.
The proposed amendment regarding historic waters is linked to Clause 9 of the Bill on the offshore application of Canadian laws. That clause would enable the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to certify any geopgrahic area to
be part of the internal waters or territorial sea of Canada. In other words, the Government has already introduced legislation which removes any necessity, if any could be said to exist, for legislation along the lines intended in Bill C-270. Furthermore, it does so without creating problems of the sort described by other speakers during the debate.
I opened my remarks today with a reference to the long and colourful history of the Dixon Entrance question. All Members of the House will agree that this brief account of that history, and of the state practice in the area generally, supports the view that the A-B line is the boundary for both land and water inside Dixon Entrance. That is Canada's long-standing view, and it is this view that Canada can and must affirm in any negotiations with the United States.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, there is no mention of the word "fish" or "fisheries" in the contents of Bill C-270. However, in the next few minutes I hope to show that we cannot talk about the Dixon Entrance without some discussion of fisheries, particularly Pacific salmon and Canada-U.S. co-operation regarding this great resource.
Those in the Pacific area of Canada know that there are five species of Pacific salmon. By far they are the most important fish stocks on the Pacific coast in both quantity and value. While they have been known by a variety of names, they are perhaps most frequently referred to as sockeye, chum, pink, coho and Chinook. These five species differ in important respects, including their productivity, dependence upon freshwater habitat, size, behaviour, susceptibility to fishing gear, and other qualities.
Salmon have been used by native Indians for time immemorial, and the fish have supported an industrial fishery for more than a century. Therefore, Bill C-206 raises an important question in that it affects our fisheries. Historically salmon became the region's second export after furs when the Hudson's Bay Company began exporting salmon from Fort Langley on the Fraser River in 1830. The first commercial cannery in British Columbia began operations in 1870. Of course, canneries had expanded throughout the coast by the turn of the century, as had the exploitation of salmon stocks.
Until 1903 any variety other than red salmon-that is sockeye, chinook or coho-was rejected by canners. Those of us who have lived in the western part of Canada for a long time know that it is the red sockeye which is most in demand as far as canned salmon is concerned. However, because of poor salmon runs in 1903, canners began processing the much more prolific pink and chum salmon. The use of this fish increased sharply in 1911 in response to a disappointing catch of Fraser River sockeye and increased demands for canned salmon. Since then, pinks and chums have held an important place in the commercial salmon fishery in British Columbia.
According to recent catch statistics, the current harvest of Pacific salmon breaks down roughly as follows: the commercial sector dominates the catch, taking some 93 per cent of the total; net gear takes almost all the sockeye, pinks, and chums,
June 18, 1986

while troll gear takes most of the coho and Chinooks; the sport fishery takes a significant share of Chinook and coho and little else, and accounts for about 4 per cent to 5 per cent of the total catch; and the Indian fishery accounts for about 2 per cent and is directed primarily at sockeye.
Almost since commercial fishing of Pacific salmon began in earnest in the late 1880s, capture of salmon bound for rivers of one country by fishermen of the other has created controversy between Canada and the United States. The earliest disputes arose over American catches of sockeye salmon bound for our Fraser River in British Columbia. Since then the scope of the controversy gradually widened to include problems of interceptions by Vancouver Island fishermen of coho and Chinook salmon bound for the rivers of Washington and Oregon; by Alaska fishermen of salmon bound for the rivers of British Columbia, the Northwest Territories, and Yukon; and by northern British Columbia Fishermen taking Alaska-bound salmon. I am sure the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) knows about those controversies and the involvement of fishermen from the United States and Canada.
The first bilateral accommodation occurred in respect of the management of the fisheries for sockeye salmon bound for the Fraser River. In the late 1880s, United States and Canadian fishermen began fishing vigorously for sockeye salmon bound for the Fraser River. United States fishing took place on the approaches to the river, in the extensive chain of islands at the northern entrance of Puget Sound, whereas the Canadian fishery was concentrated in the estuary and in the river itself. At that time the Fraser run had a marked four-year period, with runs in the 1893-1897-1901 cycle being much more abundant. In lean years Canadian fishermen viewed them-seleves as being at the mercy of their United States counterparts who had, as it were, first crack at the fish. There were also concerns on the part of Canadian and American authorities regarding possible overfishing. That concern exists today; it is an ongoing concern.
In 1908 Canada and the United States formed an International Fisheries Commission to prepare a system of uniform and common international regulations for protection and preservation of the food fish of each nation. That kind of cooperation has characterized the fisheries every since. For Fraser River sockeye, the Commission agreed to apply a three-week mid-season closure and to institute a 48-hour weekly closed period the remainder of the season. However, the regulations were not enforced, and the Commission soon became defunct.
A major disaster, the Hell's Gate rock slide, changed all that. It all but destroyed the major up river sockeye run in 1913 and forced the Governments to renew their joint consideration of the Fraser River problems. Canada took immediate action to clear the slide, but when the runs of all cycles began to decline after 1917, it became apparent that other measures including limitation of the fisheries would be necessary.
International Land Boundary
Again, negotiations were started. It took until 1929, 16 years after the Hell's Gate slide, for an agreement to be signed. Another eight years elapsed before the agreement came into force, and yet another nine years before the Commission, established under the agreement, could exercise regulatory powers over the fisheries. There was much difficulty in reaching any kind of accord during those years.
In the 1950s increasing fishing pressure on Fraser River pink salmon became a matter of grave concern. As a result, in 1957 a protocol to the Fraser River Sockeye Agreement was negotiated. It placed pink salmon on the southern approaches to the Fraser River under an international regulatory regime similar to that for sockeye.
At about the same time, the net fisheries of both countries began to extend seaward from the traditional inshore fishing areas. Such seaward extensions increased the incidents of interception and posed severe problems of competitive overfishing. In 1957, the two Governments reached an informal understanding wherein each country, on a voluntary basis, established administrative lines-the so-called surf lines- seaward, from which net fishing was prohibited.
Although the negotiations which took place between the early 1900s and 1957 overcame some of the difficulties, new problems continued to emerge. In the 1960s the Americans became increasingly concerned about the growth of the Canadian troll fishery. This fishery operated not only off the coast of British Columbia, but also off the coast of Alaska. On the Canadian side, northern British Columbia fishermen were again deeply concerned about the location of the surf line off Alaska.
These negotiations were eventually completed and a satisfactory arrangement was made. It appears that both sides are now following more closely than ever before the measures to control the fisheries. We feel that the Pacific salmon treaty, which established this co-operation, would be in jeopardy if this Bill were allowed to proceed. We intend to do nothing which might prejudice its smooth and successful implementation. Bill C-270 could all too easily have such an effect.


Mrs. Barbara Sparrow (Calgary South):: Mr. Speaker, in discussing the question of Dixon Entrance, it is important to remember that boundary delimitations are more than a matter of law and that they may have a significant impact on the allocation of both living and non-living resources in the area concerned. In the brief time allotted to me I would like to focus on the non-living resource potential of the area surrounding Dixon Entrance.
First, it should be noted that the subsurface geology of Dixon Entrance has not been studied extensively but certain inshore tests, seismic profiles and extrapolations based on wells drilled in Hecate Strait and on Graham Island have offered some clues to assist us in estimating the prospects for oil and gas in and around the area in dispute. The results of these

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
analyses indicate, for example, that the volcanic and sedimentary rocks under Dixon Entrance may be sufficiently thick and deep to permit the generation and entrapment of certain hydrocarbons. In general though, the all-over oil and gas potential in the area is believed to be modest at best.
The infrequency of exploration activity in the area and the generally negative results of such activity appear to confirm the modest estimates regarding the potential for oil and gas in that area. The first federal permits for oil and gas in Dixon Entrance were acquired in August, 1961, by Huskey Oil and Calgary and Edmonton corporations. Following a perfunctory seismic exploration program these lands were subsequently surrendered. In December, 1964, Pan American, now AMOCO, filed on permits north and west of Graham Island including the area of Dixon Entrance north to the A-B line. At the same time, outside the entrance, permits were taken up to an equidistant line with the caveat placed on those submerged land areas impinging directly on the line.
Seismic exploration and onshore geological surveys were also undertaken in the area in 1966. Successes, however, were few and far between as evidenced by the fact that the permits inside and outside the entrance were surrendered in December of 1967.
South of Dixon Entrance in Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound and within the Queen Charlotte tertiary basin Shell Canada acquired exploration permits for about 3.5 million hectares. The company conducted geological mapping and offshore seismic surveys and drilled eight exploratory wells in the period from 1967 to 1969 with generally negative results. In 1970 Shell entered into a farm-out agreement with Chevron Canada Resources whereby Chevron would earn an interest in the Shell offshore area by conducting seismic surveys and drilling two deep exploratory wells.
Currently, submerged lands held by the petroleum industry for exploration purposes include two blocks in Dixon Entrance, a small block by Union Oil Company of Canada located immediately northeast of Graham Island and the north end of a large block in Hecate Strait held by Shell Canada Resources and operated by Chevron Canada Resources under the terms of the farm-out agreement to which I have already referred.
The United States has also indicated some tentative interest in the oil and gas potential of the area. Indeed, in 1984 the United States took the first steps toward calling for bids for offshore leases which would have included an area claimed by Canada outside Dixon Entrance. This action prompted a Canadian protest. Subsequently Canada was informed by the United States that the proposed offers of lease sales had been withdrawn due to lack of interest by the petroleum industry.
Notwithstanding Canadian holdings and some American interest in the area, little new has been learned about the resource base in the area since the late 1960s. This is due in large part to a moratorium on exploration and oil tanker traffic in the area which was imposed in 1972 by the federal Government. This moratorium was intended to prevent crude
oil tankers travelling through Dixon Entrance, Hecate Strait and Queen Charlotte Sound enroute from the Trans-Alaska Pipeline terminal as Valdez, Alaska. Subsequently a federal Order in Council indefinitely relieved existing offshore exploration permit holders from their obligations to conduct exploratory drilling in these waters and prohibited any further drilling.
In 1981 the Province of British Columbia declared the area an inland marine zone. At the same time an indefinite moratorium was placed on offshore exploration in Johnstone Strait south of Telegraph Cove and in the Straits of Georgia and Juan de Fuca. These respective moratoria are still in effect.
In June, 1984, the federal and British Columbia Ministers of the Environment appointed a Five-member environmental assessment panel to conduct a public review of the environmental and related socio-economic effects of any renewed program of petroleum exploration off the west coast of Canada north of Vancouver Island. At that time consideration was being given to lifting the moratorium so that exploration programs could be pursued. Accordingly, the west coast offshore exploration environmental assesssment panel was asked to develop recommendations on the terms and conditions under which petroleum exploration could proceed in a safe and environmentally responsible manner.
During the the course of the review the panel gathered information on the environmental and related socio-economic effects of the proposed offshore exploration program and held two series of public fora in November, 1984, and in the latter part of 1985. Chevron Canada and Petro-Canada were designated by the federal and provincial regulatory bodies as proponents of the offshore oil and gas exloration.
All mineral resource interests are relevant to the issue of the boundary in the Dixon Entrance. I fail to see how they are advanced by Bill C-270. I cannot support this Bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for Private Members' Business has now expired.
Pursuant to Standing Order 36(2), the order is dropped to the bottom of the order of precedence on the Order Paper.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Henry Perrin Beatty: that Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, be read the third time and passed.
June 18, 1986

He said: Mr. Speaker, a year has passed since Bill C-67 was introduced in the House for first reading. The Bill was called for second reading on September 12 of last year. The House of Commons committee studied it, along with Bill C-68, from September to December. Hours of deliberations devoted mostly to Bill C-67 have led to several amendments which, without affecting the important protections it affords to Canadians, respond to criticisms made by committee members and witnesses. When the Bill was reported to the House on January 23, I was confident then, as I am now, that we had legislation which met the interests of the diverse groups involved.
The Senate has created a pre-study committee which has been sitting since the beginning of February. Members of that committee have not only called officials of my Ministry and myself to appear before them on several occasions, they have visited penitentiaries and talked with staff and inmates. As a result of their deliberations I have decided to incorporate into the law the guidelines the Parole Board will follow in determining whether an inmate should be detained.

Mr. Speaker, I have rarely seen a Bill dicussed at such lenght in committee by both Houses. I am glad that we have finally reached third reading stage and I hope that this bill will receive Royal Assent without further delay.

Canadians deserve the measures contained in Bill C-67 which the Government promised in its first Speech from the Throne some two years ago. These measures alone will not solve the crime problems of Canada but they will correct some of the anomalies which threaten the safety of law-abiding citizens. The Bill will allow the National Parole Board to detain up until the last day of their sentence those inmates who, by all professional accounts, are considered likely to commit a crime of violence against another person. Until now the few offenders who met such criteria had to be released automatically by law on mandatory supervision. No one could prevent such releases.
As the law stands today, when the courts sentence you to prison for nine years, you are back out through the front door after six years unless you have committed a serious offence while in prison, such as participating in a riot or knifing someone while you are there, or some other offence. For the vast majority of inmates, earned remission is appropriate and desirable. It is the Government's intention to see it maintained. However, there is also a small minority of violent criminals, sentenced to prison because of violent acts, who have shown no inclination whatsoever to change their ways and become productive members of society. Their very release from prison threatens the safety and, in some cases, the lives of innocent Canadians. It is that handful of cases we are attempting to address with this legislation.
There is something wrong when, as has happened all too often during my tenure as Solicitor General, I receive a
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
telegram from a provincial attorney general begging me to do whatever I can to prevent the release of a dangerous inmate from prison under mandatory supervision; an individual sentenced to prison because he committed a violent offence, has shown no inclination whatsoever toward reforming himself, and who poses a grave threat to society. The only response I can make, however, is that there is nothing we can do beyond informing the police that this individual is going to be released. That is wrong.
I have had to meet with too many victims and too many families of victims to allow this situation to continue indefinitely. I think it is wrong and they think it is wrong that all too often you can have a situation where a violent criminal is sentenced to prison, released after two-thirds of his sentence, is then automatically out the door, can then commit another offence, be back in prison and back out the door all in less time than the initial sentence was for. That mocks the very principle of the rule of law. It destroys respect for the law. It deeply grieves victims and law enforcement officers who see it happen.
What are we talking about in this Bill? We are saying that in a small number of cases out of the 11,000 inmates we have in the federal correctional system, about 100 a year, and it is hard to be entirely certain because the Bill is not yet law, will be affected by these provisions. First of all, we will be dealing with inmates sentenced to prison for one of the violent offences described in the Schedule of the Bill. It would need to have been clear to the Correctional Service of Canada, the professional case management officers, that this individual has shown no sign whatsoever of rehabilitating himself and that his release from prison would pose a grave risk to innocent members of society. What would happen then? The National Parole Board of Canada would take the decision regarding parole. They have the expertise, experience, background and training to take decisions as to whether or not an individual is too risky to release, whether or not he is ready for reintroduction into society, or whether he should be kept behind bars as part of the sentence passed by the courts.
The National Parole Board would have the ability to take the decision as to whether or not that individual would be able to automatically gain release and be returned to the streets. In those cases where the Parole Board said it was clear to them in their professional judgment, with their years of experience, that an individual is not ready for release and the risk to society was too great, they would have the ability to hold him in prison for up to the duration of the sentence prescribed by the courts. We are not asking to hold them beyond that time. We are saying the maximum time would be the time prescribed by the courts when they passed sentence. However, there should be that discretion in a handful of cases where people's lives or safety would be in jeopardy by releasing the inmate.
You can be certain that I consider detention of an inmate beyond his expected release date resulting from earned remission a remedy of last recourse. Consequently, the most

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
thorough procedural safeguards possible are afforded the inmate. The Parole Board will make this decision after consideration of criteria set out in the law and the inmate will have all opportunities to know the case against him and present his arguments to the Parole Board.
The Government has taken into consideration the criticism that extended detention may simply postpone the problem. We believe the Correctional Service and the Parole Board can use the extra time to intervene with those few dangerous offenders and attempt to reduce the risk they pose to society. If at any time during this period there is evidence presented to the Parole Board that the individual has mended his ways, that it is possible for us to take this risk responsibly by releasing him into society, the Parole Board has the ability to then let him out. At any time there is a change in the individual's behaviour or approach, at any time it becomes apparent that it is possible to take a chance on his release, this can be done.
Those people who argue that holding a dangerous inmate in prison for the duration of his sentence prescribed by the courts is wrong because he may still be dangerous at the end are making an argument against incarceration period. It is an argument in favour of never sending someone to prison. What we are saying is that in cases where people are not ready for release they should not be released during the period prescribed by the courts. In those cases where an individual is ready for release, let us take that chance, let us gamble on him and attempt to ensure he becomes a productive member of society. However, with dangerous violent criminals, let us stand with innocent Canadians and ensure that their rights are protected.
I want to remind the Members of this House that the more restrictive measures of Bill C-67 are balanced by provisions which accelerate the consideration for parole of those offenders who pose a very low risk of reoffending.
This Bill will require for the first time that the National Parole Board consider at the earliest possible date of eligibility whether an individual should be released on day parole. The effect of this will be that in the case of good risks, of inmates who do not pose a serious threat to society, more of them will be finding their way out of prison earlier. I think that is appropriate. It will also be balanced off so we will be able to better protect innocent Canadians from those people who pose a very grave risk to society.
Having spent most of the past 14 years as a private Member of Parliament and not as a Cabinet Minister, I am sensitive to the need to fully involve Members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, and to accommodate their concerns to the greatest extent possible. For too many years I sat in opposition as an individual private Member of Parliament, and all too often what we saw was the Government ignoring attempts to improve legislation, or to have input into decisions that were taken. It is for that reason the Government waited until yesterday before calling Bill C-67 for report stage. We wanted
to give the Senate committee, whose pre-study was approved by the Senate in December, a chance to express its views before the ability to move amendments in this House of Commons was closed off.
In committee we listened and we amended the Bill to make improvements. I invited the Senate to engage in a pre-study which would ensure that they could have full hearings and have as much input as possible. As a result of their making reports, the House of Commons would be able to consider those reports before the Bill came to report stage in the House. After that point it is not possible for us to make amendments.
We sat literally for months after the House of Commons committee had completed its consideration and reported the Bill to the House. We invited participation from the Senate committee for suggestions in ways in which the Bill could be improved. I gave to them my sincere undertaking that we would listen openly and in good faith, and that where improvements were suggested which did not detract from the principles of the Bill, which would help the Bill to work better and better protect Canadians, that we would make those amendments. There is a time to listen and there is a time to act. We have listened and we have been responsive where reasonable concerns have been raised, but now is the time to pass this Bill. Bill C-67 is supported by the vast majority of law abiding Canadians. I have no doubt about that.

What ordinary Canadians have told me since my appointment as Sollicitor General can be summarized as follows: Canadians want us to find alternatives to imprisonment for offenders who are not dangerous; however, they also want to be protected against dangerous criminals who have shown no interest in their rehabilitation.

One of the issues that remains in contention with some of the Members in this House is whether the National Parole Board should be taking this decision, or whether the courts ultimately should have the power to make a decision, and weighing whether somebody is ready for release. It is the courts that set sentences in the first place. It is the courts that prescribe the sentence when the inmate is first sent to prison, that is the role of the court.
After that time the expertise and experience of the National Parole Board of Canada is brought to bear on the case to ensure that those people who are ready for release from prison are released on a timely basis, and that those people who are simply too dangerous, who have made no effort toward reform, are not released in order to protect innocent members of society.
If there is a mistake in procedure, if there is a violation of an inmate's rights under the Charter of Rights and Freedoms all of that is appealable to the courts. The question that remains is with whom should the power be vested to take a decision? Who has the expertise, the background, which is the more
June 18, 1986

appropriate body to decide whether an inmate has rehabilitated himself and is ready for release or not? Clearly, any of us who weighs that would have to come to the conclusion that it is the National Parole Board of Canada that has that expertise. The Board makes these decisions on a daily basis and should continue to be able to take them.
Taking this power away from, investing it with the courts, would add to delays, would give to the courts a power which they do not seek. It would be to ask a body, which has already played its role in a process at the front end, where it should be, to assume a responsibility throughout the whole process as to whether or not it was appropriate for an inmate to be released at that point.
The purpose of Bill C-67 is limited. It does not seek to change the nature of the sentence by the court. It is focused only on the remainder of the sentence, which is the responsibility of the Solicitor General to administer. It assumes that if a dangerous offender's status were appropriate it would have been so determined at the time of sentencing by the court. That is the time in which the court should have been involved.
That is why I believe that the National Parole Board is clearly the appropriate agency to take this decision. If an individual's rights are violated, under the Charter of Rights that can be appealed to the courts. If there is an error in procedure that can be appealed to the courts. As to the merits of release of an individual, it should more properly be made by the National Parole Board.
There have been too many victims to delay this Bill further. I have heard from their families, they have written to me, and I have had occasion to listen to them in person. There is no more difficult portion of my job as Solicitor General than to have to sit with the families of the victims of violent crime, to have to sit in one case with the families of some young girls who were allegedly assaulted by an inmate who was released under mandatory supervision. In this case he was released a month early because the controls that the National Parole Board has on inmates under mandatory supervision are less than the controls they have on somebody released on parole.
We have the bizarre situation that because an inmate was so dangerous and such a threat to society, in the view of the National Parole Board, the Board was forced to release him a month earlier than they would have released him if he had been less dangerous. That is a travesty, and it is precisely that sort of situation that this Bill is designed to address. There have been too many victims.
We should do what we can as parliamentarians to say that this victimization must stop. I have seen them, I have met with them, I have read their letters, I have heard their voices when they have spoken to me about their experiences. Nobody pretends, least of all me, that this Bill will end for all time violence by released offenders. There is still a date after which offenders are released. We do not attempt to alter the sentence that was passed by the courts. We cannot guarantee that there
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
will not be violence after that date. Nobody can guarantee that.
There is only one guarantee and it is this; that every further day of delay jeopardizes innocent people. When we continue to talk, it is their safety that is at risk. That is why we have to act now. We have debated this Bill, we have studied this Bill, we have amended the Bill where amendments were needed. Now is the time for us to stand with the vast majority of Canadians in saying that we will do everything within our power as parliamentarians to put an end to the senseless violence. Canadians ask no more than that of us and, surely, they have a right to expect nothing less.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as the Solicitor General spokesman for the Official Opposition, I am pleased to rise this evening to speak with respect to Bill C-67.1 would like to make it absolutely clear at the outset that the Liberal Party supports the general thrust of this legislation. When I spoke at second reading stage on September 12, 1985, I made it clear that the Liberal Party is concerned about the release of violent offenders. I indicated at the time that Bill C-67 is similar to legislation that was introduced by the previous Liberal administration.
We agree that something must be done and that there is a problem with mandatory supervision. We agree that there should be some method by which the violent offenders could be detained until warrant expiry, if necessary, as an ultimate way of ensuring the safety of the public.
Where we disagree in a very fundamental way is with regard to who should make that decision-whether it be the National Parole Board or the courts. I too listened to the groups. 1 also participated fully at committee and listened to all those who appeared there to make representations and submissions of their point of view with respect to this Bill. I have been convinced that that ultimate decision should be made by the court, for a number of reasons that I will indicate during my submissions.
Before doing so, I want to comment briefly on the process. The Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) commented about the process that we have gone through over the last year. He appeared to be laying blame at the door of the Senate for the fact that it has been a year since this legislation was introduced. I believe it is highly unfair of the Solicitor General to lay the blame for the delay at the door of the Senate, when the delay is quite properly the responsibility of the Conservative Government of Canada.
The Bill was introduced last June. It was not brought on for second reading until September, 1985. It was referred to committee where it was given consideration and reported out of committee late last year. We have waited since late last year for the Bill to be brought forward. It was only brought forward

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
at report stage yesterday and the Government was intent on rushing the legislation through, knowing full well that the House is scheduled to adjourn at the end of next week.
This is not the only piece of legislation that the Government is trying to muscle through the House in the dying days of this semester. Earlier today, the Government of Canada, for the tenth time in less than two years, introduced closure with respect to Bill C-86, a measure that would cut $8 billion in federal transfer payments to the provincial Govermment over the next five years. There are other pieces of legislation, including the Young Offenders Act which we also dealt with yesterday, which the Government is trying to rush through.
It leads one to wonder whether the Government is doing a disservice to legislation by simply piling it up and trying to rush it through in the last few days of this session. The cynics would suggest that the Government is intentionally backing up important pieces of legislation, knowing that the summer recess is coming and hoping that the Opposition will simply rubber stamp it through.
I want to indicate to the Solicitor General that we in the Opposition do not intend to obstruct the passage of this Bill or, for that matter, any Bill that is of benefit to Canada and will make our society a better place. We do, however, regret very much the method by which the Government has proceeded over the course of the last two years in dealing with legislation. It has told us at the outset that legislation is important and urgent, and that it is imperative that it be passed by Parliament. We were told that in June, 1985, with regard to this Bill. Yet here we are, a year later, over six months after the committee has dealt with it, and the Government brings the Bill forward.
If it was so important and urgent, why did the Solicitor General wait so long before bringing this Bill forward? The Solicitor General will blame the Senate, but that is a separate body. He had the right as the Solicitor General, as a representative of the Government of Canada, to bring the Bill forward forthwith and pass it through all stages in the House and then have it referred to the Senate. However, as a result of his procrastination, we can be assured that this Bill will not be given speedy passage and will not become law for many months yet. The responsibility belongs to the Solicitor General.
For him to stand in his place today and say that with every passing day the threat to society is heightened and that the public safety is threatened, is an absolute farce. If that were the case, and the Solicitor General were in fact as sincere as he would have us believe and as honest as he would like us to believe, then this legislation would have been brought forward six or seven months ago. Yet he waited until this very late date.
When this legislation was introduced, I indicated that given the fact we were supportive of the Bill in principle we would ensure its speedy passage. Notwithstanding the fact that those statements were made on the public record, the Solicitor General waited. I suspect that one of the reasons why the
Solicitor General waited so long is that there is considerable opposition in his own ranks. We know that during the prestudy of this legislation in the Senate, Conservative Senators supported the reports which have been submitted to the Solicitor General but which he totally disregarded. He knows as well as us that there are Conservative Members of Parliament who object very vigorously and adamantly to certain aspects of the legislation.
I am sure that all Members of the House, and indeed those in the upper chamber, support the principle of this legislation. I include representatives of the New Democratic Party. I am sure that when the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) speaks to this legislation, he will indicate that he is concerned about public safety. I am sure he will say that the NDP would like to see measures that will enhance public safety in whatever way possible. However, as is their prerogative, I suppose the NDP will argue in favour of inmates and inmates' rights.
I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate the Hon. Member for Burnaby for having such an interest in the cause of inmates, those incarcerated. It is far too easy for politicians and the general public to be against inmates who are serving time in federal or privincial institutions, and to suggest that they are somehow the complete authors of their own misfortunes and that society has no responsibility. I think we must be grateful that there are those in society like Clare Culhane of the Prisoners Rights Group, who is outspoken and has dedicated her life to the pursuit of fairness and justice for individuals in federal prisons. There are also those in this House who have taken an interest in the plight of prisoners.
As the Solicitor General spokesman for the Liberal Party over the last two years, I have received literally dozens if not hundreds of letters from inmates in prisons throughout Canada who have had grievances with respect to their periods of incarceration. When I was appointed as the Solicitor General spokesman for my Party, my initial reaction was, "Well, inmates do not vote. They are degenerates in society. They have breached some very fundamental laws of society and they are being punished for their crimes". My first reaction was not to bother responding to mail from inmates, or submissions from those who would like to assist those in federal institutions. However, over the course of the last two years, I have come to understand and sympathize, to a certain degree, with the plight of individuals serving prison sentences in Canada. Oh, sure, there are a handful serving time in federal institutions who are absolutely degenerate in every sense of the word. They are but a few. I am speaking of the Clifford Olsons and others who are serving lengthy prison terms for multiple murders, for brutal rapes or brutal assaults against young children or against senior citizens. They are but a handful. The others in federal prisons are serving time because, in a fleeting moment of passion, perhaps in a fit of anger, they have digressed from society's norms and have in some way committed a crime to warrant incarceration.
June 18, 1986

We know there are great numbers of individuals in federal institutions, and we are speaking of federal inmates here tonight. The Solicitor General indicated that their population numbered 11,000 across Canada. A great number of those do not deserve to be in prison, and even the Solicitor General would agree. Prisons should be a sanction of absolute last resort.
Yesterday, when we were dealing with the report stage of this particular piece of legislation, I indicated that every effort should be made to decrease the prison population in Canada for a number of reasons. We know there are those serving time in federal institutions, sentences of two years or more, who have not committed violent crimes, who have not, in any physical way, harmed society or any individual member of society. They have committed property crimes or fraud, for example, robbery of an unarmed nature. Those are the prisoners I would suggest should not be occupying prison cells, because to deprive a person of liberty should only be the ultimate sanction of the state.
There are those in this House, most of whom sit on the opposite side, who would suggest that the ultimate sanction should be the death penalty. We know that a great number of Canadians believe in the death penalty. I, for one, do not, for moral reasons. I do not believe that the state has a right to end the life of any individual, regardless of how miserable that life might be, regardless of what crime has been committed.


Mr. McDermid:: Even if they take someone else's life?


John V. Nunziata: That is right, Mr. Speaker. I do not believe anyone, any human being, has the right to take anyone else's life. I do believe, however, that in certain cases, the ultimate sanction should indeed be life imprisonment, but those cases are few and far between.
I think that we in Canada should consider ourselves to be extremely fortunate because of the safe nature of the society in which we live. I, for one, would not trade Canada for any country in the world. This is my country of birth, one of which I am extremely proud. One of the many reasons I am proud to be a Canadian is because of the safety of our streets, of our society because it is, without question, one of the safest countries anywhere in the world.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder if perhaps I might seek some guidance from the Chair as to the time limit which is in effect for the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), as we are approaching the 20-minute limit. I do have a number of questions for the Hon. Member and I want to have some indication as to what the rules provide.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has the floor for an unlimited period, without questions at the end.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that I do have unlimited time in order to make my submissions. Rare
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
indeed is the opportunity to make submissions as fully as possible. I would be pleased, notwithstanding the Standing Orders of the House of Commons, to allow for questions at the end of my submissions. I am sure, given the reasonableness of the Solicitor General, that he, too, will agree to questions. I would be very pleased to justify any of the submissions I make here this evening and to try to answer, to the best of my ability, any questions that might be presented by any of my colleagues in the House of Commons.
If I might continue, I was speaking of Canada and its safety. It is safe for anyone to walk the streets of Ottawa late at night and in the early morning, to walk the streets of Toronto, or Montreal, or Edmonton, or Calgary, or Halifax, or Stephen-ville-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Or Burnaby.


John V. Nunziata: -or Burnaby, or Vancouver, or even the streets of Revelstoke in British Columbia, where I was born. It is safe to walk the streets at night. One has to be careful of the bears in Revelstoke, the four-legged variety. They might get a little nasty at night if one dares to walk between the mother and her cubs.
However, the point is that regardless of where one lives in Canada it is a safe country. I think that is something of which to be proud. Of course, we do have violent crimes now and again. That is inevitable given the fact that we are 25 million people or so. Given human nature it is inevitable that there will be conflict. There will be those who will not adhere to the laws of the country, to the rules and regulations of society. Ever since Confederation we have had cause to be proud of the safety in our streets. In this respect one need only compare our country with the United States of America to appreciate what I am saying.
One cannot walk on the streets of Detroit, Los Angeles, New York, Miami or Chicago late at night and be safe, or even feel safe and secure, knowing that no one will mug, rob, rape, assault or attack one. One just cannot do that there. For example, we all know that the City of Detroit has more murders in one year than the whole of Canada has in the course of one year. I recall not long ago when the City of Detroit was trying to break a national record of sorts with regard to the number of murders committed in one particular year. This just illustrates how sick some people are in society. At the time I recall someone telling me that they had been listening to some radio station late one night toward the end of the year in Detroit. The city was closing in on a particular record with respect to the number of murders committed in any one city in the United States. There was actually a countdown on this radio station. It was counting down the number of murders before a national record would be broken. The disc jockey said: "Come on, you murderers, get out there and kill. There are only nine more, eight more, seven more" et cetera. They even uncorked the champagne when the record

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
was broken. That could only happen in Detroit. It could never happen in our society. It could never happen in Canada. However, my story illustrates the mentality of certain people. It illustrates that, for example, in the United States crime is accepted as a way of life and that it is very upfront and visible. So we are fortunate to be living in Canada.
We have one of the highest incarceration rates in the world, something which I am sure my friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), will point out. If because of that we have one of the safest societies in the world, then I suppose one can argue that it is a good result, we should keep incarcerating people if that ensures that we have some degree of safety in society. I do not believe that particular argument has tremendous merit, since there are costs associated with incarcerating people. I indicated earlier that when one considers the 11,000 inmates in federal institutions we cannot consider them all as being in the same category, as being in the same group.
On a number of occasions I have had the opportunity to visit federal prisons. I have had the opportunity to speak to inmates, those who have been convicted of first-degree murder, second-degree murder, rape, armed robbery and crimes dealing with narcotics. There is a whole spectrum of prisoners in our federal prisons. I referred earlier to the sickies, those who are so far gone that, in my view at least, they are not rational, not sane, for the purposes of the criminal law. However, they were deemed to be sane, although I believe, as do a great many people, that it takes an insane mind to commit premeditated murder, to plan, in a very deliberate way, to take the life of another human being. One has to be sick to do that. How can one possibly be a sane human being and decide to rape and kill a young person, a child, as it happens now and again? How could anyone believe that a Clifford Olson, for example, is sane? In my view, one has not to be in full control of one's mental state before one can do that. There are those types of individuals in federal institutions, and there are not many of them, probably a handful, who would do that. Then there are individuals who have been convicted of second-degree murder or manslaughter.
Before I had the opportunity to visit federal prisons I thought, as do a great many people, that those who are serving lengthy prison terms in federal penitentiaries are the worst type of inmates with whom to deal as far as the correctional authorities are concerned. But that is not the case at all, as anyone who has had the opportunity to visit federal prisons will say. I invite my colleagues in the House to take that opportunity some day. I am sure the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) would facilitate a visit for any parliamentarian who would like to visit a federal prison. Those inmates are not the toughest to deal with. After a period of time, those inmates- and I am talking about those who are serving 10, 15 or 20 years-come to recognize and accept the fact that they will be serving a long period of time in an institution. So they have a stake in ensuring a certain level and degree of calm in the penitentiary. They do not want to see riots or trouble. They do not want to see fights. They want their environment to be
clean. They want to ensure that the food is good. They want to ensure that their environment is as pleasant as possible, because they know that they will be there for a long period of time.
You might ask, Mr. Speaker, which offenders are the most difficult to deal with. According to Correctional Services people and inmates to whom I have spoken, the most difficult people to deal with are those inmates who are serving short sentences. In prison jargon, those inmates are called deucers.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, in Canada we have a two-tiered system of incarceration. There is the provincial system and the federal system. All individuals who are sentenced to two years or less serve time in a provincial institution, and all individuals who are sentenced to a period of incarceration of two years or more serve their sentences in federal prisons. That is why we often hear in the media that so and so was sentenced to two years less a day or so and so was sentenced to two years plus a day. That is the method used by courts to ensure that individuals serve their time either in federal prisons or provincial prisons.
I am not dealing here with provincial prisons. In federal prisons, the inmates who cause the most trouble are those who are serving short sentences, the deucers. It is those who are serving sentences of two, three, four or maybe even five years in length. The reason they are the most difficult to deal with is that they do not care if they break the rules of the institution. If an inmate is serving two years plus a day, he does not care whether or not he earns remission.
Let us take as an example an inmate who is serving two years plus a day. He knows that the day he walks into that prison, regardless of what he does, with the exception, of course, of committing another crime, he will earn remission. I believe the formula is that for every month he serves, he gets 15 days off for good behaviour or for participation in prison programs. The result of that is that any inmate is released after serving two- thirds of his or her prison sentence. That is automatic and is called mandatory supervision. It was introduced in 1970. Later on, I would like to review the origins of mandatory supervision and trace its rather unfortunate history over the course of the last 16 years.
Returning to the example of the inmate who is serving two years plus a day, he knows that he is going to get a third taken off the time of his sentence. Right off the bat-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to return to the question of having an opportunity to ask questions of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). I understand it is the Chair's ruling that there will be no opportunity to ask questions at the conclusion of the Hon. Member's speech in view of the fact that he has unlimited time. In those circumstances, I would seek some clarification as to whether or not it would be possible to seek unanimous consent to question the Hon. Member at an appropriate
June 18, 1986

time during the course of his remarks in order to seek clarification on those remarks.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) is free at any time to ask unanimous consent of the House for questions.


John V. Nunziata: I would like to thank the Hon. Member for giving me a breather.
As I was saying, the sentence of that inmate will be automatically reduced by a third. We are dealing with an individual who will, after serving about 18 months or so, be released. He has nothing to lose if he breaks the rules of the prison. He will get himself into fights and he will destroy the facilities.
Not long ago, I spoke to an individual at Joyceville prison who is part of the Prisoners' Committee and he was fighting mad. He said: "I have a bunch of deucers in here who are ruining everything". He said that they were supplied with basketballs, baseballs, bats and what-not and the deucers would take the bats to the basketballs or would boot the basketballs right out of the prison yard so the rest of the inmates would not have the opportunity to play those sports. That man was fighting mad at the deucers because they were making it very difficult for those who are serving longer periods of time.
The point I am trying to make is that there are misconceptions about federal inmates in society. I think we have to be careful, particularly since we are in a position to pass laws here in Parliament, to ensure that we do not base our decisionmaking processes on the myths that exist with regard to inmates, offenders and convicts. For the most part, the subject of crime, inmates and prisons is a very emotional one. It is very easy for us to have our opinions affected by certain myths or misconceptions that exist regarding federal inmates. I would caution my colleagues not to lump together all 11,000 federal inmates and classify them as being the dregs of society and degenerates.
There is a large percentage, though I do not know exactly what it is, of inmates who are one-time offenders and in all likelihood, after being released from prison, will not commit another crime. I am speaking of those who are truly remorseful because of the criminal acts they have committed and truly want to be rehabilitated. There are those who want to rehabilitate and are sorry for what they have done. They are prepared to serve their time and are prepared to readapt to civilian life in a law-abiding fashion.
When considering Bill C-67, I would simply ask that we try to put a human touch on our deliberations and try to understand with whom we are dealing. We are not dealing with monsters. Some of them, yes, can be classified as monsters. However, it is patently unfair to describe all prisoners as monsters. We have to put a human touch to it.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
I should like to refer to one of my constituents, but I will not mention her name. A few years ago her husband committed a very serious crime. He was convicted of second degree murder and was sentenced to a very lengthy period of incarceration. This constituent came to my office with her child about a year and a half ago and asked for assistance because of an internal problem her husband had in the institution. I could not help but feel for her when she told me what she does every week. She boards the bus in Toronto to go to Kingston to see her husband. She takes the child along so that she can see her father. This has been going on for years. Her husband will become eligible for parole in a number of years. I have corresponded with him, but I have not yet had the opportunity to speak directly with him. However, through the correspondence one cannot help but feel for him, his wife, and his child. He admits that he did wrong. He knows that he breached a fundamental law of society. He does not resent in any way the fact that he was incarcerated. He believes that serving his time will be his way of paying back, but he also recognizes that he could never repay that lost life.
There are those people inside and outside the House who would argue that he should have been put to death, that there should have been capital punishment for him because he murdered another individual. Having met with his wife and child and having read the correspondence, I cannot help but be impressed with the fact that there is still hope for this family unit, notwithstanding the heart-wrenching turmoil through which the family has gone over the last number of years. They still have hope, and they still have love for one another. They long for the day a number of years off when they will have an opportunity to live their lives together, the day when this individual will have the opportunity to walk out of the gates of the prison as a free man.
I say all this simply to suggest that when we deal with inmates or prisoners, let us not lump them together. Let us try to understand who they are. Let us try to understand that they are human beings.
At this point I should like to interject the fact that our paramount concern is the safety of society. We recognize that such individuals have breached the laws of society and that by so doing they have deprived themselves of their own liberty. The protection of society should be a paramount consideration, but I do not think that society can completely absolve itself of responsibility. Yesterday we dealt with the young offenders Bill. At times we must ask ourselves why a child of 8 years, 10 years, or 12 years of age is a hardened criminal. We must ask ourselves why children of such a tender age are hardened criminals. It is not the fault of the child; it is society's responsibility. We collectively must take that responsibility. As we sit here in the House of Commons, in the plushness which surrounds us, it is all too easy not to accept any responsibility for the ills in society. Each and every one of us sitting in the House of Commons is fortunate to know that we are financially comfortable. The Lord knows that we in the House, at least

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
for the time being, do not have the worries of a great many of our fellow citizens. However, there is group of people out there in society who are the poor and the unfortunate.
For the most part it is from within that group that our prisons will be filled in the future. We know that a child of 8 years, 10 years, or 12 years of age, who becomes a hardened criminal, who starts to burglarize, who starts to steal, or who becomes violent, will be an offender later in life. As a society we have to take some responsibility for these people. We must try to determine who are these people and why they do what they are doing. For years and years criminologists, sociologists, psychiatrists, and various other experts have tried to understand crime. They have tried to understand why people break the law, why people do not accept some very standard and basic rules. It is more likely that one born to poverty will lead a life of crime than one born with a proverbial gold or silver spoon in his or her mouth.
I should now like to review the legislation before us and try to apply some of my concerns to it. This piece of legislation was introduced over a year ago, and there were reasons for bringing it forward at that time. One reason was that the concept of mandatory supervision introduced by the Liberal administration in 1970 was simply not working as well as it should have been working. At the time of its introduction it was felt that society required some control over offenders after they were released into the community. On listening to the Solicitor General tonight, one would almost think that with the passage of Bill C-67 we could unequivocally guarantee the safety of society. I believe that something very important has escaped the Solicitor General. I do not think he recognizes that some day in the future nearly all inmates will be released.
The Solicitor General used the example of someone who was incarcerated for nine years. He said quite correctly that after six years, because of mandatory supervision and the concept of earned remission, the individual who was sentenced to nine years in prison would be released by operation of law at six years. Let us assume for a moment that there is no such thing as mandatory supervision, that after this individual was sentenced it was up to the Parole Board to decide when that individual might be released.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, an inmate becomes eligible for day parole after serving one-sixth of his or her sentence and becomes eligible for full parole after having served one-third of the sentence. It is important to distinguish clearly between parole and mandatory supervision. There is a sea of difference between the two concepts. For the most part, parole is successful. There are inevitably cases where parolees commit crimes while out on parole, but generally speaking parole is more successful than mandatory supervision. That is because an individual who is sentenced to nine years in prison knows that if he is of good behaviour for three years, if he co-operates with the authorities, participates in prison programs, is remorseful and is able to show the authorities that he will not
create another crime when released and can be integrated into society, he or she will become eligible for full parole after three years. That person is going to do his best to ensure that his record is such that when the Parole Board considers his application for parole he will be considered a prime candidate for parole and released into the community. Of course, there are certain conditions to that parole, such as that he report to a parole officer once a week, sign in with a local police station, continue to reside in a particular community or stay away from alcohol and drugs.
What happens if the person is not granted parole after three years? Let us assume that for some reason the Parole Board decides that the person should not be released into society because he has not displayed conduct becoming a law-abiding citizen and has failed to co-operate with the correctional authorities. He has the opportunity to apply for parole again at a later date.
There are those who, regardless of the number of times they apply for parole, will be denied parole because they have been bad in prison, because of their violent nature or because of their previous criminal record. If the person who is sentenced to nine years in prison is a bad apple, he would know that regardless of what happens, he is able, by operation of law, to earn three years worth of remission. This is the law of Canada. Every inmate is entitled to earn remission while serving time. There is a reason we have the concept of earned remission. It gives the correctional authorities in the prisons of Canada a carrot to dangle to ensure the proper conduct of an inmate. As long as an inmate has hope that his or her sentence might be reduced there is an incentive for that inmate to be of good behaviour.
If the Parole Board decides in its wisdom that this inmate is not going to be released on parole, he is entitled to be released after six years. Under Bill C-67 if this particular inmate falls within certain criteria, the National Parole Board, according to established criteria and procedures, can issue a detention order which is reviewable every year.
Using the example of the nine year sentence, let us assume that this legislation is in place and the Parole Board decides after six years that this inmate is violent and should be kept incarcerated for a further period of one year, and after that decides to keep him in again. After that there is no option. That person may be serving time in a maximum security institution. After the inmate, who has committed a violent crime, has served the nine-year sentence the doors of the prison must be opened.
Imagine the situation, Mr. Speaker. Imagine what is going through the mind of that individual. He committed a crime and was sentenced to prison for nine years. He was refused parole after three years and was possibly turned down on a number of occasions after that. The National Parole Board decided to issue a detention order a first and second time and then the doors are flung open. He goes from maximum security to the streets.
June 18, 1986

One must think what we are doing in this particular case. What is that person to do? We have no authority or control over that individual. We cannot attach any conditions to his release. We cannot say that he must spend time at a half-way house in order to learn life skills. We cannot prescribe that the individual must continue to reside in a particular community. The state loses complete control over that individual.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is referring to an individual whose warrant expires and who is then out in the community without any form of supervision. I wonder if 1 might have unanimous consent to ask the Hon. Member to elaborate on a proposal he made some time ago with respect to the status of these individuals-


John Horton McDermid: Order!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent to allow the Hon. Member to ask a question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Therefore, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) continues in debate.


John V. Nunziata: It is rather unfortunate that we heard so many noes from across the way. Here is our opportunity to-


John Horton McDermid: We are enjoying your speech too much. We do not want to waste it.


John V. Nunziata: -debate this legislation. The Hon. Member for Burnaby would like an explanation on a particular point and Hon. Members opposite are refusing to allow him the opportunity to ask a question.


John Horton McDermid: He already did. Give us the answer.


John V. Nunziata: In any event, the facts speak for themselves in so far as where the Conservative Government stands regarding this democratic institution and trying to make it work.


John Horton McDermid: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I think it is very clear where this Government stands on the democratic process. We have now allowed the Hon. Member to babble on for an hour.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: That is not a point of order, of course.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I very much resent that particular Hon. Member of Parliament standing up, as he rarely does, to babble. He does not have the courage to stand up and make submissions or represent the constituents of Brampton-Georgetown. He has never had the nerve, of course, over the last two years to do so. He continually persists in interrupting Hon. Members when they are speaking. If he does not want to sit here and listen and participate in the
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
debate, I simply ask him to go home, go to bed, and not wake up.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. With the greatest respect to the Chair, there is a rule of relevance in this House. I wish the Hon. Member would stay with it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair feels that the Member has been most relevant so far in the debate.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, for the Hon. Member to stand up and suggest that I am not being relevant would suggest that he should clean his ears out. I have been trying to lay out what led up to the introduction of this legislation. The moment I start quoting Shakespeare, he can stand up in his seat and suggest I am not being relevant. However, I suggest to him that when I do begin to quote Shakespeare-


John Horton McDermid: In many instances Shakespeare would be more relevant.


John V. Nunziata: -I will continue to be relevant. Whether it is nobler in the mind to suffer the slings and arrows of outrageous fortune or to put up with a sea of Conservatives, I suggest it is well worth the fight and we are enjoying it immensely. We will take the slings and arrow any time-


Sheila Maureen Copps: The quality of mercy is not strained-


John Horton McDermid: Tell them what to say, Sheila.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Would the Hon. Member get back to the Bill, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I was being serenaded by my friend and colleague from Hamilton East. It is a pleasure to note that she has now graced-


Sheila Maureen Copps: And the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow).


John V. Nunziata: And the Conservative Member for Calgary South, who has been listening very attentively to my speech over the course of the last hour. I know she will have a whole host of questions to ask once I have completed my speech. However, I would like to welcome my colleague from Hamilton East to the House for this evening's debate. I know she would like to participate.
Getting back to my submissions-


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: About time.


Sheila Maureen Copps: To be or not to be.


John V. Nunziata: To be or not to be. Before I was politely interrupted by the Hon. Member for Burnaby, we were talking about an individual sentenced to a nine-year term of imprisonment, denied parole on a number of occasions, and, given Bill C-67, being forced to spend the rest of his sentence in prison. I

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
asked Hon. Members opposite, including the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid), and I will repeat myself because I know that at times it is difficult for that Hon. Member to understand, given his obtuse nature, that if you open the gates of the prison-


Svend Johannes Robinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, with great respect to my friend from York South-Weston, I wonder if the reference to the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown (Mr. McDermid) as obtuse is really parliamentary. It may be accurate but is it parliamentary?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I do not consider that to be a point of order. Would the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) please continue in debate.


John Horton McDermid: Very serious debate.


John V. Nunziata: Given the fact that the Hon. Member for Brampton-Georgetown did not respond, I am sure he agrees with me when I call him obtuse. He has been called obtuse in the past and if the shoe fits, wear it. Res ipsa loquitur, as they say.
We then have this person who has served nine years of his life in prison. We then open the prison doors because by law he must be released into society. Imagine for a moment this person who has not seen freedom in nine years. He has been kept incarcerated, perhaps in a segregated unit, for nine years. He has to be released into society with no conditions, no supervision, and no ability to exercise any kind of control. I suggest that what the system is doing in that case is nursing a time bomb. Over the nine years this individual has built up resentment, hate and vindictiveness which he might not otherwise have done. You then release him into society. Would it be any wonder if he committed another crime when he was released?
We have to take into consideration the fact that at some point in time, in line with Bill C-67, the inmate has to be released. If the purpose of this legislation is to protect society, we cannot say that we are at least protecting society for another three years in this case. I submit that we might very well be increasing the chance that this inmate will commit another violent crime. If you just release him from maximum security prison into the community, the likelihood of his committing another crime is enhanced. Simple logic will tell you that. I suggest that society would be better off, and there would be less likelihood of this person committing another crime, if there were a method by which some type of control could be exercised over the individual after he was released into society.
Those facts were taken into consideration some 16 years ago. Over the years we have had a number of commissions which have considered the concept of prisons and release and parole and mandatory supervision. We can go back to 1956, 30 years ago, when we had La Commission Fauteux which studied this particular area. In 1969 there was the Ouimet Commission.

This Commission also examined this issue, Mr. Speaker.
Then in 1972 we had the Huguesson Commission that studied this whole area of correctional law. In 1974 we had the Goldenberg Commission. All four commissions recommended that there should be a period of supervision after you release an inmate into society. That is a major factor that this Government should take into consideration.
The Solicitor General might argue that with the case of the nine-year prison term the National Parole Board might simply keep the person incarcerated for two extra years and in the ninth year of his prison term might decide to release him and attach certain conditions of residency, conditions that the individual not consume alcohol, smoke cigarettes or dope, or whatever the case might be.
How is society being served by keeping an individual incarcerated? That is the question we have to ask. The administration preceding this Conservative administration appointed a special committee to look into the whole area of sentencing. It became known as the Canadian Sentencing Commission. It was originally known as the Sinclair Commission named after a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario. For health reasons he could not complete his task, and Judge Archambault, who was an expert in this area, was appointed to carry on the work of Mr. Justice Sinclair.
The previous Liberal Government felt it important that we look into the whole concept of sentencing. It relates to the legislation very directly because what we are dealing with here is the other end. After a crime has been committed an individual is convicted beyond a reasonable doubt and then he is sentenced. What we are dealing with in Bill C-67 is the release after the inmate has served his or her sentence.
The Canadian Sentencing Commission is going to consider sentencing procedures in Canada. I am sure a lot of Members recall a few weeks ago a special report on the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation program on, The Journal, where the disparity in sentencing across Canada was looked into. The show had four or five different cases of varying degrees of manslaughter. It was pointed out that the sentences ranged from no period of incarceration for manslaughter to a lengthy period of incarceration of some 15 or 20 years. The crimes were then compared. There was one crime where a father literally shook his child to death. He was convicted of manslaughter. There was another case where an individual somehow pushed a friend over a balcony after a period of drinking and was given a particular sentence. What the program pointed out in a vivid fashion was that there is a very serious disparity in sentencing in Canada.
Judges have no rules by which to guide themselves when they hand out sentences. The Journal concluded with an interview with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of
June 18, 1986

Ontario. He said he would welcome guidelines. He said he did not want to be too restricted in his judicial discretion, but he would appreciate guidelines.
Before being elected to the House of Commons I had the opportunity for a few short years to practise some criminal law. I found in my limited experience that there was, indeed, a problem with the disparity in sentencing. I could sit in a court of law on any given morning and watch a judge banging his gavel in case after case of drunk driving, for example, handing out a particular sentence, and walking into the next courtroom and then handing out a sentence which might be doubled or tripled.
There are those who suggest that there should be a median where the judge would have the flexibility to go 25 per cent one way or the other. As you know, there are very few crimes in Canada that carry a minimum prison sentence. First degree murder has a mandatory prison term of life imprisonment with parole eligibility after 25 years. With the exception of murder and, perhaps, a second offence of drunk driving and importing narcotics, all the other crimes in the Criminal Code of Canada would allow a judge to permit a person who is convicted of a crime, other than those mentioned, to walk away without a period of incarceration. The person could be released with an absolute discharge, a conditional discharge, required to be released on probation, fined or compelled to perform community service work. That is happening more frequently. My experience is with the Province of Ontario where, more often, judges are requiring those convicted of crimes to provide service to the community by working for voluntary organizations or municipal Governments, rather than sending them to prison.
Given the very nature of the sentencing procedure in Canada, the court has considerable discretion in handing out different types of sentences. Even though there is no minimum sentence for a particular crime, there is always a maximum sentence, so that in the worst possible case, the judge has the authority to impose the maximum sentence. Depending on a decreasing scale of seriousness, the person could be given a reduced prison term.
A few years ago it was felt that our sentencing procedure in Canada needed very drastic reform, given the disparity of sentencing. Therefore, the commission was established and, as I understand it, it is required to report in the near future. I am sure that once the commission reports, its recommendations will be far-reaching and the House will no doubt give thorough consideration to the report. It could very well result in some drastic changes in our prisons and further changes to mandatory supervision.
There are those in society who recognize the problem of sentences. There are also some very responsible people in society who are advocating total abolition of parole. At first glance, one would ask what type of madness would lead one to
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
advocate abolishing parole, since it is a system that has been with us for hundreds of years.
According to the President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, Canada should abolish parole, time off from prison for good behaviour, and fixed minimum sentences as part of a major overhaul of the way criminals are sentenced. This was stated by the President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, Mr. Justice Allen Linden. He is a very learned individual and a former professor of law and colleague of yours, Mr. Speaker, at Osgoode Hall law school.


Lynn McDonald: And a good Liberal.


John V. Nunziata: A good Liberal and a good friend of mine. He was one of my professors and he taught me well in the law.


John Horton McDermid: You were doing fine until then.


John V. Nunziata: I hear some laughter across the way. Are Members opposite in some way impugning the integrity of the President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, a justice of the Supreme Court of Ontario?


John Horton McDermid: No, just one of his students.


John V. Nunziata: I am advised by one of my colleagues that one of the more senior members of the Conservative Cabinet did not even get through law school. We know that certain sons and daughters of Cabinet Ministers did not quite make it the first time around either. However, that is another story altogether.
Perhaps we can get serious for a moment, as the Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is suggesting. I think Calgary is a very lovely city and I understand there was a beautiful chinook there today.


John Horton McDermid: Do you know where it is?


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. Member opposite asks me if I know where it is. He does not even know where the end of his nose is at times.


John Horton McDermid: That was a zinger.


John V. Nunziata: Getting back to Bill C-67, Mr. Justice Linden, President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada, has done an absolute superb job over the last years, notwithstanding the suggestion that he might, in some fashion, be supportive of the Liberal Party. He has done very positive work and the Law Reform Commission has presented some very progressive discussion papers during the course of his tenure. Some of those recommendations have become legislation.
I want to quote Mr. Justice Allen Linden, who taught me torts in law school. I will never forget-


An Hon. Member:: I hope they are not cooking them.

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


John V. Nunziata: We are not talking about tarts, we are talking about torts. Tarts are tasty; torts are costly.
When referring to the parole, time off from prison for good behaviour, and fixed minimum sentence, Mr. Justice Linden said: "These mechanisms unnecessarily distort and complicate the process of sentencing". This suggestion is made by a judge of the Supreme Court of Ontario and President of the Law Reform Commission of Canada. He is a very responsible individual who served with distinction during his tenure as an active member of the judiciary. He is saying, as a judge, that we should abolish these mechanisms because they unnecessarily distort and complicate the process.
What did Mr. Justice Linden mean? Perhaps it is even presumptious of me to try to determine what the justice meant, but I think it is obvious.
Let us again consider the case of the individual who was sentenced to nine years. Let us assume that the jury decides to convict this person beyond a reasonable doubt for a particular crime that this person has committed. The judge has the responsibility to sentence this individual. Let us assume that there is no minimum sentence for the crime that was committed. What factors must the judge take into consideration and what factors is he allowed to take into consideration when sentencing this individual for that particular crime?
Before sentencing the individual, the judge will hear from the Crown prosecutor and defence counsel as to sentence. Unless an agreement has been struck between the Crown prosecutor and defence counsel, the Crown prosecutor will invariably argue for a lengthy period of incarceration. First, he will argue that the crime was violent and that the individual has shown no remorse. He will say that there must be specific deterrents, but more important, general deterrents so that this person could be made an example to society at large. He will then describe the crime and may bring forward witnesses to suggest that this person is of bad character. If the individual has a criminal record, the Crown prosecutor will introduce that as evidence.
On the other hand, defence counsel will try to convince the judge that he or she should hand down the minimum sentence, taking into consideration a number of factors. Of course, defence counsel will emphasize certain factors and de-emphasize others. He might bring forward character witnesses to say what a fine individual this person was, what a fine family person, et cetera. Then he might cite a number of cases involving similar circumstances to support his position that a lenient sentence must be handed down.
After the Crown prosecutor and defence counsel make their submissions, perhaps including various reports, such as medical reports, the judge must then decide what sentence should be handed down for this individual, taking into account these submissions by the two adversaries in our court system. Of course, he will reach back into his experience over the
years. He might have heard a similar case just prior to this one and might use that as a yardstick. He then must make a decision as to the length of the particular sentence. As one can well appreciate, it is not a perfect art, but a sentence must be handed down.
The reason I have spoken at some length about sentencing is that even though the rules of law might state that a judge should not take parole or mandatory supervision into consideration, judges are human beings, and a judge will take into consideration the fact that the person he is about to send to prison will become eligible for parole after a period of time. This is exactly what Mr. Justice Allen Linden meant when he said that these mechanisms unnecessarily distort and complicate the process of sentencing, because in the back of the judge's mind-


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. The Hon. Member has referred to considerations which judges will examine in imposing sentence. I wonder if I might seek the unanimous consent of the House to ask the Hon. Member a question with respect to a study that was done of sentencing and the factors which are taken into consideration during sentencing, a study which showed very


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Prior to the Hon. Member asking his question, will unanimous consent be given?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Unfortunately for the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), there is no unanimous consent. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) may continue with debate.


John V. Nunziata: Once again, Mr. Speaker, we find that Conservative Members of Parliament are stifling debate, yet once again-


Some Hon. Members:: Stifling?


John V. Nunziata: Well, Mr. Speaker, they invoked closure today with respect to Bill C-96. Unfortunately for them, they do not have the opportunity to end the debate, but they are attempting to stifle the debate.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby, who has been listening very attentively for the last hour and a half-


An Hon. Member:: When he's in the House.


John V. Nunziata: -had some very important questions that he would have liked to ask.


An Hon. Member:: Where is he now? In the Press Club?


John V. Nunziata: And we have found that over the course of the last few hours, all that Conservative Members of Parliament can do is to continue to heckle and try to disrupt the
June 18, 1986

proceedings of the House. I must admit, it is not true concerning the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow), and that is quite clear. There are the odd Members of Parliament on the Conservative side who are responsible and have taken considerable interest, and so the Hon. Member has said to her Conservative colleagues across the way, "Let us get serious".


An Hon. Member:: We are all very responsible here.


John V. Nunziata: Returning to the subject of Bill C-67, as Mr. Justice Linden pointed out, these mechanisms unnecessarily distort and complicate the process of sentencing; because a judge will know, when he sentences an individual to up to nine years in prison, that after six years, by operation of law, as a result of earned remission, that individual will have to be released into society. Obviously, that must be a consideration, even though there might be some rule that states he is not to take into consideration such factors. Not only will a judge- because a judge is a human being-take that fact into consideration, but a judge will also take into consideration the potential for parole. Therefore, when a judge hands down a sentence of nine years, he knows that the person will be out in six years.
Now that we are introducing Bill C-67, can Your Honour see how the Bill will further distort and complicate the process of sentencing? Whereas prior to Bill C-67 a judge would know full well, within a high degree of certainty, that an individual would be released after serving two-thirds of his or her sentence, with Bill C-67, a judge would no longer know that. I would very respectfully submit that that would affect sentencing. That is why I also mention the sentencing commission; because when the sentencing commission comes down with its report, it will no doubt consider parole and mandatory supervision. Your Honour might find that once the Archam-bault Commission hands down its report, this Parliament, once again, will have to consider this particular area.
It might very well be that before this particular Parliament rises to go to the polls once again, we might again be considering this legislation, or legislation that will affect the whole concept of mandatory supervision and parole.
Mr. Justice Linden made these comments in October of 1985 in a paper prepared for a seminar of the Candian Institute for the Administration of Justice. That was several months after this legislation was introduced in the House, in June of 1985, but it was before or during committee consideration.
In the place of the existing system of sentencing Mr. Justice Linden proposes one that would outline typical sentences for normal examples of each criminal offence. What does the justice mean? He means that instead of having a system where one simply stipulates the maximum sentence as found in the Criminal Code of Canada for a particular crime, or the minimum sentence in the odd case when one is dealing with the importation of narcotics or a second offence for drunk driving or for murder, there would be a system which would
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
outline simply a typical sentence for normal examples of each criminal offence.
There are degrees of violence, or degrees of offences. All murder is not alike. As Your Honour knows, one can commit murder by pulling a trigger and firing a single bullet. One can commit murder by stabbing an individual with a single thrust. Then, again, one can commit murder by blowing up a house in which there is a person, or by blowing up a car in which there is a person. There are various methods by which one can commit murder.
As well, of every crime that is outlined in the Criminal Code, there are those that can be committed in an uglier fashion than others. What the judge is saying is that there should be a "normal" example of each criminal offence. The judge could then distinguish or deviate from that example, depending upon the seriousness of the crime. Mr. Justice Linden says that there is too much disparity in sentencing. In effect, he confirms the report which was aired on CBC's The Journal. He says that judges are told what sentence to impose in the worst case of each crime and that sometimes they are given no choice in imposing a minimum sentence as well.
However, he said, quite correctly, that there are no guidelines for normal cases. I submit that judges who deal with criminal matters in Canada would welcome and appreciate guidelines, some direction, some assistance. This is the reason why, prior to sentencing an individual, a judge will ask the Crown prosecutor and counsel for the accused for submissions in order to gain some assistance to help him or her decide what type of sentence should be handed out. I am certain that most judges would welcome some type of guidelines. The guidelines might very well suggest that the judge take into consideration parole or mandatory supervision. We know that Mr. Justice Linden has advocated the total abolition of that; but there are ways of retaining the present system, I would suggest, while providing guidelines for judges.
Lor instance, Mr. Justice Linden says that hijacking, manslaughter, aggravated robbery and aggravated sexual assault should be among those offences calling for a benchmark sentence of seven years. Mr. Justice Linden explains that the bench-mark sentence would be the typical sentence. He is saying that if someone is convicted of hijacking, manslaughter, aggravated robbery or aggravated sexual assault then the bench-mark sentence would be seven years. He goes on to argue in the paper he presented to the Canadian Insitute for the Administration of Justice that judges should still be free to make an individual sentence lighter or tougher as the circumstances warrant. In his paper he condemns the out-dated sentences provided in the Criminal Code. He applauded the fact that the previous Liberal administration commissioned a royal commission to study the whole concept of sentencing.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, and as I pointed out earlier, criminal law provides for sentences up to and including life imprisonment for breaking and entering, even though only 55

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
per cent of those convicted of such a charge are actually jailed. Is it any wonder that there was a necessity, and is a necessity still, to review these out-dated sentences in the Criminal Code? I do not think that there would be too many people in Canada who would argue that breaking and entering should carry a prison term of life imprisonment.
Mr. Justice Linden also states in his report that our sentencing principles and practices are antiquated, complex and based on a multitude of differing philosophies. Most important, they are often unfair. Some of the factors considered by judges when imposing sentence may be clearly discriminatory. He states that employment is often cited as a mitigating factor and that the unemployed may therefore receive less lenient treatment. He asks this question: "Is this bias appropriate?" Mr. Justice Linden points out that the ideas he puts forth in his paper are his own and not necessarily those of the Law Reform Commission of Canada.
The reason I felt it necessary to comment on some of the suggestions made by Mr. Justice Linden is because in my mind it is important to consider when we are dealing with Bill C-67 what is happening when a judge is sentencing an individual. I believe it is important to understand that at the time of sentencing judges take into consideration a number of factors, including the fact that the particular individual would at some point in time be released on mandatory supervision.
As I pointed out a few moments ago, there have been four separate commissions which have studied this whole area, one in 1956, one in 1969, one in 1972 and one in 1974. I would commend to all Members a discussion paper entitled "Mandatory Supervision, a Discussion Paper". It is a report of the Committee on Mandatory Supervision dated March, 1981. It is a very thorough report prepared for the then Solicitor General of Canada, the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan). At that time he felt it important to have his Department thoroughly consider the concept of mandatory supervision. The concept was in force for approximately 11 years at that point in time, but there were problems with it. It was felt that it was important to study the area in order for the Department to come up with suggestions.
This particular report looks into the history of mandatory supervision. It points out that the concept of mandatory supervision began in the United States in the 1950s. It points out that in the United States in the 1950s there was a growing belief in the corrective value of release on parole and the control and assistance provided by parole supervision. A national conference on parole convened by the United States Attorney General in 1956 recommended the same conditions and supervision for those being released as a result of remission.
The Canadian delegates to this conference returned to Canada with this recommendation. Some 14 years and several task forces later mandatory supervision was instituted in Canada, in August of 1970. As Hon. Members know several committees and commissions, the National Parole Board and
the police identified the need for a program to provide supervision of all inmates released from prison.
This Bill could very well have the effect of ensuring that there would be no supervision whatsoever, if an individual is kept incarcerated until warrant expiry. I will not refer to this particular report at length. However, I commend it to Members of Parliament, for those who would like a thorough understanding of the history of mandatory supervision in order to understand the problems associated with it and to understand some of the statistics that have been compiled with regard to it. No doubt this report is available from the Department of the Solicitor General.
I would once again like to make it absolutely clear and certain that the Liberal Party does not object in principle to this legislation. I had a discussion with the Solicitor General about a particular provision of the Bill with which the Liberal Party is very concerned. I understand as well that the New Democratic Party is also very concerned with this provision which would allow the National Parole Board to make a decision with regard to whether or not a detention order should issue.
U0)
Before I refer to the report of the Senate committee that pre-studied this legislation, I would like to briefly describe how the legislation would work. As the Solicitor General pointed out, the National Parole Board will be given the opportunity under the legislation to decide in certain cases whether or not an inmate should be released. The National Parole Board first will consider the type of offence the particular inmate was serving.
The Schedule to Bill C-67 outlines what offences should be considered by the National Parole Board. Basically, the legislation would provide an opportunity for the National Parole Board to consider those inmates who are serving time for violent offences. There is a list of some 20 to 25 offences included in the Schedule. The list includes causing injury with intent, the use of a firearm during the commission of an offence, pointing a firearm, prison breach, manslaughter, attempt to commit murder, causing bodily harm with intent, overcoming resistance to the commission of an offence, assault, assault with a weapon or causing bodily harm, aggravated assault, unlawfully causing bodily harm, assaulting peace officer, sexual assault, sexual assault with a weapon, threats to a third party or causing bodily harm, aggravated sexual assault, kidnapping, robbery, arson, setting fire to other substances, setting fire by negligence and conspiracy to commit murder.
If an inmate is serving time for one of those particular offences which are considered to be violent in nature, the National Parole Board has the authority to decide whether or not that particular inmate should be subjected to a detention order which would be in effect for the period of one year. The inmate could have that detention order reviewed after the first year.
June 18, 1986

The Bill would authorize the National Parole Board, according to established criteria and procedures, to retain in custody until warrant expiry or place under strict residential conditions those inmates considered to pose a clear risk of violent conduct beyond a release date that would have been established by earned remission. In the case of which I was speaking earlier, after six years the authorities would have the opportunity to keep that person incarcerated. This legislation would allow inmates convicted of the violent offences specified by the criteria only one chance for release on mandatory supervision by denying them the opportunity to earn remission following a revocation of a first release.
You will note, Mr. Speaker, that the Senate committee that pre-studied Bill C-67 had some very serious concerns with regard to what is known as one-shot mandatory supervision. In a few moments, I will refer to the report of the Senate which made some very persuasive arguments as to why there should not be one-shot mandatory supervision.
Bill C-67 would establish procedural safeguards and criteria that would limit the application of the measures to only the most dangerous offenders. That is according to the Solicitor General. The legislation would assure that the procedures and practices of the National Parole Board complied with the duty to act fairly and provide equality of treatment and to equip the Board to manage better its operations.
Perhaps I can digress for a moment and comment briefly on the National Parole Board. Notwithstanding the fact that at times the appointments of various members of the National Parole Board have been labelled as partisan in nature, I for one believe that for the most part, the National Parole Board is doing an extremely effective job. As we all know, the sister of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), Marcia Clark, is a member of the National Parole Board.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Is that Simma Holt you're talking about? Don't you criticize Simma.


Mr. Daubney:: What about Keith Davey's wife, 20-year appointment?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No, I don't want you to get personal.


John V. Nunziata: The Government House Leader who is not sitting in his seat-I am not sure if that is because he was demoted-referred to Simma Holt, a former member of the National Parole Board, who was dumped unceremoniously by this insensitive Conservative Government in order to give the Government the opportunity to appoint one of its own. Another Conservative Member of Parliament suggested that the wife of a Senator was appointed to the Board. I did point out that in the very near past, appointments have been partisan in nature but we have not overly criticized those appointments. The moment I started to talk about the composition of the National Parole Board, we heard from Members opposite talking about Liberal appointments to the National Parole Board.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Do you want to throw in the towel on Rod Blaker?


John V. Nunziata: I can speak at length about Conservative appointments to the National Parole Board. As I was saying, the sister of the Secretary of State for External Affairs and former Prime Minister, Marcia Clark, was appointed to the National Parole Board representing-


Barbara Jane (Bobbie) Sparrow: Sister-in-law.


John V. Nunziata: The Hon. member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) indicates that it was the sister-in-law of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Marcia Clark. Marcia married Joe's brother, in other words.


Mr. Merrithew:: Brilliant deduction.


John V. Nunziata: The point I am trying to make is that under Bill C-67, we are giving authority to the National Parole Board to determine whether or not a particular individual should be deprived of his or her liberty. For the last few moments, we have heard from Members opposite through their heckles about the partisan nature of appointments to the National Parole Board. It is true that individuals have been appointed to the National Parole Board because of family connections, whether it is being the sister-in-law of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, the wife of a Senator or a former Member of Parliament. That causes me concern and it should cause concern to each and every Hon. Member. Do we want to give the ultimate authority to the National Parole Board to decide to deprive an individual of his or her liberty?
There are those people who would argue that that is what they are doing, that is their job, and that they must decide whether or not an inmate should be released on parole. However, there is a difference. An individual released on parole is not entitled by law to be released on parole. An individual who is released on parole is released on certain conditions, and that parole can be revoked if the conditions are not met. On the other hand, mandatory supervision means that an individual is released by the operation of law; by the laws of Canada an individual who is serving a period of incarceration must be released.
There are those people who would argue that the ultimate authority on whether or not an individual should be released, after the date on which he or she becomes entitled to release by virtue of the earned remission provisions of various pieces of legislation, is the court. That final decision, it is argued, should be a decision of the court. The court, at first instance, makes the decision on how long a period of time the individual should be incarcerated. That one provision is the provision which most offends Members of Parliament on this side of the House.
We appreciate and support the thrust of this piece of legislation. We support the general principles which form the

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
basis of the legislation, but we are very concerned about the fact that there is not judicial determination of detention.
When the Solicitor General spoke, he indicated that this particular piece of legislation would only affect a handful of the 11,000 inmates in federal prison. Those were his precise words. He said: "Perhaps about a hundred a year". He was not quite certain about how many inmates would in fact be affected by the legislation. That was a bit surprising. One would have thought that given the fact the Solicitor General was introducing this important legislation, he would at least have some idea about how many individuals would be affected. He was not able to tell us; he said that it would be perhaps a hundred, a handful. If that is the case, if we are only dealing with a hundred individuals, then why not allow the courts to make the decision?
When I spoke with the Solicitor General shortly after Question Period today, he indicated that it would make this system too cumbersome. He argued that if these matters were referred to a court for final determination, there would be a tremendous backlog. How could there be a backlog if we are only considering about a hundred a year, spread across Canada? Is it too much to ask that the judiciary make the final determination? In that way we can be assured that there is ultimate fairness in this particular situation.
We are not arguing that violent offenders should be released into the community. As I indicated earlier, we want to ensure that society is protected and that society will be protected even if the inmate serves his or her full sentence and then is released into the community.
As the Solicitor General pointed out, the Senate considered this legislation and tabled two reports, one of which was dated May 14, 1986 and the other of which was dated June 12, 1986, less than a week ago. Well, we heard from the Solicitor General, and he seemed to be blaming the Senate for the delay in bringing forward this Bill. I have here the Senate's twenty-first report which was given to the Solicitor General over a month ago, on May 14, 1986. Even though he had the authority and jurisdiction to complete all stages of Bill C-67 before that period of time, he suggested something which was quite laughable. He suggested that one of the reasons he waited so long to bring forward the Bill was that he wanted the Senate to pre-study it. The Senate pre-studied the Bill.
If he were sincere about giving the Senate the opportunity to pre-study the Bill, in order to receive submissions, ideas, and recommendations on amendments to the Bill, why would he totally dismiss the recommendations of the Senate? I would suggest that the whole process of pre-study as enunciated by the Solicitor General was a farce, and that the Solicitor General did not in any way intend to listen to the Senate. He has spoken on a number of occasions in a very disparaging and derogatory fashion about the Senate. Why would he start listening to the Senate now?
I should like to commend the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I am sure the Hon.
Member for Burnaby, who has listened very attentively to my submissions, will stand in his place when his opportunity comes and will commend the Senate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That hurts.


John V. Nunziata: He says that that would hurt. The Hon. Member for Burnaby represents a political Party which likely will never, ever-


Svend Johannes Robinson: Go to the Senate.


John V. Nunziata: -form a national Government in all likelihood; it might form a coalition Government some time in the future.


An Hon. Member:: With the Grits.


John V. Nunziata: With the Conservative Party, of course. He is a member of a Party which advocated the abolition of the Senate. I know, with all the certainty I can command, that that Member will stand and congratulate the Senate, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I know he will do that because he unequivocally agrees with each and every recommendation which the Senate committee made on Bill C-67 in its twenty-first and twenty-second reports. Who would suggest that the Senate does not work? As of June 12, it had submitted 22 reports; that is a lot more than many committees.


Mr. Althouse:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could Your Honour give us the final indication from the House Leaders on whether we will be adjourning for the night at 10 p.m. or at 10.21 p.m. if we take the ministerial statement into account?


Mr. Speaker:: All the Chair can tell the Hon. Member is that at the moment the Chair understands the House will be sitting until 10.21 p.m.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to speak at length. I note that certain Conservative Members of Parliament are encouraging me to continue with my submissions. I would be very pleased to but I am about to wrap up.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Rare is the case when Conservative Members of Parliament will applaud me.


Some Hon. Members:: Sit down.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The Hon. Member has not ceased speaking. I accept that. I am simply indicating to the Hon. Member and others that the Hon. Member has the right to be heard in order.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Earlier this day the Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray), our House Leader,
June 18, 1986

was given standing applause because he has served 24 years in the House of Commons, a very distinguished record. I would just like to point out that I only have to wait 22 more years to get standing applause from Members opposite as well.


Mr. Blenkarn:: You won't be here.


John V. Nunziata: If I were a betting man, which I am not, I would bet on the number of Conservative Members who will be re-elected in the next election. You can be darned sure, Mr. Speaker, you can bet your mortgage and your bottom dollar, that you will not have 209 Conservative Members elected in the next Parliament. It was an aberration in Canadian political history never to be repeated again.


Mr. Speaker:: With great respect, the Chair does believe that the Hon. Member is stretching the rules of relevancy slightly with these comments.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, what I mean to say is that given the type of legislation which the Government is introducing, an example of which is Bill C-67, is it any wonder that the Government will go down to the greatest defeat ever in the history of Canada?
Mr. Speaker, if I can become serious for a moment-


Henry Perrin Beatty: I doubt that.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John V. Nunziata: This is serious legislation. I know the hour is late and I promise I will not speak beyond 10.21. I will conclude my remarks. I want to touch on only one or two other areas and then I intend to resume my seat in order to give Members of the House an opportunity to ask questions.
I would like to refer to the twenty-first report of the Senate committee which is dated May 14, 1986. However, before referring to this report, I would like to point out that the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs is not a study group or task force of the Minister. The Minister would have us in this House and all Canadians believe that the Senate committee was a creature of his Ministry, that somehow he created that committee to consider this legislation. The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs does not report to the Solicitor General of Canada contrary to what the Solicitor General of Canada might like or believe or want. It is a committee of the Senate and reports to the Senate. Perhaps in the future the Solicitor General could keep that in mind when he refers to this particular committee.
The Standing Committee of the Senate was referred the subject matter of Bill C-67 in advance of it coming before the Senate. Pursuant to the rules of this House and pursuant to Parliamentary tradition it is possible to refer a Bill to the Senate of Canada in order to allow pre-study of it. The Senate was asked to give some sober pre-thought to Bill C-67. I would like to commend the committee for the work it did on Bill C-67. It did not simply read Bill C-67 through and submit a
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
report. This is not a lengthy piece of legislation. It is comprised of only 19 pages.
The Senate called a great number of witnesses. It listened to the various interest groups involved including the John Howard Society, the Elizabeth Fry Society, correctional officials and a great many other groups and organizations. In addition to listening, the committee considered reports from various groups and organizations. It also went to a number of prisons in order to talk to inmates, wardens, guards, and other people associated with the prison system.
After consideration of Bill C-67, the committee decided to submit an interim report which is the twenty-first report. It is pointed out that the report was not intended to be exhaustive and that the committee would continue its prestudy of the Bill pursuant to the order of reference. In its twenty-first report the Senate committee pointed out four areas of concern. The first area of paramount concern is the area which causes the Liberal Opposition in this House considerable difficulty, that is the issue of judicial determination of detention. With your permission, Mr. Speaker, I would like to indicate what the committee had to say with respect to this very important issue.
It said that the first issue has to do with the question of what is the appropriate body to make decisions with respect to the detention of allegedly dangerous inmates beyond the date of their eligibility for release on mandatory supervision. It was the opinion of the committee that the legislation should reflect the principle approved by the Senate when it adopted Bill S-32, on June 6, 1983, in the first session of the thirty-second Parliament, namely that the court rather than the National Parole Board should make decisions respecting the continued incarceration of inmates who would otherwise be eligible for release on mandatory supervision. The committee said that having heard the comments of the Solicitor General with respect to the appropriateness of the board taking on this responsibility it must, with respect, disagree.
While recognizing that the legislation attempts to ensure that inmates are afforded the best procedural safeguards available to administrative tribunals, the committee was still of the view that such decisions affecting, as they do, the liberty of individuals are more appropriately addressed in a judicial rather than administrative forum where affected inmates would have recourse to all the procedural rights and protections available in the criminal courts as well as the distinct right of appeal.
That in a nutshell is what the Senate committee had to say about this very important issue. Senator Earl Hastings is a member of that committee and I would like to publicly thank him for his involvement. For quite a number of years he has had a very keen interest in this area. I know this legislation is very important to him. He has closely monitored the Bill through all stages and on a number of occasions he attended committee to hear testimony.

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
The House of Commons committee which dealt with Bill C-67 also heard from the John Howard Society. That organization indicated its opposition to the enactment of this or similiar legislation. They submitted a brief and I would like to read from that brief. The Society said it was its intention to suggest amendments which would lessen the problems associated with the Bill as it currently stands. It did so at the request of a number of Members of Parliament who felt the Bill will pass in some form but may be subject to modification. They believed that the Solicitor General would listen. He indicated on a number of occasions that he would but, as you know, the Minister did not attend committee. I suggest that was a betrayal.
I now want to refer to the section of their brief dealing specifically with the issue of judicial determination of detention. They say, in reference to the enormous authority which Bill C-67 vests in the Parole Board, that they believe special safeguards are necessary to ensure the authority is used fairly and judiciously. For that reason, and because the Bill has the effect of lengthening the term of incarceration beyond that which the court anticipated, they recommended that the prisoner designated by the Parole Board to come under the special provisions of this Bill have the right to appeal the decision to a court of law. The appeal court must have authority to reverse the decision of the Parole Board.
What the Society is recommending very strongly is that this discretionary power should rest with the courts. They believe that would make the system a lot fairer. Yet once again the Solicitor General has totally and absolutely disregarded their very persuasive arguments. The Minister will often stand in his place and applaud the work of the Society. He will stand up and congratulate them. He will tell them what wonderful work they are doing. He would not hesitate to try and score some political points by applauding the Society. However, when it gets down to the crunch, he totally disregards them and tells the Society they are out to lunch, he does not agree with what they are saying.
One would hope at the very least that he would have some very persuasive arguments to put forward in order to substantiate his position that the National Parole Board should make the final decision with respect to whether or not a detention order should issue. We have not heard any persuasive arguments. I suppose he has been convinced by the sister-in-law of the Secretary of State for External Affairs that she should be given the authority, along with her colleagues in the National Parole Board. The Solicitor General certainly has not listened to the John Howard Society or the Elizabeth Fry Society, an organization which the Solicitor General would not hesitate to commend for the very fine work it does with regard to female offenders.
The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, which is an association consisting of all the Elizabeth Fry Societies across Canada, made a submission to the Senate Committee
on Legal and Constitutional Affairs with regard to the proposed amendments to the Parole Act, the Peniteniary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code. This particular submission is dated April 17, 1986. The brief consists of 35 pages.
I wonder whether the Solicitor General has taken the opportunity to read through this very worth-while brief. I would be pleased to refer a copy to him. Given the actions of the Solicitor General, it appears that he has not listened to the Elizabeth Fry Society and has not read this brief. It includes a table of contents at the front of the brief, and perhaps I can refer to it in order to indicate the depth to which the Elizabeth Fry Society went in order to try to persuade the Government of Canada and, the Solicitor General to understand their concerns.
There is an executive summary, a background and then an overview. There is a section of the brief consisting of some five pages entitled "Parole Board Review Prior to Day Parole Eligibility". There are then two pages of recommendations in that particular area. There are another 15 pages devoted to what is entitled "Parole Board Power to Detain". The members of the Elizabeth Fry Society list a number of reasons for their objections.
They object to the selection of offences, the breadth of application, the conviction and sentencing for future behaviour, disclosure of information to the prisoner, the loss of right to earn remission and the value of remission. They object because violence is not predictable. They object by reason of the vagueness of the grounds for determining likelihood for future violence. They object because of the community resource availability, and they object because of the retrospec-tivity of the legislation.
The members of the Elizabeth Fry Society have also devoted a portion of their brief to the issue of one-chance mandatory supervision, which I hope to address in due course. They also address the six-day hold without warrant provision, and then they make some technical comments. The final recommendation is to rescind mandatory supervision.
I want to refer specifically to the portion of the brief which deals with the issue of judicial determination of detention, that paramount issue that the Opposition is concerned about, and the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was concerned about. In the executive summary at page (i) of the brief of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies it says:
Bill C-67 would give new powers to the Parole Board to place a detention order on certain prisoners until warrant expiry, or until the order is lifted. These powers will effectively change the role of the Parole Board to a detaining body (which we normally leave to the courts which ensure due process)-
They go on to say the following:
The fact that the Parole Board would be able to use this detaining power in relation to anticipated rather than actual behaviour, based on criteria contained in Regulations, which are themselves broad and which can be amended without Parliamentary scrutiny, make the provision particularly offensive to existing traditions of due process within the Canadian criminal justice system. It is likely
June 18, 1986

that the new provision will also be found to contravene Section 7 of the Charier of Rights and Freedoms.
An interesting point the Elizabeth Fry Society makes is that they believe, given their experience, that the retroactivity provisions could contravene Section 7 of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. I wonder whether the Solicitor General has had the foresight to refer the legislation to some constitutional experts to determine whether or not the Bill complies with the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
The Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies at page 17 of the brief make some further submissions, specifically with regard to the concept of judicial determination of detention. I would like to quote from page 17 of the brief, which is entitled "Conviction and Sentencing for Future Behaviour". It was pointed out yesterday I believe by the Member for Burnaby quite correctly, that it is impossible to predict with any degree of certainty future behaviour. I suppose there would be those who would argue that you can predict within a certain degree. Given a certain amount of information about a particular individual, you might be able to decide whether or not this person is likely to be violent at some future point in time. It is not a science.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has referred to a report of the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs. I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent to have a copy of this important report appended to the Hansard of today's date?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member knows that such a request is not possible.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I note that the hour is ten o'clock. Is it the intention of the House to sit until 10:21?


Mr. Speaker:: I take it the Hon. Member is raising a point of order about his own speech. That is difficult, however. The House sits as long as the rules require it to sit. According to the rules, the House will sit to 10:21 p.m.


Charles Henry (Chuck) Cook: I rise on a point of order, which is out of my deep concern for the throat of the Hon. Member who has been speaking for three hours now. I wonder if I might seek unanimous consent to call it 10:21.


An Hon. Member:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: Having heard that there is not unanimous consent for that suggestion, we will resume debate. The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata).


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the fact that Members opposite would like to call it 10:21. I can give the guarantee to the Hon. Member that I will not speak beyond 10:21.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


An Hon. Member:: We will give you unanimous consent to continue.


John V. Nunziata: If I might continue, Mr. Speaker, I was beginning to enjoy it.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member has the floor.


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. At page 17 of the brief by the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies, under the heading "Conviction and Sentencing for Future Behaviour"-


An Hon. Member:: Do your job, Herb.


John V. Nunziata: Perhaps we could have some silence on the other side of the House. It is most distracting.


Mr. Taylor:: Why? You are not saying anything.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Of course, the Hon. Member is entitled to the respect from the House that he would normally give himself, I am sure, in such circumstances.


John V. Nunziata: The Elizabeth Fry Society at page 17 of their brief discusses conviction and sentencing for future behaviour.
I was commenting with regard to the Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) who said that it is like trying to predict the weather. Even the weather person, flawed as that person might be with regard to predicting the weather, is occasionally right whether or not they predict sunshine or rain. The point to be made is that even though one cannot accurately predict human behaviour with respect to future criminal or violent behaviour, it is no reason to stop trying. It is important to at least try to predict human behaviour in an attempt to ensure the greatest protection to society.
I agree that there should be some discretion and that there should be some determination as to whether or not the particular violent offender should be detained in custody. The John Howard Society also agrees, according to the brief which they submitted. The Solicitor General agrees and the New Democratic Party agrees, I believe. There are many other groups, organizations and individuals who agree with this principle.
However, we disagree about who is to make the decision. I certainly have been persuaded by the Senate committee and the submissions made by various groups and organizations that the ultimate decision should be that of the court.
Let me quote from the brief of the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies. They say:
The proposals place the Parole Board in the traditional role of a court, effectively giving it the power of conviction and sentencing, but for behaviour that has not occurred. This cannot be permitted in our justice system. Firstly, CSC's review and that of the Parole Board, based, as they would be, on behaviour that has not yet occurred, offends and sets aside a fundamental principle of justice, that of being held accountable only for behaviour that has occurred or been actively planned. Secondly, the legislated review and hearing process do not provide the safeguards that apply in court (such as right to counsel, strict rules of evidence, right of appeal, etc.) and yet the consequences of the Board review could be extremely serious for the prisoner, resulting in a

June 18, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
mandatory period of loss of liberty considerably longer than that which was anticipated in court at the time of the initial sentencing.
These two factors make the proposal unworkable; it will mostly likely be challenged under the Charter and perhaps invalidate it. It is preferable to seek societal safety in other ways.
The Elizabeth Fry Society made some very important submissions. They were ignored by the Solicitor General. Ele has ignored the Senate committee, the John Howard Society and the Elizabeth Fry Societies.
What about the Correctional Service of Canada? I want to produce a document that refers to the Correctional Service of Canada. It is entitled "Release on Mandatory Supervision of Mentally Disturbed and Dangerous Inmates". It is a report that was put together by the Correctional Service of Canada under the heading "Evaluation and Special Projects, January 8, 1985." The Correctional Service of Canada is responsible to the Solicitor General, whose predecesor introduced this legislation. His Department stated in this report that the Correctional Service of Canada encouraged the ministry to retable at an early date the proposed legislation to allow for a court review of the mandatory supervision release of dangerous offenders. They go on to state that: "It should be noted, however, that this only postpones the problem until warrant expiry, at which time it is no longer possible to make supervised release plans for these offenders.''That was stated by the Correction Service of Canada.
The Elizabeth Fry Societies, the John Howard Society, the Senate committee and even the Correctional Service of Canada argue that the court should make the ultimate decision as to whether or not an inmate should be detained until warrant expiry.
They point out that detaining an inmate until the completion of his or her sentence only postpones the problem until warrant expiry. Yet the Solicitor General of Canada cannot seem to understand that at some point an inmate will be released and that an offender who has been deemed to be violent must be released. Even though that offender would have to be released at some point down the road-and we just want to point out the difficulties-we believe that the authority should rest with the courts.
Well, enough on that point. That is the crucial point about which the Opposition is concerned. There are other concerns that were raised by the Senate committee and by the Opposition at the committee level. Briefly, if I might, in the few minutes that are remaining, I would like to-


Mr. Valcourt:: Keep on. Extend the hour.


John V. Nunziata: I note that the Conservative Member opposite has just indicated that he is prepared to extend the hour. I am prepared to carry on, if the Hon. Member wishes to continue on with the debate, if he wishes to speak. I would be pleased to resume my seat if he will give me the undertaking
that he will give this Bill the consideration that I have given this particular piece of legislation.
If I can return to the submissions I was making before I was interrupted by the Conservative Member who just woke up, the second point that was discussed in the twenty-first report of the Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs was the issue of entrenching guidelines in the legislation. The Solicitor General will argue, "Well, we listened to the Senate in that regard because we did in fact entrench some of the guidelines in the legislation". It was not enough. We argued that the guidelines should not be brought forward by way of regulation. We argued, very strenuously, that the guidelines, with regard to the whole concept of detention and the area addressed in Bill C-67, should be part of the legislation itself in order to ensure that the Governor in Council could not amend or change, almost at whim, these regulations that affect the very liberty of an individual.
What did the Senate committee state with regard to this most crucial issue? It stated, and I quote: "The second issue concerns the decision to allow the Governor in Council to make regulations dealing with guidelines with respect to detention orders, the right to assistance at hearings of the board and to such detention orders and the withholding of information from inmates subject to the detention process." Our comments on these matters would be equally applicable if the courts were the decision-makers with respect to detention orders. "The committee considers that the substance of the regulations contemplated to be made pursuant to Section 15.6 of the Parole Act as it would be amended by Bill C-67 should instead form part of the legislation itself." The proposed section would give the Governor in Council authority to make regulations establishing guidelines with respect to the application by the board of subsections 15.3(7) and 15.4()4 and Section 15.5.
"It is clear to the committee that any such guidelines will have an effect upon decisions touching personal rights and liberties and that policy directions as to how these decisions should be reached ought to be given by Parliament itself'.
I would like to underscore that, Mr. Speaker. The Senate further stated: "We hold the similar view with respect to the power to prescribe what information may be communicated to or withheld from an inmate about the evidence which will be presented at a hearing to determine whether that inmate's incarceration should be continued, and with respect to the power to determine whether an inmate is entitled to assistance at a hearing, and the kind and extent of such assistance, as well as the persons or class of persons who may provide it. In this latter regard, we note that the right to counsel was guaranteed under Bill S-32 as proceedings of this nature would have been conducted before a court. In addition, Section 15.6(2)(b) allows the Governor in Council to prescribe the offences, the commission of which will trigger an automatic review. Once again, this is a matter critical to the liberty of incarcerated individuals and, in our view, the offences should be determined by Parliament itself'.
June 18, 1986

In a very succinct fashion, the Senate, as it often does, is able to make a very persuasive argument as to why the guidelines should be entrenched in the legislation rather than being part of the regulations. I note that the Hon. Member for Calgary South (Mrs. Sparrow) is nodding in agreement, as is the Hon. Member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Witer), whose riding abuts my riding of York South-Weston.


Henry Perrin Beatty: He's nodding off to sleep.


John V. Nunziata: We are very appreciative of that, Mr. Speaker.
I have said enough with regard to the issue of entrenching guidelines in the legislation. I note that I have but a few minutes in which to speak and I have just barely touched the surface of some of the concerns, but I will terminate my submissions at 10.22 p.m.
The other very major concern put forth by the Senate committee, that was considered as well by the Elizabeth Fry Society, the John Howard Society and a number of other individuals and organizations, was the issue of limiting one-shot mandatory supervision. I referred to this particular aspect of the Bill some time ago, and I pointed out that there were concerns.
What the Senate basically had to say about this particular aspect of the Bill was that the one-shot mandatory supervision or the denial of the right to earn further remission to certain inmates whose mandatory supervision has been revoked is objectionable to the committee, and I quote from the committee report as follows: "We note that the scope of this amendment was considerably narrowed in the legislative committee of the House of Commons. Only inmates who have been made the subject of formal consideration for detention under proposed Section 15.4 of the Bill but are not detained by order of the board are to lose the right to earn further remission on reincarceration following revocation of their release on mandatory supervision".
The following is most important, Mr. Speaker: "This amendment, however, fails to take into account the criticism
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
that an inmate may have his release revoked for the contravention of terms and conditions of that release which have nothing to do with his or her perceived or potential dangerousness. Even the narrow class of inmates who would become subject to the one-shot amendment should not lose the right to earn remission by reason of a technical or minor breach of conditions which results in revocation. That right should only be lost if there is a criminal conviction while on release". That is important.
Your Honour will recall that yesterday, very specifically, the Hon. Member for Burnaby pointed this out and proposed an amendment-which was not agreed to by the Solicitor General-with regard to Clause 4 of the Bill. One might ask, what is Clause 4 all about? Under Clause 4, where an inmate is released on parole or subject to mandatory supervision-and that is what we are discussing now and that is what the Senate committee was discussing-"the inmate shall comply with any instructions given by the parole supervisor in respect of any term of condition of parole or mandatory supervision in order to prevent a breach of any such term or condition or to protect society".
The problem is that if an individual released on mandatory supervision fails to comply with the instructions, any instruction, of a parole officer, then his mandatory supervision, his release, might be revoked. If it is revoked, then the individual would not have a further opportunity for mandatory supervision. Why you might ask would one be concerned? A parole officer might say to an individual released on mandatory supervision: "I don't like the people with whom you associate. I don't want you to associate with Conservative Members of Parliament-"


Mr. Speaker:: It being 10:21 p.m., the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10:21 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Thursday, June 19, 1986