1986-06-17

Mr. Nic Leblanc (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour of tabling, in both official languages, the Third Report of the International Association of French-speaking Parliamentarians.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder whether I could receive guidance from the Chair. Yesterday the House agreed to a motion presented by myself for the tabling of a document. I was expecting that the document would then be tabled this morning, and I notice that it has not been. Perhaps the Chair could assist me, so that I could find out just how we will be receiving the document on which there was agreement in terms of tabling yesterday afternoon in the House.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member's point is certainly well taken with regard to the agreement yesterday. I presume the matter will be tabled when the matter is ready. Other than that, there is nothing more the Chair can do.


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I believe the Minister is at a meeting right now and that as soon as he returns it will be tabled this morning, or just after Question Period.


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, I take it there will be a request later to revert to tabling of documents, as a result of that information.


Mr. Towers:: Mr. Speaker, could I have unanimous consent of the House to revert to tabling of documents.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a request to revert to tablings. It is so ordered.


CORRECTIONAL INVESTIGATOR
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), I have the honour to table the 1984-85 report of the correctional investigator.


COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the third report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, in both official languages. The report deals with the Economic Council of Canada. It makes recommendations in respect of how the council should operate and congratulates the Government on the appointment of Judith Maxwell as chairman of that council.


LABOUR, EMPLOYMENT AND IMMIGRATION-NINTH REPORT OF STANDING COMMITTEE
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the ninth report of the Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration, concerning family class immigration.
In accordance with Standing Order 99(2), I request that the Government make a comprehensive response to the ninth report. The report is long and complex. It deals with the whole issue of family reunification in Canada. However, its major theme is the suggestion that for high priority family reunifications, such as spouses and dependent children, we should be able to have a processing system which enables that reunification to take place in something less than two months in almost all cases, as opposed to the current seven months or eight months on average.
It also suggest that a new class be created called the assisted family class, which would encompass over age children,
14508

June 17, 1986
Petitions
married over age children, and brothers and sisters, and would make it easier for them to immigrate to Canada to join their nuclear family and to contribute, as they always do, to the making of this nation.
There are many other recommendations, but Hon. Members will have to read them.
[Editor's Note: See Today's Votes and Proceedings.)


PETITIONS
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present in the House a number of petitions-

This petition is from some of my constituents and indicates that whereas the Byward Market is a prime heritage area and a tourist attraction in the national capital, and whereas the City of Ottawa is considering a proposal permitting construction of a 17-storey building in the heart of the Byward Market, they ask and pray for the House to call upon the National Capital Commission to state its position on the above proposed construction in the Byward Market, as they have in the case of Sparks Street and other places in the City of Ottawa in years gone by.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I also have some petitions to present from several hundred constituents and Canadians visiting the national capital region who object to the closing of the Rideau Hall grounds. As we know, the closing prevents many people from visiting and enjoying that public property. They pray that the House open that decision for consultation with citizens who are representative of a large and growing opposition to the closure of the grounds, in order to find a modus vivendi which will satisfy both government security measures and the right of the public to have access to the grounds.


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to present a petition which is signed by several dozen people, mostly women who are in a training course in Toronto for non-traditional jobs. Their petition objects to the fact that the 30 per cent preferential tilt for women entering nontraditional jobs, sponsored by community employment centres, is now being abolished. The petitioners are students and some of their professors who are concerned about it being abolished. It is my honour to present the petition on their behalf.


Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to table a petition from the residents of Lakeside in the constituency of Oxford. They object to the closure of the post office without consultation, as does their Member, affecting over 250 residents of that area. They feel they have obtained good service from the post office and its rural routes. They also feel that their community is about the same size as other communities which receive similar service.


Mr. Bradley:: Mr. Speaker, 1 have the Government response to certain petitions, and if I could have unanimous consent to revert to tabling of documents for a moment, I would present
it.


Mr. Speaker:: We will revert, for the second time today, to tabling of documents.



T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the response of the Government to the following six petitions: 331-529, 331-530, 331-535, 331-550, 331-559, and 31-575.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk).
T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, Question No. 568 will be answered today.


Mr. Howie: As of January 1, 1986, by rank, what number of persons were serving in the regular force of the Canadian Armed Forces?


Hon. Harvie Andre (Associate Minister of National Defence):: As of January 1, 1986	
Total All Ranks	83,910
General	I
Lieutenant General	9
Major General	33
June 17, 1986

Brigadier General	81
Colonel	339
Lieutenant Colonel	1,027
Major	3,291
Captain	6,543
Lieutenant	2,082
Second Lieutenant	1,190
Officer Cadet	2,739
Chief Warrant Officer	877
Master Warrant Officer	2,362
Warrant Officer	4,737
Sergeant	10,356
Master Corporal	11,941
Corporal	20,671
Private (Trained)	5,099
Private (Basic)	9,739
Private (Recruit)	793


Mr. Speaker:: The question as enumerated by the Parliamentary Secretary has been answered.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, when you call Orders of the Day, you will notice that the first item of business is Bill C-118. There have been discussions between the Parties and the motion indicates that there will be a reference to a legislative committee. There has been agreement between the Parties that we will deal with this Bill at all stages in the House, including Committee of the Whole and third reading. I think you will find unanimous consent for that.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-l 18, an Act to amend the Currency Act, be now read the second time and, by unanimous consent, referred to Committee of the Whole.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed.
Currency Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and the House went into committee thereon, Mr. Charest in the Chair.
Clause 1 agreed to.
Schedule
Mr. Rodriguez:: Mr. Chairman, I want to ask the Parliamentary Secretary who is responsible for piloting this Bill through the House today to indicate to the House, and I want to have this on the public record, whether the Government has agreed to a public tender for the nickel blanks. Has the Government agreed to that?


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Chairman, I am led to believe that the Minister had negotiations with the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) pursuant to this topic. I am also led to believe, and I stand to be corrected by my hon. friend, that the Minister advised or showed him the public tender. It is my understanding that, yes, the blanks will be put to public tender.


[Stage Direction]
Schedule agreed to.
Title agreed to.
Bill reported.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Speaker:: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that Bill C-l 18, an Act to amend the Currency Act, be read the third time and passed.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to say a few words pertaining to Bill C-l 18. I believe my colleagues would like to say a few words as well.
This Bill is to amend the Currency Act. On March 25, 1986, the Minister announced in the House the Government's intention to proceed in the following manner with regard to a dollar coin. The coin is planned to enter circulation in January, 1987. The active withdrawal of the $1 bank note will occur in 1989 and be completed by the year's end. The initial mintage will be 300 million coins costing some $31.8 million to produce. The design of the coin will be the traditional Voya-geur motif on the reverse and the Queen's effigy on the obverse. The mint's facility in Winnipeg will be used to strike the coins. I am pleased to announce that the total savings to the Government over a 20 year life span of the coin should amount to approximately $175 million.
There was some discussion as to why we should have a $1 coin. In reality 1 suppose there are two major factors; first, the

June 17, 1986
Currency Act
cost savings to the Government, and second, the convenience to consumers. I have already said in relation to the cost savings to the Government that over a 20 year life span of the coin there would be a savings of $175 million.
As far as consumer convenience is concerned, the sinking buying power of quarters, dimes and nickels makes it acceptable at this time to introduce a larger denomination coin. We are one of the few remaining countries in the western world that has not introduced such a coin. The assistance to transit commissions is without question. It is much easier to have $1 coins than $1 bills pushed in boxes. The coin operating machines will be greatly enhanced by this action. I suppose a simple example would be a cigarette machine that might sell cigarettes for $3. Instead of having 12 quarters being put in the machine, it would have three $1 coins. The other advantage to consumers would be that the coin weighs less than four quarters in people's pockets and purses.
Bill C-118 is an amendment to the Currency Act. It will lead to the introduction of a new $1 coin in January 1987. Although Canada has had a $1 coin since 1935, it was never fully circulated.
On February 14, 1985, using an Order of Reference, the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates examined the question of the new dollar coin. The following recommendations have been accepted: first, that there should be such a coin and that it should be struck by the Royal Canadian Mint; second, that up to $60 million collected from the issue of the new coin during the first five years be assigned to the Calgary Olympics; Third, that the new coin be eleven sided, weigh seven grams, have a diameter of 26.5 millimetre and a thickness on the struck edge of 2 millimetres; fourth, that the colour of the new coin be yellow gold; fifth, that the nickel in the coin be minted and smeltered in Canada; and sixth, that the composition of the new $ 1 coin be aureate bronze plated on pure nickel.
The Committee had much discussion. Many witnesses appeared. There were many good suggestions, many from my good friend, the Hon. Member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). As well there were many good suggestions from the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) along with the Hon. Member for Ottawa West (Mr. Daubney).
Concerns were discussed in committeee, concerns about the jobs in the bank note industry and in the nickel mining areas. There were concerns about excess coins in pockets and purses and a lot of concern about the acceptability of the coin.
I hope we have resolved the concerns with regard to jobs in the bank note industry. Our intention is to phase out the dollar bill. The withdrawal will occur during 1989. We hope this will give the bank note industry adequate time to adjust and relocate some of their employees and to increase the utilization of and demand for $2 bills. To illustrate that there would not
necessarily be a flood of dollar coins, if someone bought a 50cent chocolate bar with a $5 bill, they would receive two quarters and two $2 bills back. That would increase the acceptance of $2 bills mainly in western Canada.
The nickel mining concern was most strongly and vocally represented by my friend, the Member for Nickel Belt. I believe that has been resolved. The move to utilize Canadian nickel will be a boon to the mining industry in Canada. It is a new product made from Canadian raw materials whereas the dollar bill is made from American cotton.
With regard to the concern about excess coins in pockets and purses, as I said before, the new $1 coin weighs much less than four quarters. I believe we have met the responsibility for their acceptance. The shape of the coin is very attractive. It is just slightly larger than a quarter which is very acceptable. The soft yellow colour is also very acceptable. I believe we have met the concerns of the industries, most Members of the House and the consumers of Canada.
I was very pleased to work in committee with colleagues from all three Parties. It was a very amiable meeting. We came to a consensus. I would like to thank them for their cooperation and the suggestions they have given the Minister and the Department in that area. On behalf of the Minister I would like to thank all the members of the committee and all Members of the House. I wish those who use the dollar coin in the future all the best luck.


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity, on behalf of my party, to take part in the debate on Bill C-118, an Act to amend the Currency Act.

I would first like to echo the words of the Parliamentary Secretary and congratulate members of all Parties for arriving at an all-Party consensus on this legislation. This Bill has the support of our Party. I will not speak for the third Party, but I know from many conversations with their critic that they too support this Bill.
There is a great need for a dollar coin. We are not striking a coin only to create employment in one region of the country, although that is a very desirable side effect. We are one of only very few countries which does not have a high value coin at this time. The largest coin we have in common usage is the 25cent piece. As you know, it takes a number of those to buy just about anything, whether it is a soft drink or a package of cigarettes for those few people who still smoke. More important, it requires quite a few coins in order to use rapid transit, for example. It is in that particular area that I became very interested in the dollar coin.
The Regional Municipality of Ottawa-Carleton operates OC Transpo or the Ottawa-Carleton Regional Transit Authority. OC Transpo is constantly faced with the problem of sorting out large amounts of dollar bills. Many times the dollar bills
June 17, 1986

are damaged in the process of putting them in the change boxes. It is generally a very expensive proposition to keep our dollar bills in circulation. Due to the fact that you cannot buy much with a dollar bill they tend to circulate at a rapid pace which results in a very short lifespan.
As a result of adopting the dollar coin we must withdraw the $1 bill. A few complaints have been voiced to my office from people who are of the opinion that it will be difficult to manage with the dollar coin as opposed to the bill. I disagree with that view. First, the Parliamentary Secretary has very appropriately indicated that the weight of the $1 coin will be only slightly more than that of the present 25-cent piece and much less than two quarters. A person carrying seven or eight quarters in their pocket would find that those coins probably weigh three or four times what two $1 coins would weigh. Therefore, those fears are unfounded.
The Canadian people will very rapidly get used to the $1 coin. I am, however, a little concerned about the $2 bill. I am not convinced that in the long term we will get maximum use of the dollar coin as long as we retain the $2 bill. In my opinion we may want to withdraw that bill at some time in the future. However, this is a trial and error proposition and we will have to wait and see what effect the usage of the $1 coin will have on the $2 bill, particularly in eastern Canada.
I understand that there is almost a tradition in some parts of the country not to use the $2 bill. I noticed that in my travels in the western part of our country. It does not seem as though some Canadians like the $2 bill very much. On the other hand, in my riding they are used extensively. It is important to monitor that situation as it progresses. I am sure the Government intends to do so, but I thought I should bring it to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary.
I would like to make one further suggestion to the Government. I have voiced this in the past. The reverse side of the $1 bill carries a picture of Parliament Hill as viewed from across the river in Hull. In my opinion it is a very unique and beautiful scene portraying the logging days on the Ottawa river with a beautiful view of Parliament Hill and a small tugboat. My colleague, the Hon. Member for Hull-Aylmer (Mr. Isabelle), brought this to my attention because that is the view of Parliament Hill from his constituency. Perhaps we could use a similar picture on another piece of currency in the future. I bring that suggestion to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary and hope that he will bring it to the attention of his colleagues on the Government side.
It has been suggested that the obverse side of the $1 coin should carry an image of someone other than our present Queen. I do hope, and this is my own personal view, that the image of Her Majesty will remain on the obverse side of the dollar coin just as it is on the larger dollar coin currently in use. Perhaps the answer has been given in the past, it just escapes me at the moment, but I am wondering whether we will keep the existing dollar coin as well. Perhaps I could get an indication from that whether collectors will still want to
Currency Act
purchase the low circulation larger dollar coin we have at present.
Finally, I want to speak very briefly to the design of our new coin. It is commonly referred to as the Susan B. Anthony design, which is of course the U.S. dollar coin. It is identical in size and shape to our new dollar coin. However, I do believe the Americans made two mistakes in the design. First, it is not gold-coloured. Secondly, I think they made the very serious mistake of not withdrawing their one dollar bill which resulted in the American consumer making very little use of the dollar coin. Our coin as proposed is quite desirable, not only for the reasons which the Parliamentary Secretary has outlined, such as its light weight which will encourage Canadians to use it, and its low cost resulting from its smaller size. As well, the people in the vending machine business, the amusement business, and rapid transit services, and others who use coins in machines, will find that the machine mechanism can easily be replaced, because a large number of vending machines are made in the U.S. and of course the use of the Susan B. Anthony dollar has already been accommodated in a large number of vending machines. As well, a large number of replacement parts are available at low cost, so we have been told.
To summarize, we will shortly have a new dollar coin. I believe it is an excellent design and size. It has a good, highly visible colour. It will also have an important side-effect of benefit to the City of Sudbury and the mines in that area. I know that my friend from Nickel Belt will be speaking on this matter, but I would also like to point out the contribution of my colleague from Sudbury who came to committee on a number of occasions to assist me in this process. He has shown all along a great interest in Bill C-118 and in the report of the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates which recommended the new dollar coin. Again I want to thank him for the very worth-while assistance he gave me on this issue. I also want to thank all Members of the House for the excellent co-operation we all received in this project.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I suppose it is only appropriate that the Member for Nickel Belt would support the move to a dollar coin. The coin will be made from 100 per cent Canadian nickel, mined, refined and processed in Canada. That is extremely important so I know that I am rather partisan when it comes to moving to a dollar coin which is going to use products from the Nickel Belt. I make no apologies for that. Nickel mining is one of the few industries in my riding. Therefore I had an axe to grind when the committee held hearings on the dollar coin. However, I put aside my partisan feelings about the benefits of a dollar coin made from nickel. In a very impartial way I examined whether this country should have a dollar coin.


T.A. Bud Bradley: Look me in the eye when you say that, John.

June 17, 1986
Currency Act


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am looking the Hon. Member right between the eyes. I could not think of any reason why we ought not to have a dollar coin. I cannot imagine in a modern society, with vending machines and transit systems, having a dollar bill which is returned every six or seven months to the bank to be perforated and burnt. It seemed to me that a dollar coin, given its saving of taxpayers' money and conservation of resources, was an eminently wise move to make.
On a recent visit to the U.S. my friend from Glengarry- Prescott-Russell and I went on the San Francisco cable-car system. I had a $5 bill which I put into a machine to get a ticket for $1.50.1 put the five dollars in and four coins fell out. I thought I was gypped until I looked at the coinage and, lo and behold, there was the Susan B. Anthony dollar coin. A vending machine is the only place where the Americans have been successful in circulating a dollar coin.
There has been a great deal of consumer resistance to the coin in the U.S. Much was made of that in committee. Arguments were made about why we ought not to move to the dollar coin. However, if you look at the Susan B. Anthony coin it is not coloured. If you place it beside a quarter you would have some difficulty distinguishing between the two, because it is only slightly larger than a quarter. In fact, there is a building in Washington where 600 million Susan B. Anthony coins are stored because they cannot be circulated. Given that experience, the committee recommended to the Government a gold-plated dollar coin. It just so happened that we had a proposal for the Government on a gold-plated coin. We called it Ni-gold. It was a process developed in the Nickel Belt area by Inco. Of course Sherritt Gordon had their bronze tin alloy plating, which was, of course, el cheapo. This Government, being moved by all sorts of economic ideas, wanted to save money and decided they would go with the aureate colour, while we in the Sudbury Basin were pushing for the Ni-gold process, which was a little more expensive but it was a better quality. In fact the aureate colour will oxidize as time goes on, whereas the Ni-gold maintains its gold colour. Anyway, the committee, in its wisdom, chose the aureate.
At that meeting also I accepted the compromise, and the proposal was that we would tender the blanks. We would put in the public tender for the blanks for the dollar coin. I felt at least Inco in the Sudbury Basin would have the opportunity to bid on the blanks. Sherritt Gordon would get to put the colour on, Inco would have the possibility of getting the order for the blanks. So we satisfied the west and we satisfied the east. We satisfied the producers in both communities at Fort Saskatchewan and in the Sudbury Basin. We came out of that meeting feeling great. Lo and behold when the Government made the announcement and decided to move to the dollar coin something happened. The Minister announced that Inco would get the order for producing the blanks and Sherritt would put the colouring on the coin. Then something happened, the big double-cross. It turned out that in fact Sherritt Gordon was going to get the supply of the blanks as well as the colouring,
both. So the feeling and the understanding we had when we left the committee was thrown completely into confusion.
We came before the committee on Government operations, the Mint and the Minister, and we had a great to-do and harangueing about the double-cross. The Mint said this was a commercial operation and this was the best commercial way to do it, that Sherritt should get both the blank production and the colouring.
Well, where did that leave us? When I got back to my office after the meeting who was on the phone? The Minister was on the phone. What did the Minister say to me? He asked me if he could get my approval to put this dollar coin Bill through in one day. I said, "Mr. Minister, you know what you can do, go forth and multiply". I quoted right out of the scriptures, go forth and multiply. He said that I did not have to be crude, and I said he was crude down in the committee. He asked me what I needed and I said we have to do the fair thing. You put this out to tender, that is the fair thing.
So I am pleased today that the Minister has seen the error of his ways and the logic of our proposal, that it should be done on a tender basis, which is the process used by the Mint for the five-cent piece, the ten-cent piece, the twenty-five-cent piece and the penny. We were not interested in this little cabal and the right hand washing the left hand, and both becoming dirty. That is not what we were interested in. We were interested in fair competition for the blanks. I am pleased today, and that is why I am standing in my place, to support this Bill. I think the Minister was wise in recognizing the error of his ways and recognizing the logic of the argument.
The nickel that will be required to produce this dollar coin is five million pounds of nickel initially, and half a million annually after that. Now, you must understand in the Inco operation five million pounds is just about a week's production. So while it is not going to create a lot of jobs in the Sudbury Basin, and I want to make that crystal clear, what it does offer is the opportunity to stabilize the employment at the rolling mill in Walden. That rolling mill at the present time produces the blanks for the quarters. If Inco is successful in bidding on the production of the blanks we could stabilize the employment of the plant in Walden.
I am quite confident that the dollar coin will circulate. We were concerned about the workers at the bank note companies and the effects a dollar coin would have on their jobs. We should be concerned about that. We were satisfied that the gradual withdrawal of the dollar bill will allow the employment at those particular operations to stabilize.
There is a projection that the higher currency, the $20 bill, the $5 bill and the $2 bill may very well be increased in production in those denominations, which could help in the stabilization of employment at the bank note companies.
It seems to me that the $60 million seignorage on the dollar coin, which is designed and destined for helping in the
June 17, 1986

financing of the Calgary Olympics, was also a proposal and a decision of the Government which pleases me personally and pleases this party. It will go towards offsetting the costs of the Calgary Olympics. We think that that is an excellent suggestion. We also recognize that the Government stands to make a lot of money on the dollar coin down the road, because coins only go one way-they go out. Coins do not come back and get destroyed and new ones produced. Coins keep getting produced and they go one way. It is a constant revenue for the Government. We recognize that and, goodness knows, they need every penny they can make these days.
We are pleased in this party to support Bill C-l 18, and trust that it will get speedy passage through this House this morning.


T.A. Bud Bradley: A question was raised by my colleague from Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, and I think I should take just a second, if I may, to clarify it. He asked about the replacement of the existing dollar coin. There are two coins at the present time, the circulating version, which is struck in pure nickel with the Voyageur design. This coin will be replaced by the new dollar coin. There is also a numismatic version for collectors that is struck in pure silver having a new design and theme each year. This coin will continue, and this year's theme is the hundreth anniversary of the transcontinental passenger train service.


Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise today to speak to Bill C-l 18. I do not intend to make lengthy submissions with respect to the legislation. My hon. friend and colleague for Glengarry-Prescott- Russell has already spoken on behalf of the Liberal Party, and I concur fully in his submissions.
We believe the time has come to introduce a dollar coin for a number of reasons. I suppose there would be those who would be somewhat reluctant to do away with the present dollar bill. We all grew up with the dollar bill but, for the reasons indicated by speakers for all three political parties, it is our view that the time has come to introduce the dollar coin.
I thought I would take this opportunity while we were talking about money to talk about the new $5 bill. I received a call in my office a number of weeks ago from a very concerned citizen here in Ottawa who indicated that he was looking at the new $5 bill that was introduced a number of weeks back to the market-place. He noted that the flag flying over the Parliament Buildings was not the Canadian flag as we know it. There was a concern that it might in fact have been the American flag flying over the Parliament Buildings. We considered this to be an item of national concern so we pulled out the magnifying glass and took a very close look at the flag flying over the old Parliament Buildings. We found that indeed it was not the official Canadian flag as we know it today flying over the old Parliament Buildings, nor was it the American flag. There were those who thought, given the cozy relationship between the Government of Canada today and the present administration in Washington, that there was some agreement
Currency Act
to fly the American flag over the Parliament Buildings. We took a close look at what was flying-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order. I just want to draw to the attention of the Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) that the Chair does have some difficulty with the pertinence of the Hon. Member's remarks to the legislation we are dealing with today. Perhaps the Hon. Member could tie it in with the legislation that the House is dealing with now?


John V. Nunziata: I would be very pleased to do so, Mr. Speaker. Bill C-l 18 is an Act to amend the Currency Act, which I understand deals with all currency. It is my submission that it is incumbent upon the Bank of Canada and all the institutions of Government that deal with Canadian currency to ensure historical accuracy with respect to currency that is introduced or reintroduced into the Canadian market-place.
I am commenting in regard to the historical inaccuracy of the $5 bill. I hope that the Government and those involved will ensure that the $1 coin that is about to be introduced is historically accurate.
If I may carry on with respect to the $5 bill, we found that what was flying-


T.A. Bud Bradley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I find the Hon. Member's remarks in the debate very interesting, but I think the House would agree that the debate is not necessarily about the Currency Act, but an amendment to that Act. I might point out that the amendment relates to the coinage, particularly the $1 coin-not the $5 bill.


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


John V. Nunziata: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. We found that what was flying over the Parliament Buildings, above the centre block, was the Red Ensign. As we know, the centre block of the Parliament Buildings burnt down on February 3, 1916. The official flag of Canada at the time was not the Red Ensign. The official flag of Canada from 1867 to 1945 was indeed the Union Jack, according to G.F.G. Stanley, who is a noted historian and world-wide expert with regard to flags. We referred to his publication, The Story of Canada's Flag, which pointed out quite clearly that the official flag was indeed the Union Jack. It was obvious that the flying of the Red Ensign over the old Parliament Buildings was an historical inaccuracy. I suggest that when dealing with any form of currency, whether it is a $1 coin or any bill, one should ensure that there is historical accuracy to the various designs that appear on the coinage or bills.
The House will note that with regard to the $5 bill there was a Canadian version of the Red Ensign which incorporated the arms of the four original partners of Confederation. That early version of the Red Ensign appeared as early as 1874, but it

June 17, 1986
Currency Act
was not until 1892 that the British Admiralty granted permission for the Canadian merchant ships to fly the Canadian merchant marine ensign. As Professor Stanley noted in his book, there was absolutely no authority given by the British Admiralty to fly it elsewhere than at sea. Therefore, if in fact it was flying anywhere other than at sea during the period we are talking about, then it was flying without official sanction or authority.
There is some evidence according to some historians that the red Canadian merchant marine ensign was flown from the central tower of the Parliament Buildings during the 1890s. Indeed, we are told that various versions of the Red Ensign were flown across Canada throughout this period. Once again, however, none of them carried any official sanction by the Parliament of Canada.
The historians in the House will recognize and recall that by the end of the 1890s there was a resurgence of British imperialist sentiment which resulted in the Red Ensign being removed from Canadian public buildings in favour of the Union Jack. After the First World War, the Red Ensign regained some of its lost prominence, and in 1924 the federal Government authorized its use at diplomatic posts outside Canada, as well as for the merchant marine. However, the Union Jack continued to wave over Parliament Hill. It was not until September, 1945, after the war, that the Union Jack was removed from Parliament Hill by Order in Council and replaced by the Red Ensign.
We are dealing with a period of time after 1945. The Order in Council read that the Red Ensign should fly until such time as action is taken by Parliament for the adoption of a national flag. As we all know, on February 15, 1965, the new Canadian Maple Leaf was proclaimed.


Don Boudria: By a Liberal Government.


John V. Nunziata: As my hon. friend, the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) points out, the new flag was introduced by the Liberal Government of the time, headed by the late Mr. Pearson. Of course, at the time there was some controversy as to whether or not the new Canadian Maple Leaf should in fact be the official flag of Canada. There were those who argued at the time that the Red Ensign or some other version of it should be flown. In conclusion-


Mr. Clark (Brandon-Souris):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely there is no relevance between the new Canadian flag, whatever its merits may be, and the issue which is being debated in the House today.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my understanding that the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) is going to conclude his remarks.


Don Boudria: He is not convinced. You should say some more.


John V. Nunziata: Obviously I have not convinced the Hon. Member. I was just illustrating, in terms of historical accuracy, that one should be careful.
There is likely a great majority of Canadians who would not be too concerned about the historical accuracy of our currency. I rose today to speak to Bill C-l 18, simply to point out that at times those who design our bills and our coinage have erred. With regard to the $5 bill, there was an error in the design of the visual depiction of the flag on the $5 bill.
In conclusion, I reiterate my support for Bill C-l 18 and encourage its early and speedy passage.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments? Debate.
[ Translation]
Questions and comments. Debate. The Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme).


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, on June 3, 1986, I had the honour of tabling the following notice of motion in the House, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of continuing to honour Canada's former Prime Ministers, through the minting of coins and the issuing of banknotes bearing their effigies, thus heightening the awareness of the Canadian people and particularly of young Canadians to Canada's history.
I also thought that a very distinctive way of honouring our former Prime Ministers was the suggestion I had made at the time to honour the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker by putting his head on the new $1 coin.
Since then, I have received many representations, both from Government Members and my own colleagues, and surprisingly, a flood of mail. Some people do not agree, but the vast majority, and especially new Canadians and young Canadians, have told me it was an excellent idea and that they had a few suggestions.
One of the many suggestions I received was that if we want to pursue this idea of Canadianization and heightening our awareness of our Canadian institutions, perhaps I should review my initial proposal and ask the authorities to make some changes on our coins to bring them more in line with Canadian history, and to put the Right Hon. John A. Macdonald, Canada's first Prime Minister, on the $1 coin and switch the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker to the new bill that is to replace our present $10 bill. And it was suggested that we also continue the Canadianization process started in the seventies on our $5, $10, $50 and $100 bills by honouring, for instance, the Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson and the Right Hon. Louis St. Laurent, and so forth. But it would have to be done gradually, without upsetting people who are very keen on this legislation, and without necessarily upsetting those who today are very emphatic about putting nothing on our coins or bills other than her Majesty the Queen of Great Britain, who is also the Queen of Canada.

Mr. Speaker, what has kept me going is that I realize that whenever changes are suggested, it causes a lot of problems. I will never forget the courage shown by Mr. Pearson when he talked about a distinctive Canadian flag for the first time, and this was in Winnipeg. I was the only Member with him when he first suggested that the time had come for Canada to have a distinctive Canadian flag. And he had not chosen the easiest spot to make this announcement, because we were in Winnipeg at the Annual Convention of the Canadian Legion. In fact, it caused such an uproar that we were in for a very stormy session. I think there were about five people who applauded: the Prime Minister's wife, his secretary, myself and two other people.
However, the concept gained credence, and gradually, everyone agreed that it was an excellent idea. Mr. Speaker, I am sure that if today we were to tell young Canadians about all the problems we had to overcome to have our own Canadian flag, and if we were to suggest changing it back to what it was before there would be a violent protest, because everyone in Canada is now used to this flag.
And that is why I suggest that we proceed with the Canadi-anization of our coins, because as I and thousands and millions of people see it, Canadians must be made aware of their institutions.
If we are to have a history of our country we must teach it to Canadians, to young Canadians and new Canadians. What a golden opportunity has been presented to us by Bill C-118, which will change the $1 bill, not by another SI bill, but, rather, by a coin, so that it is new. Something new is about to take place. I will, of course, give my consent. I will, of course, with my Party, vote for Bill C-118. It is at this time when there is a change that we must consider what we can do to better enhance the word "Canada". This is not a lack of respect for what took place before. It is a suggestion for the future.
My first suggestion, as I was saying earlier, was to honour the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, whom I had the honour to know. I received some surprising mail from both sides. People ask, "How can you, a Liberal, dare to consider a Tory proposal?" Well, my hon. friend from Hamilton knows that I was very close to the Prime Minister. I may not have agreed with him, but he was very close to me and I was very close to him. As I said in committee to the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Mclnnes), when the Prime Minister would speak in the House, his Secretary would call my office and say, "The Right Hon. John Diefenbaker is about to speak, Mr. Prud'homme"; and I would do likewise, but it was much more interesting for me to get to the House to listen to a great speaker. As I say again, I may not have always agreed with him, and he may not have agreed with me either, but it was something to hear the gentleman and his concept of Canada,
Currency Act
and he always debated, with me, my concept of Canada, of slowly going toward full Canadianization of our institutions.
Now we have an occasion to honour another Prime Minister, and as I was saying earlier in French, maybe he should not be placed on the new coin. Maybe for historical reasons we should place on the first coin that will be minted, the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald. Since the $10 bill will be reprinted, maybe the time has come to make a proposal to these people who should listen to the voice of Canada through us, because bureaucrats are very sensitive and they are good at putting forward proposals but they are not good at consulting parliamentarians. Therefore, as a parliamentarian,
I am making a suggestion to them that we place Sir John A. Macdonald on the coin and then place John Diefenbaker on the $10 bill.
I know that some day many of my friends on the other side will propose that the time has come to also honour the Right Hon. Prime Minister, Mr. Pearson, a Nobel Peace Prize winner, and Louis St. Laurent, a great Prime Minister. I see that my friend from Hamilton is agreeing with me.
I know I have much support, as I have spoken with many Members of Parliament, from the majority and the minority, and from the Opposition, and it is a good step forward. It is a good concrete proposal. It is not an insult to anyone. I do not understand why, every time I speak of my kind of Canada slowly going toward total Canadianization of our institution, this should look like an insult to someone. Is it insulting Canada to have a Canadian Prime Minister? I spoke with many people, even many of the pages who are here, and they say it is a good idea, as the name is inscribed and this way the history of Canada can be intelligently taught. The problem, as I said on Friday during the debate on Africa, is that only Canadians do not know what Canada is all about. It is true internationally; it is true inside Canada. We must make an effort, slowly, progressively. I do not like revolution; I like evolution. I do not like insult.
We have a Royal Highness, our gracious Queen at the moment, honoured in so many ways. I see nothing wrong in honouring some of our Canadian Prime Ministers. Later on, we should also honour the first Canadian-born Governor General, Vincent Massey. And then the great, great Governor General, the second Canadian-born Governor General, Georges Vanier, should be honoured. I think we should continue on like this, but progressively, to intelligently teach new Canadians, who are here by the millions, and young Canadians. Everyone is using a piece of money, everyone is using coins and bills. One will look at the bill and ask, "Ah, who is that?" " Oh, that is Sir Wilfrid Laurier". "Ah, who was he?" "Prime Minister of Canada for 16 years, from 1896 to 1911, 15 years". Then they will ask, "Oh, who is that guy on the $10 bill?" "This was a great Prime Minister of Canada, the first Prime Minister of Canada, Sir John A. Macdonald. He was Prime Minister for a long period of time". One sees on a $50 bill a reproduction of Mackenzie King. People will ask: "Who is that man"? Mackenzie King was Prime Minister of
June 17, 1986

Duties Relief Act
Canada for 22 years, the longest term served by any Prime Minister in the Commonwealth. This is the way to teach the history of Canada-slowly and progressively.
When one considers the $ 100-bill the same can be said. "Who is that Prime Minister"? The answer is that he is the Prime Minister who was in power during the First World War in which we lost 60,000 young Canadians whose names are insribed in a book in the chapel here in the Parliament Buildings. We turn over a new page of that book every day. This is how to teach Canadians the history of Canada. It is not so difficult.
Bill C-l 18 provides us with a golden occasion. It is a Bill on which we will vote and which will say to those who are doing the job that it is the wish of Canadians, and of Parliamentarians, that progressively and intelligently without hurting anyone's feelings that it be done. I know that some people feel very strongly about not having any change, while others feel strongly about having faster change, as I do. The Canadian way is always the middle of the road. There are those who do not want any change and those who are in a hurry for a change, such as myself. My response to that is, okay, if you take a step forward then I will take a step back. We usually meet in the middle. That is the type of proposal I like to make.
I hope that my suggestions will be retained by those people responsible. Therefore we will vote in favour of the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


DUTIES RELIEF ACT
Hon. Walter McLean (for Mrs. McDougall) moved: that Bill C-98, an Act to consolidate various enactments that provide for drawbacks, reductions, refunds and remissions of duties, other than export drawbacks for which provision is made in Sections 82 to 87 of the Customs Act, to amend the Customs Tariff and to repeal or revoke the enactments so consolidated, as reported (without amendment) from a Legislative Committee, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Walter Franklin McLean: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, the Government is pleased to see the coming to pass of Bill C-98. It is long overdue and is
very much welcomed by the business community in general, and by anyone who has anything to do with the complicated and difficult tariff structures which we have been faced with in Canada for many years.
Principally, the Bill amalgamates and consolidates a number of pieces of legislation, Orders in Council and different techniques that have been used for a long time to try to provide opportunities and to give relief to people who deserve relief from tariffs that have been imposed on a variety of goods that come into Canada. This also applies to goods that are not available in Canada or are brought into Canada and then exported again to other countries, or are brought into Canada and are processed and then exported. This Bill has brought together those disparate pieces from a variety of sources into one comprehensive piece of legislation. It is readily available to see and to take advantage of in an area in which often only experts could ferret out the necessary information and provide the opportunities that are now available.
In the 1985 Budget the Government made a commitment to relieve both paper burden and the bureaucracy that are associated with many Government activities. Bill C-98 is representative of the constructive efforts that have been made along that line. Indeed, there will be fewer costs of Government, there will be less paper burden for individual businesses with which to deal in individual cases and there will also, not insignificantly, be fewer costs to small business people who will be able to use this current vehicle. The cost that will be avoided will be that cost which is now caused by the payment of a tariff which is eventually refunded. Instead of having money tied up for a tariff or fee, that duty which is imposed now, in many cases that extra financial burden, will be relieved.
By way of example, and not to protract the discussion at all, one of the interesting and important things that happens with this particular piece of legislation is that there will be provided a list of machinery that is produced in Canada or available in Canada from Canadian manufacturers, and there will be a list of machinery that is understood to be unavailable. In this way an individual manufacturer or businessperson will be able to refer directly to this list to determine whether or not equipment is available. If it is on the list of non-available Canadian equipment supplied by Canadian manufacturers then that person will automatically have the right to avoid any duty or tariff that would be imposed on machinery imported from other countries. There are other examples, but I think that that is probably the most outstanding one. There is no need to explain further the obvious advantages of this particular piece of legislation.
In conclusion, this is really a good news type of Bill. My understanding is that the legislative committee, with the cooperation of members of both opposition Parties, has facilitated the passage of this in all ways. It was introduced in February of this year and it now comes to us for third reading. We look forward to its proclamation as soon as possible, with the continued co-operation of all members of all Parties.
June 17, 1986


Mr. Alfonso Gagliano (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, when this Bill came up for second reading we said we would make sure it would pass very rapidly. After reference to the legislative committee we simply asked for a letter from the Canadian Association of Customs Brokers confirming that the technical nature and the administration of this measure would not create more problems. We did get the CACB endorsement letter so we support this Bill and, as the Parliamentary Secretary pointed out, we hope it will be enacted at the earliest opportunity so that Canadians, industries and businessmen may benefit from it.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, this Bill implements the full consolidation of existing duty relief, reduction and deferral programs now included in legislation, regulations, decrees and ministerial orders.
As the Parliamentary Secrtetary said earlier, this Bill has very important provisions concerning machinery, among other things, and all machinery importers or exporters will be able to use it.
Personally I hope the list will be carefully drafted and contain enough specifications. I have in my riding a company interested in this matter, the Vitrerie Bouchard, which imported machinery, an oven to process glass, because all available information had indicated that it was not available in Canada. So the company had to pay customs duties, but when it applied for a refund it was told that the item could have been manufactured here. Unfortunately, there had to be some checking. A company claims it could have made the item, so the buyer asks for specifications to see whether it is possible to get what he wants and the company replies that it is not necessary, you have already bought the machinery, so why waste time. So there is no co-operation, yet the company was unfairly required to pay customs duties of $100,000 even though a manufacturer claims he could have made the machinery right here in Canada.
To protect our jobs and our manufacturers here in Canada, we need a more exhaustive list as a safeguard for companies which need to import machinery because it is not available in this country. Let us hope that the list will be complete and readily accessible to avoid setting up another bureaucratic structure to administer the whole thing, only to face a bigger problem than the one we have now after a year or so.
So on behalf of my Party I support this measure and I hope Canadian businessmen and industries will find it useful.


Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to make a few comments regarding Bill C-98, a Bill which is essentially designed, not to introduce new legislation but to provide an opportunity for the Government to consolidate various enactments that provide for drawbacks, reductions, refunds and remissions of duties, other than the
Duties Relief Act
export drawbacks for which provision is made in Sections 82 and 87 of the Customs Act with which most of us are very familiar. I would like to make two points in this wrap-up third reading discussion.
First, I would like to point out the advantage of one of the provisions of the Bill, which is the requirement that the Government compile and provide specific listings of all of those items, primarily machinery and equipment, not available in Canada which can be imported duty free, and alternatively a list of the domestic manufacturers of machinery and equipment which had previously been allowed into Canada duty free. This will assist many manufacturers by giving a clear indication of which kinds of machinery and equipment on which they could expect a remission or other forms of duty relief.
According to the notes which we were provided at the introduction of the Bill this legislation will bring about the consolidation of existing duty relief and the reduction in deferral programs presently set out in various statutes, regulations, Orders in Council and Ministerial Orders. The purpose of all of this is, of course, to design a system to assist Canadian manufacturers in increasing their competitiveness in foreign and domestic markets.
One of the concerns we have regarding Bill C-98 is what it might do in support of certain kinds of initiatives that are being taken, not by the federal Government but by some provincial Governments, most specifically the Government of the Province of British Columbia. In the Budget Papers released with the May 1985 Budget there was a reference made that this Bill would be in direct response to the needs indentified by other Governments, particularly that of British Columbia which had urged the adaptation of customs procedures which would help attract new investment.
One of the concerns of an individual who was interested in manufacturing primarily for export was that there was a whole complicated system of various relief programs available to assist that entrepreneur, but it took a great deal of digging around, evaluating and analysing to find out just what was available. This Bill is a major step forward toward consolidating all of that information so that the exporter and manufacturer working together will have a very clear idea of what is available to help them develop industries for export competition.
Our concern, however, is that the Province of British Columbia wanted the federal Government to provide for this consolidation to enable it to proceed with its special enterprise zones program. The Province of British Columbia introduced Government Bill 49 entitled "Special Enterprise Zones and Tax Relief Act". Basically, the Bill offers special tax status to corporations investing in a particular zone, once it is identified, and certain tax benefits.
The main supporter of free enterprise zones or free trade zones is the federal Government. Without its participation very

June 17, 1986
Duties Relief Act
little can happen in terms of creating an attractive environment for those who would take advantage of the benefits of these special enterprise zones. The provincial Government of British Columbia really needs the co-operation of the federal Government. It has now received that co-operation, to a point, through this process of consolidation.
The reason we are very concerned about what is going on in the Province of British Columbia and its commitment to special or free enterprise zones relates to what these zones will in fact do. A definition of a free or special enterprise zone is an area where closed shops and other restrictive practices of unions are prohibited, contributions by employers and workers to the Unemployment Insurance and Canada Pension Plan Programs are voluntary, minimum wage legislation is inapplicable, other regulations and controls are minimal and there are no local taxes. In other words, it would be the creation of an area in British Columbia that would ideally be a wage and regulatory-free zone where the most exploitive practices can be incorporated by industrialists, and I suppose that is the very bottom side of the capitalist system. That is what the Government of British Columbia wishes to do in certain areas, areas that are now in the process of being identified.
Our concern is that this particular Bill is a move to support, in a sense, that kind of activity that is taking place at the initiative of the provincial Government. However, that does not mean we will vote against this Bill or prolong it in the House. I suppose as long as the Government is prepared to use rather unscrupulous tactics, it can use any legislation to that end. I do not believe at all that that is the motive behind Bill C-98.
Just to summarize our position, the New Democratic Party certainly supports this duties relief Act. It is long overdue and has been in the process for many years, while the Government has brought together all of the various programs that provide some relief for exporters. However, there is one concern that needs to be put on the record, and that is that now that we are entering free trade talks, the point of which is to develop a level playing field on both sides of the border, there would be quite a dramatic impact on Bill C-98 if free trade were to become a reality. Many of the provisions of the Bill would be seen as being indirect subsidies to particular kinds of export enterprises. If free trade becomes a reality, the provisions of this legislation will become less significant.
This conclusion was provided by one of the studies of the Nielsen task force, specifically the one on management of goverment. On page 438 it was identified that these kinds of provisions would be put into some jeopardy if free trade arrangements in these areas were arranged with the United States.
I also want to flag another concern, which I encourage the Government to consider in subsequent legislation. According to a private consultant's study on free trade zones, prepared by Ports Canada, the various remission orders and drawbacks,
which are referred to in Bill C-98, appear best designed to meet the requirements of larger established companies, especially those with a stable product line and a stable trading pattern. This finding was also supported by the Nielsen task force review which, in the management of government study, found that "large corporations tend to lobby more and receive special treatment on concessions more so than small business".
If we look back to 1983, we find that approximately 15,000 applications for duty remissions were received by the Government in that year, and that 85 per cent of those were approved, with the annual remissions totalling approximately S350 million. I do not think it would come as a surprise to anyone that larger corporations or larger experienced businesses would know the system or would be able to hire the necessary people to check out various remission orders and duty remission possibilities and make the appropriate submissions to government, whereas the smaller business or enterprise, the fledgling business, would have less opportunity in those particular areas.
In a sense, without intending to be so, Bill C-98 actually has a bias in favour of the large corporate sector once again. One would say that it is at the expense of the small businesses starting out in these manufacturing enterprises.
If we look at it in terms of regional realities in Canada, we see that Bill C-98 favours, in a sense, certain kinds of enterprises. The fact that it favours large corporate enterprises could mean that it favours central Canada as opposed to the regions or hinterland of Canada where smaller enterprises are getting into place today to play their rightful role in the international market-place. Without making a big deal of it, Bill C-98 has some discriminatory elements in it when it comes to the regional realities of Canada.
However, one has to say that it is long overdue. We have waited many years for this consolidation to occur. Certainly we are pleased that it is before us and will hopefully pass today.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a brief comment, not in any effort to engage in debate or take particular issue. I think the Hon. Member would note that certainly there was no motivation behind the Bill. Whatever are the merits or demerits of free trade zones, or whatever any provincial Government may have, as I think he admitted, there was no motivation behind Bill C-98 to effect those areas one way or another. If there is any trade relationship change between Canada and any other country, there could be potential impact in so far as any of the specifics of Bill C-98 are concerned. That speaks neither to the positive nor to the negative; the Bill was simply an amalgamation which it is hoped will improve the climate and opportunities for smaller businesses. Perhaps only larger businesses have access to the resources and expert advice necessary to work their way through the wrangle of information to take advantage of the opportunities as they now exist.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the interjection of my hon. friend. I agree with him 100 per cent in terms of his
June 17, 1986

observations. However, I urge him to make whatever representations are necessary to take steps again, so that particularly small flegling manufacturers interested in the export field are really considered when the drafting takes place. I assume the sophisticated nature of the large corporate sector prevails in all regions and with all businesses, and that we need to go an extra mile, particularly in some regions of Canada. We must take a special initiative to ensure that in fact they are well informed about the initiatives of the Government in this particular instance.
I appreciate the comments of the Hon. Member and urge him to do whatever he can with his Government and his Minister to ensure that small and medium sized businesses can take advantage of this provision.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


PAROLE ACT AND PENITENTIARY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: For the benefit of Hon. Members on all sides of the House, may I point out that the Chair has not yet come to a definite ruling on the report stage of the Bill. However, certain rulings are ready to be given, and I will proceed with those rulings immediately. Then we will proceed with debate on those rulings in order and come back at a later time to give a definite ruling on the whole report stage.
Motions Nos. 1A and 2 will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.
Motion No. 3 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11, and 27 all deal with the Commissioner's role and therefore will be combined for debate. Since Motion No. 9 is consequential on Motion No. 8, a vote on Motion No. 8 will dispose of Motion No. 9. Motions Nos. 10, 11, and 27 will be voted on separately. Motions Nos. 13, 13A, and 14 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motions Nos. 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20, and 20A will be combined for debate. Motion No. 17 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 18 will also apply to Motions Nos. 19 and 20. Motions Nos. 18A and 20A will be voted on separately. Motions Nos. 21 and 22 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately. Motions Nos. 23 and 23A will be the object of separate debates and separate votes. Motions Nos. 24, 25, 31, and 32 will be grouped for debate. A vote on
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motions Nos. 25, 31, and 32. Motion No. 26 will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion No. 30A will be debated separately and voted on separately. Motion No. 31A will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Therefore, the House will now proceed to the debate on Motions Nos. 1A and 2, which have been grouped for debate and will be voted on separately.


Harvie Andre: Motion No. 1A
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 25 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) On completing the first review of the case of an inmate".


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 27 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"shall decide following a hearing held for that purpose".
He said: Mr. Speaker, before commencing my remarks in respect of Motion No. 2, I would ask that the Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General (Mr. Towers), who is present in the House today, take his opportunity during the course of the debate to explain those motions which are before the House in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), in order that we might have an opportunity to understand the purpose of the motions.
Having started myself, I will take this opportunity to elaborate on the purpose of this motion. I think that in future when there are motions grouped both in name and in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty), I would ask that the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Towers) speak first so we might have an opportunity to respond to the amendments tabled in his name.
The motion which I am now addressing is a motion in my name which would amend Clause 2 of the Bill. It is the clause which deals with applications for day parole. It has been suggested by the Minister that in this clause there will be a mandatory requirement to review the case of all inmates for day parole at the earliest possible opportunity. That is set out in Clause 8(1) which reads:
Subject to sub-section (2), the Board shall review the case of every inmate who is sentenced to imprisonment in or transferred to a penitentiary for two years or more at the times prescribed by the regulations but not later than the day on which an inmate has served the portion of the term of imprisonment, as prescribed by the regulations, that must be served before day parole may be granted.
We have been told in the committee studying this legislation-and for those who are perhaps unfamiliar with the legislation I can clarify-that Bill C-67 with which we are now dealing is a Bill that would implement the principle of gating,

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
as it is known euphemistically, as well as deal with the question of one stop mandatory supervision as it were.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, we have been told by the Solicitor General that he intends to insist by legislation that all federal prisoners be reviewed at the earliest possible date for day parole eligibility. We have been told by the Solicitor General that this will result in an increase in the number of prisoners released at their day parole eligibility date. In turn, that release would result in a significant saving to the taxpayers of Canada as well as ensure that we are not incarcerating those who really pose no threat to the community at all who should be released on day parole.
I think all of us in this House have to ask ourselves what on earth is the Solicitor General doing in waiting until this amendment is passed before implementing this policy. You do not need to change the law of the land. You do not need to change the National Parole Act to give an instruction to the Parole Board to review cases of all prisoners for day parole eligibility at the earliest possible time and make sure that where a person is eligible for day parole he or she is granted that day parole. That does not require an amendment to the legislation, Mr. Speaker. All it requires is the political will of the Minister.
We in this country already imprison far too many people. Our prisons are overcrowded. Just recently, within the last week, the correctional investigator submitted his report to the Government of Canada. In that report he pointed out that the situation within the federal penitentiaries has become so critical that we are now double bunking literally hundreds of prisoners. We are double bunking prisoners in maximum security institutions and in special handling units. That is completely contrary to the whole thrust of any rational or sane correctional philosophy. It is not just prisoners who have spoken out against double bunking, against two individuals being squeezed into a cell that is barely big enough for one. It is also prison guards. We have heard from the union of the Solicitor General employees representing guards in federal penitentiaries as to the added tension this causes within the federal penitentiary system.
On the question of review, as this clause provides all day parole, the Government has been negligent in not already implementing as a matter of policy this provision of earliest possible review for day parole. In effect, the Government is adding to the overcrowding of our institutions and denying liberty to individuals who should be out serving their sentences in the community under supervision and not serving those sentences within maximum security institutions at a cost of $40,000 or $50,000 or more per year.
The amendment before the House at this time, Motion No. 2, would add a very critical requirement to the provision now set out for review of day parole. It would require that there be a hearing, that all prisoners be entitled to a hearing on an application for day parole. We are told that most prisoners receive a hearing. That is an elementary right of natural justice, a requirement, that before a decision fundamental to
one's liberty is taken surely the individual affected should have an opportunity to make representations to the body making that decision. We are told that in most cases that happens, but with respect to one group of prisoners that has not happened, namely, those prisoners who are federal prisoners incarcerated in provincial institutions. I emphasize that their sentences may be for a duration of many years-certainly their sentences are in excess of two years and sometimes they are sentences of life imprisonment. Pursuant to federal-provincial agreements there is no opportunity whatever for a hearing on day parole. That is fundamentally unjust. Not only is it unjust but it is also clearly discriminatory against women prisoners.
The vast majority of the prisoners about whom I am speaking, those held within provincial institutions even though they are serving time for federal offences, are women. Some 67 or 70 women prisoners being held in provincial institutions in Quebec, even though they are doing federal time, and some 20 or 21 women prisoners in my own Province of British Columbia are held in provincial institutions. As a matter of principle, we support the notion that they should, wherever possible, be held closer to the communities from which they come since there is only one federal penitentiary for women in Canada, the Prison for Women at Kingston. It is essential wherever possible that women be able to serve their sentences closer to their own communities, families and friends and to the kind of support network that is so essential for them. I pause in noting the importance of that kind of network to criticize the decision of the Government to locate a maximum security institution at Port Cartier in the Province of Quebec, solely on the basis of political considerations.
This amendment would ensure that those prisoners who are held within provincial institutions are entitled to that hearing, are entitled to the basic rules of natural justice. I raised this point in committee. I was told by the representative of the Minister, by the Deputy Solicitor General, that there are discussions under way between the federal Government and the provincial Government, and that perhaps this will happen but we do not know at this point. That is not acceptable. What is even more disturbing is the suggestion that this policy is not being implemented solely because it will cost some money. We were told that this very important policy is not being implemented, and when it comes down to it, the reason is that of resources. The Deputy Solicitor General said:
However, figures from the National Parole Board would tend to indicate that extension of this principle in the terms indicated by Mr. Robinson would involve an addition of 15 person-years to the National Parole Board, together with the associated costs flowing from those person-years.
That is 15 person years to ensure that justice is done for federal prisoners serving time in provincial institutions. Surely that is not an unreasonable suggestion. Surely it is not unreasonable to suggest that if we are going to extend this principle it should be extended not only to those who are held in federal institutions but to those who are held in provincial institutions as well.
June 17, 1986

That is the purpose of Motion No. 2. I emphasize that the present system in the country is in a state of crisis. Ten years ago the subcommittee on penitentiaries produced a unanimous report. I see that you are indicating that my time for debating this motion has come to an end. I will pursue this subject on the next motion.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 1A reads as follows:
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 2 by striking out line 25 at page 2 and substituting the following therefor:
"(4) on completing the first review of the case of an inmate".
This clause deals with Section 8 of the Parole Act requiring that inmates be reviewed at their first parole eligibility date. Section 8(1) contains the general requirement that inmates shall be reviewed by the Parole Board at the times prescribed by the regulations but, more specifically, no later than the first eligibility date. Section 8(4) requires that the board, upon reviewing the case of an inmate as required by subsection (1), shall in all cases decide whether to grant a parole.
This implies that at any of the reviews referred to in Section 8(1), which encompasses not only the first review but all subsequent ones, the board is limited to making a decision about day parole. The clear intent of Section 8(4) was to specify only the type of decision the board is to make at the first review. The amendment makes this intent clear.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to speak to both Motion No. 1A and Motion No. 2. It would appear that Clause 2 of the Bill is a step in the right direction in that, as the Parliamentary Secretary has pointed out, it would require the Parole Board to review a case not later than the day on which an inmate has served the portion of the term of imprisonment. That means that it now becomes mandatory for the board to review a particular case for day parole before a specified date.
That leads one to question why that has not already been happening. I share the concerns of my hon. colleague, the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). It seems that there is a difficulty in this particular area. We were not told at committee what the backlog is or what the average wait is for individuals who become eligible for day parole. By legislating this requirement we are, in effect, ensuring that the case of an inmate will be reviewed at a particular time rather than continuing with the existing situation which leaves it up to the discretion of the board. Presently the case of a person who becomes eligible for day parole may not be determined for some time after that eligibility date.
The intent of this amendment to the Parole Act is to ensure that those serving prison sentences in institutitons who are not a threat to society are released at the earliest possible opportunity. I am sure that most Members in the House will agree that prisons should only be used as a last resort. In my view and in that of many of my colleagues incarceration should be the exception rather than the rule. As was pointed out earlier,
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
the prisons in Canada today are overcrowded. We have a very serious problem with double-bunking in a number of institutions.
Given the philosophy of the Government, it appears that it will continue to build new prisons. We were told last year that the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) is planning to build a new prison in the Prime Minister's (Mr. Mulroney) riding of Manicouagan. We asked in the House of Commons on a number of occasions whether the Government would hold in abeyance the construction of that prison. It is obvious that if you build more prisons and provide more prison cells, they will inevitably be filled.
The Nielsen Task Force, which reviewed various Departments of the Government, specifically addressed the issue of prison construction. Those who reviewed that subject recommended that there be a moratorium on all future construction. They believe, as I do, that we should not be building new prisons in Canada. We should, rather, review the use of incarceration. In Canada we have a tendency to overuse incarceration. We know that it costs in excess of $40,000 a year to incarcerate one individual. It also costs in excess of $100,000 to build each new prison cell. Yet the Government is still keen on building new prisons rather than trying to find ways of reducing the prison population.
This particular amendment will serve that purpose to a certain extent. It will expedite the release of prisoners who, for whatever reason, would be eligible for day parole. The inmates we are dealing with here are not dangerous offenders per se. The inmates who become eligible for and are granted day parole are those who do not pose a threat to society. They are inmates who can be released into the community without any threat of harm to the community. These are precisely the types of people who should not be sent to prison in the first place. These types of offenders should be punished in some way other than through incarceration.
There are judges in Canada who feel that incarceration is an appropriate method of punishment. However, there are other considerations which must be taken into account including the cost of incarcerating prisoners. It is clear that there are other ways of punishing offenders who become eligible for and are granted day parole. Community service orders are a good disposition, in my view, through which a community can benefit as a result of a punishment meted out by the courts. I am pleased to note that in the City of Metropolitan Toronto, for example, there is an increased use of community service orders. Under a community service order, rather than sending an offender to prison the court orders that the offender complete a specified number of hours of community service, be it with a volunteer organization or other municipal organizations. In that way not only does the community benefit through direct volunteer work, but it also benefits financially because the cost of incarcerating that individual is eliminated.

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
In conclusion, I would like to indicate on behalf of the Liberal Party my support for Motion No. 1A which appears to be a technical amendment to Clause 2. I would also like to express support for Motion No. 2 moved by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. I concur with his concerns. It would appear that a hearing can be held without tremendous additional cost. At present a hearing is not required and the Parole Board can simply review the case without giving the person concerned an opportunity to appear. To allow an inmate to appear and make submissions is I believe in keeping with our very high standard of justice in Canada. I believe it would only be right pursuant to the principles of natural justice to do so.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg):: The question is on Motion No. 1A standing in the name of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 1A agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Schellenberg):: The next question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 4 by striking out lines 33 to 40 at page
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment to Clause 4 of the Bill is to delete a new Subsection 10(1.3) which the Government proposes to add to the Parole Act. That
subsection says that where an inmate is released on parole or subject to mandatory supervision, he shall comply with any instructions given by the parole supervisor in respect of any term or condition of parole or mandatory supervision in order to prevent a breach of any such term or condition in order to protect society. In my view that is a step backward which would, in a number of instances, lead to further incarceration. It is possible that an individual might have his mandatory parole revoked on the basis of failing to accept an instruction given by a parole supervisor as set out in the new section. This instruction does not deal just with reasonable terms or conditions; it is any term or condition to protect society. In my view that goes far beyond what is necessary for proper supervision of those prisoners on mandatory supervision.
As long ago as February of 1983, Brian Crane, Chairman of the National Associations Active in Criminal Justice, wrote a letter to the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) on the subject of conditional release. He said that the Government should be requested to make no change in conditional release legislation, that is parole and mandatory supervision, until completion of the sentencing and correction reviews which are part of a fundamental review of the Criminal Code. In other words, we should not be tinkering with one area of the system without recognizing that it could have serious repercussions in other areas of the system.
Some of those listening to this debate might well ask what these associations are. The associations are respected national organizations very active in the field of criminal justice. They include the Association of Social Rehabilitation Agencies of Quebec, the Canadian Association for Adult Education, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Associations, the Canadian Association for the Mentally Retarded or, as it is now known, the Mentally-Handicapped, the Canadian Association of Native Court Workers, the Canadian Association for the Prevention of Crime, the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Council of Juvenile and Family Court Judges, the Canadian Mental Health Association, the Canadian Psychiatric Association, the Canadian Psychological Association, the Canadian Seven Steps Society, the Church Council on Justice and Corrections, the John Howard Society of Canada, the National Association of Friendship Centres, the St. Leonard Society of Canada, and the Salvation Army. Each and every one of those organizations has asked the Government not to proceed in the manner in which it is proceeding in this legislation.
I think it is important to underline why the associations are taking this position and why I am proposing Motion No. 3. The argument I make is that in many instances the case load of parole supervisors is already far too heavy. The case loads of those responsible for mandatory supervision are far too heavy. In many cases the concept of supervision is a farce. Instead of putting some $12 million a year into a program which really does not work, that is the mandatory supervision program, I suggest we look very seriously at a number of important alternatives. Those alternatives were suggested by quite a
June 17, 1986

number of individuals active in the criminal justice field. For example, Professor Irwin Waller of the Department of Criminology at the University of Ottawa has suggested that the approach being taken in this legislation is fundamentally misguided. He notes that it will not provide the protection the public is looking for. Certainly the amendment I am addressing now will in no way enhance that protection.
Instead of spending millions and millions of dollars on a program which has been proven to be an expensive failure, I suggest we look at alternatives. At present we spend well in excess of $40,000 a year per inmate on our institutions. We only spend about $2,000 a year per inmate in the community. Yet it is in the community that prisoners who are released have to find jobs. It is there that they have to renew relationships with family and friends and deal with problems they might have with alcohol and drug abuse, as well as generally adjusting to community living. Instead of this system of mandatory supervision, which, as I have already noted, given the tremendously excessive case loads of parole officers and probation officers, really does not amount to supervision at all but merely to periodic reporting, let us get serious and refocus that money into programs which might help to prevent crime in our communities. With that money and with those resources just think of what we could do in terms of community programs if we were serious about crime prevention. Let us not spend money incarcerating individuals who are more appropriately dealt with in community based alternatives. That is one point with respect to the concern on this motion.
Another point is that I think it is important to recognize the implications of this motion, because if in fact the subsequent provisions of the legislation are adopted, what this will mean is that a prisoner who does not comply with any instruction, no matter how trivial or how inconsequential, given by a parole supervisor or individual in charge of mandatory supervision, can be reincarcerated, and thus subsequently not eligible for any remission on the remainder of his sentence for merely a technical revocation.
The implications of this are very serious indeed. I have received representations from many individuals who are active in the criminal justice system, whether they be prisoners, prison guards, probation officers or those who work in the community organizations such as the John Howard Society.
The unanimous view of the individuals who work in the system is that the approach which is suggested in this legislation is doomed to failure. I say that, far from reducing the level of crime in our communities, this approach is calculated to increase the level of crime. By imposing rigorous new terms and conditions of mandatory supervision and parole, without any assurance whatsoever that these will enhance the protection of society, what we are doing, in effect, is threatening the safety of our communities.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
I would like to give one example of the concerns that are raised. I received a letter from a prisoner in Winnipeg who said:
I have lived with violence all of my life and anything I can do to prevent violence will be a top priority with me. I cannot do anything to help my own situation since my future is pretty well shot, but after all the years I have spent in prison there must be something I can do to help others who still have a chance. At least then my little girl can look at her dad and say he tried.
That is the voice of a prisoner who is saying that this approach is fundamentally wrong, not out of any personal selfinterest, because it will not affect him, but because he recognizes that the approach the Government is taking is not one that will lead to a reduction in the level of violence in our communities, but rather will lead to an increase in the level of such violence.
The amendment before the House in Motion No. 3 is an attempt to ensure that unfair and unworkable new criteria are not imposed on prisoners who are released on parole or mandatory supervision.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I will speak very briefly on Motion No. 3. I have considered this particular motion and it appears to have considerable merit in view of the vague nature of the particular clause that it amends. The effect of Motion No. 3 would be to delete Subsection 10(1.3) of Clause 4 of the Bill. Subsection 10(1.3) of Clause 4 reads as follows:
Where an inmate is released on parole or subject to mandatory supervision the inmate shall comply with any instructions given by the parole supervisor in respect of any term or condition of parole or mandatory supervision in order to prevent a breach of any such term or condition, or to protect society.
What does that mean? That is the problem. What does any instruction mean given by a parole supervisor? We know that federal inmates are released on parole or mandatory supervision. Normally there is not a blanket release where an inmate is released on parole without conditions. Invariably you have conditions attached to the parole. If there is a breach of a certain condition, then the particular individual who that has been released on parole could be reincarcerated.
There are various types of conditions that can be attached to a parole order or to mandatory supervision. Some such conditions would include a curfew, for example, or the requirement that the particular inmate report to his or her probation officer on a regular basis, or for the inmate to reside in a community and not to leave it without prior approval of the parole officer or parole supervisor.
What this particular section says is that where you have conditions to a parole or to mandatory supervision, a parole supervisor can issue further instructions regarding the conditions attached to release. If those conditions or instructions are breached then the inmate could be brought back and reincarcerated.
It seems to me that one should be more precise in terms of this particular provision. It is simply too broad and too vague to refer to any instructions. What does it mean if a parole supervisor says to a parolee that he does not like the clothes he

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
is wearing, or he does not want him to take a particular route to visit him or her, then if the inmate failed to comply with the wishes of a particular parole supervisior it is a breach of the parole order, or a breach of mandatory supervision and the individual can be brought back in?
I do not think that is fair according to anyone's sense of justice. I think that inmates who are released into the community on parole should be given a certain degree of latitude. They should only be subject to the conditions of parole, rather than being subjected also to the whims of any particular parole supervisor who might decide, for whatever reason, to issue whatever instruction to that particular inmate.
As well, I would like to point out that this particular Subsection (1.3) of Clause 4 does not distinguish between an inmate who is released on parole and an inmate who is released on mandatory supervision.
I am sure you are familiar with the distinction. I think it is important that one recognize the distinction. An individual released on parole is entitled to consideration for parole after serving a particular period of time of his or her sentence. For example, an inmate becomes eligible for day parole pursuant to the regulations after serving one-sixth of that particular sentence. Of course, day parole means exactly what it says, an inmate can be released into the community for the day, either to work or to perform other duties or functions rather than spending the full day in a prison cell or within an institution. An individual becomes eligible for full parole after serving one-third of his or her sentence. The discretion is totally with the Parole Board. It takes into account a number of considerations before deciding whether or not to release a particular inmate on parole. The most important consideration is whether that particular inmate will present any harm to society if released into that society. If the Parole Board deems, in its wisdom, that the person is not a threat to society and believes that it would be in the best interests of society generally and the inmate in particular, then the inmate is allowed to serve his or her sentence in the community on parole.
On the other hand, an individual released on mandatory supervision is an individual who was not granted parole by the Parole Board. These are what I have referred to in the past as the worst of the inmates who are serving time in institutions. These are inmates who have been refused parole by the Parole Board because, for example, it might deem that particular inmate to be a threat to society.
Bill C-67 will give discretion to the Parole Board as to whether or not to issue a detention order. Until now, the authorities simply had no discretion whatsoever. After an inmate had served two-thirds of his or her sentence, the prison officials were required by law to release an inmate regardless of how dangerous that particular inmate might be. Until this Bill is passed, the present law would require the release of even dangerous offenders.
It was felt necessary to exercise some type of discretion with respect to this particular group of offenders who have been refused parole and who have served two thirds of their sentence but have become eligible for release under mandatory supervision. In my opinion, mandatory supervision, which was introduced in 1970, has not worked as well as it should have worked. It needs some reconsideration and this legislation today ensures that society is protected.
Let me return to Motion No. 3. On behalf of the Liberal Party, I intend to support the motion because of the vague nature of the clause to which it relates. The clause does not define what "any instructions" means. It does not distinguish between parolees and those who are released on mandatory supervision. I believe very strongly that there should be a distinction.
1 would agree to a higher degree of supervision of those who are released on mandatory supervision and a lesser degree of supervision for those who are released on parole, given the fact that there is a distinction between the type of inmate who is released on parole and the inmate who is released on mandatory supervision.
Subsection 1.3 of Clause 4 does not distinguish between parolees and those released on mandatory supervision, nor does it define or specify what the words "any instructions" means. For those reasons and others, I do not intend to support the Government on the introduction of Subsection (1.3) and, in effect, we will support Motion No. 3 which would delete the whole of Subsection (1.3) of Clause 4.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it.
Motion No. 3 negatived.
June 17, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We will now deal with Motion Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11 and 27, all of which deal with the Commissioner's role and therefore will be combined for debate. May I just remind Hon. Members that since Motion No. 9 is consequential on Motion No. 8, a vote on Motion No. 8 will dispose of Motion No. 9. Motion Nos. 10, 11 and 27 will be voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 8
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 25 to 49 at page 5 and lines 1 to 5 at page 6.
Motion No. 9
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 11 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"tion (2)."
Motion No. 10
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 12 to 48 at page 6 and lines 1 to 10 at page 7.
Motion No. 11
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 15 to 17 at page 7 and substituting the following therefore:
"subsection 15.3(2)."
Motion No. 27
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out lines 20 to 27 at page 16.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of these motions, which have been quite appropriately grouped for debate. All of the motions, taken together, would have the effect of deleting references to a new and unprecedented power by the Commissioner of Corrections to designate any prisoner within the federal penitentiary system, no matter what offence that prisoner may have committed which resulted in a sentence to a term of imprisonment. Following that designation, the prisoner would be held until warrant expiry and then released directly into the community.
The predecessor Bill, Bill S-32 that was introduced by the previous Government, included provisions to legalize the practice of what has been called gating. Even that legislation did not go this far. That legislation set out that if individuals who had been convicted of an offence which was set out in the schedule were deemed to be a threat to the community, after a hearing or some form of judicial review they could be held until warrant expiry.
Subsection 15.3(3) goes far beyond that and gives a very sweeping discretion to the Commissioner of Corrections to refer, in turn, to the National Parole Board the case of literally any inmate who happens to be serving time in a federal penitentiary.
I will read that clause because it is the basis for the amendments. If we will be removing it, certainly the House should know what it is that we are removing. The offensive clause to which I am referring reads as follows:
The Commissioner shall, where the Commissioner believes on reasonable grounds that an inmate who is serving a sentence imposed in respect of any
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
offence, whether or not that offence is mentioned in the schedule or caused the death of or serious harm to another person, is likely, prior to the expiration according to law of the sentence the inmate is then serving, to commit an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person, refer the case to the Chairman of the Board-
At that point, the board will have to make a decision. What this is saying is that the Commissioner of Corrections will have to predict, from the entire federal penitentiary population, who may or may not be violent. In this particular case, we are dealing with individuals who may have no record whatsoever; indeed, individuals who do have no record whatsoever of violent offences.
I want to draw to the attention of the House the submissions that were made to the committee by a Canadian association, The Elizabeth Fry Society, a very respected national organization that works in particular with female offenders. The society said this on the question of the prediction of violence:
At this time, no one can predict with any degree of certainty who is dangerous, or who will commit a violent crime. A small number of persons will recidivate by committing violent crimes. They will do so whether released on their mandatory release date, on mandatory supervision, or after serving their full sentence in prison. Many more, thousands more, will return to the community and commit no violent crimes.
Then the society gives some interesting figures as follows:
Three hundred and ninety-four (394) persons on mandatory supervision released from penitentiary between January 1975 and December 1979 committed robberies and crimes against the person, only 3 per cent of the almost 13,000 persons released under mandatory supervision during the same period.
This comes from the study of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) with regard to conditional release. The society further states:
Many, if not most, of these (exact statistics are unavailable) were not previously serving time for a violent offence, and had been model prisoners inside the institution. Most of the crimes committed by these 394 people did not result in serious injury or death. In 1981 alone there were 136,719 violent crimes reported in Canada and 26,292 robberies.
I would just like to stop here to note that the Bill, as it was originally submitted to the House, in the schedule of offences which were covered, did not make any reference to one of the most common forms of violent crime of all, that is, the offence of armed robbery. When we asked officials why it was that armed robbery was not included, they said, "Oh, well, maybe that was an oversight. So we will go back to the drawing-board and amend our schedule". Well, we must ask, what kind of sloppy drafting was it that led to that kind of glaring oversight? For those who support the principle of the legislation, as presumably did the Minister and the draftspeople, how could they make such a major, major error? I say that it is that kind of error that calls into question the drafting of the entire Bill.
This particular provision, as I say, would give to the Commissioner the discretion to refer cases to the board; but at that point, the board itself is being given the sole discretion to make the decision, to try to predict who will be violent and who will not be violent. We know that such a record of prediction, as based on the level of violent crimes committed

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
by people on parole, is not one of which the board should be particularly proud.
In fact, if we compare the level of violent crimes committed by those who are released on parole following a discretionary decision by the National Parole Board with the level of violent crime that is committed by those who are automatically released on mandatory supervision, we find that there is virtually no statistical difference at all; yet we are entrusting to this same body which has been demonstrably shown not to have been able to predict violence with any great degree of accuracy, this sweeping new power to "gate" individuals, to deny them the right to mandatory supervision, to release, which, after all, they have earned. This is a case of earned remission for good behaviour within the institution.
Recently, the Senate Standing Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs submitted a report to the full Senate. Certainly, I think my views with respect to the Senate, and those of my colleagues, are quite well known. We would just as soon that the place was abolished. Certainly, we carry on in the tradition of Stanley Knowles in suggesting that that bastion of reaction and patronage, that dumping ground for political hacks and flacks and Tories and Liberals, has no place in a democratic society.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: Thank goodness they are there for this.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I see that my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has said that they actually managed to persuade me that I was in error-


John V. Nunziata: No, no.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -when I originally supported this Bill so vigorously, and I say, "Hear, hear", Mr. Speaker. I say, let us commend Senator Hastings for having finally convinced the Hon. Member for York South-Weston. Let us commend and salute him. That is no mean feat to have turned around the Hon. Member on this legislation, and I very candidly say that I am pleased the Hon. Member has seen the light on this legislation.
Your Honour is making signs that my time on the motion has come to an end, but certainly I will come to make these points on subsequent motions.


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


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Senator, Senator!


John V. Nunziata: 1 am not old enough to be a Senator yet, Mr. Speaker.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Aspiring Senator. You're working on it, John.


John V. Nunziata: Well, Mr. Speaker, my friend from Burnaby, as usual, is not accurate.
When the Bill was introduced in the House, I, on behalf of my Party, indicated support for the legislation. Its general thrust appeared to be in the right direction and, on behalf of my Party, I expressed support because it was my view, and it is my view today, that the paramount concern, when we are dealing with this particular subject matter, is the protection of society.
When we are considering the release of inmates from penitentiaries, we must balance the interests of the particular inmate and the interests of society in general, but one should, in my view, always err on the side of the protection of society.
At the time of second reading, on September 13, 1985, I indicated the concerns I had with respect to mandatory supervision, the process by which an inmate, after having served two-thirds of his or her sentence, is automatically released into the community. I pointed out at the time that there were those who were released on mandatory supervision who had not earned the right to be released, who, in my view, should have served their complete sentences. We found, for example, that in July, 1984, an individual who was released on mandatory supervision after serving 14 years for rape went out into the community and killed four people, in Brandon, Manitoba. This particular individual, who had already committed a violent offence, the offence of rape, was released prior to serving his complete sentence and went into the community and murdered.
What would have happened if this legislation had been in place? What could the Commissioner have done if this particular legislation, Bill C-67, had been in place? The authorities could have refused to release this particular inmate at that moment in time. If this legislation had been in place they could have issued a detention order because the individual had committed a crime listed in a schedule to Bill C-67 which lists all, or most, violent offences. Because he had committed that crime, the authorities could have deemed him to be a danger to society. They could have issued a detention order thereby not allowing this individual to be released on mandatory supervision.
On behalf of my Party I support the concept of giving the Parole Board added jurisdiction or discretion. However, I have been convinced that the final decision should not rest with the Parole Board. As a result of submissions made by groups which appeared before the legislative committee dealing with Bill C-67, as well as by Senator Hastings, a Liberal colleague who has worked extremely hard in this particular area, I have been persuaded that the ultimate decision should rest with a court of law. The ultimate decision as to whether or not an inmate should be detained should be up to a court of law. In my view, a preliminary decision can and should be made by the Parole Board. Where there is a case in which the Parole Board decides to release a particular inmate, then that inmate would be released for all intents and purposes on mandatory supervision because the Parole Board decided not to issue a detention order. However, in a case in which the Parole Board
June 17, 1986

decides in its wisdom that a particular inmate presents a threat to society, then the decision as to whether or not to release that inmate on mandatory supervision, or to keep that inmate incarcerated, should rest with the court. Since the sentence was originally imposed by the court, it should be only the court which deprives an individual of his or her liberty.
After an individual has been sentenced in Canada and after having served two-thirds of his or her sentence, that individual must be released, by operation of the law, unless, under this legislation, the Parole Board decides to issue a detention order. In such a case the inmate is detained for a further period of time. The decision to issue a detention order is reviewable on an annual basis. It is my submission that the original decision and any review thereafter should ultimately be done by a court of law.
My friend, the Elon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), has indicated that the board cannot predict violent behaviour. He has pointed out that there is no way of predicting with any degree of accuracy whether or not a particular inmate might be violent if released into the community. I agree, in part, that one cannot predict with complete accuracy whether or not an individual may be violent. However, in my view that is no reason not to at least try to predict the violent nature of an offender, since the whole purpose of incarceration, as I pointed out earlier, should be the protection of society, and then there should be the concept of general deterrence and specific deterrence. Those should be the reasons for which individuals are incarcerated.
At the initial stage, the trial stage, after hearing evidence in order to satisfy itself beyond a reasonable doubt that a particular person has committed a crime, a court must then decide what form of punishment should be issued as a result of a particular breach of the Criminal Code. The court takes into account a number of considerations, including the nature of the crime, the prospects of rehabilitation, general deterrence, specific deterrence, and so on. The court sentences an individual who has committed a violent crime, as best it can. The court is given considerable discretion under the Criminal Code. Indeed, there are few offences which carry a mandatory prison term. For the most part the court has the discretion either to incarcerate an individual or not, or to fine an individual or issue a community service order. For example, we know that with the crime of murder on a conviction of either first or second-degree the court has no discretion but to incarcerate an individual. As well, the court has no discretion on the issue of parole in terms of a conviction of first-degree murder. As well, the court has no discretion when an individual has committed a second drunk driving offence.
I can see that you are indicating that my time has expired with respect to this particular motion, Mr. Speaker. However, I would like to reserve the right to continue my submission on this particular subject after we have dealt with the next motion.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, we have dealt with a great many important pieces of legislation in the House of Commons since November, 1984. However, in my view if there is one especially important piece of legislation it is Bill C-67.
I say that bearing in mind that we are now dealing with the most important sections of the Bill. They are the ones which relate to the right of the Parole Board to review and refuse to allow the automatic release of someone who is incarcerated. They are unlike the present provisions of the law as it now stands which provide that after serving two-thirds of a sentence meted out by a judge the prisoner serving time in a penitentiary or prison much automatically be released, whether that prisoner is considered to be violent or to have any violent tendencies, or whether there are any problems of that sort. The legislation which we are considering and the provisions about which we are now speaking deal specifically with that area of the law. The Parole Board will be allowed to refuse to release a prisoner if in its opinion there might be some violence, or if the offender is potentially violent. In my view that is something which is long overdue. It is an area of the law, and an area of criminal justice, which has most put the criminal justice system into most disrepute.
For the last many years we have seen case after case reported in the press dealing with offenders having been released and then committing violent crimes. It is because of that that members of the public feel that they are not safe in their own homes or in walking down their own streets. It is because of that that many people feel that we should have a provision in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms not only guaranteeing equality but guaranteeing our right to be safe on our streets and in our own homes. The provision with which we are dealing is the most important in that respect.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nun-ziata) indicated that he is not happy with the state of the law as it now stands, as did the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I share their concerns. I think we should take a very close look at the whole subject of mandatory supervision. I am not happy with the way it is working generally and I think perhaps we should consider scrapping it all together and instituting something different in its place, something that works unlike the system we now have. However, this is obviously not the time to do this. This is the time to deal with a specific provision that will improve the system that is now in place.
We could consider throwing the whole thing overboard but that would set the process back a year or two or maybe even five years and perhaps we would never solve this problem. We have to deal with the problem that is at hand and give the National Parole Board the right to refuse to release people under certain circumstances in order to protect society.
The Hon. Member for York South-Weston mentioned giving this power to the courts rather than the National Parole

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Board. I personally would prefer to see this power in the courts, but not in the way the Hon. Member has suggested. I would prefer to see the courts' right of sentencing redefined very carefully. Perhaps we should look at a provision such that once a court hands out a sentence, no one will have the right to release the prisoner any earlier than at the end of the sentence. No one would have the right to decide to release the prisoner or not to do so at the end of two-thirds of the sentence.
As the Hon. Member knows, that is under review as well. A sentencing commission is reviewing that procedure and I hope that when we receive the commission's report, we will look very seriously at redefining the right of a judge to impose a sentence. That will have the same effect as the proposal to which the Hon. Member referred, which is that it will take away the discretion to let a prisoner go, but it will also mean that when a judge imposes a sentence, that sentence means just what it says it means.
I am very much in favour of this legislation and opposed to the amendments put forward by my friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby. A recent case from the City of Toronto, the Leander Savoury case, is an excellent example of why we should not adopt the amendment proposed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby. This was a case of a man who was sentenced to jail for what many people might consider minor offences. However, members of the National Parole Board said that they did not want to release him into society after he had served two-thirds of his sentence because they had a fear, concern and suspicion that he would commit violent crimes. In fact, that is exactly what happened.
Members of the Parole Board were forced to release this man because the legislation said that they did not have any alternative. After his release, he served on so-called mandatory supervision, consisting of a telephone call or two over a period of three months or so to his parole officer. Never once did he meet the parole officer face to face. While he was on mandatory supervision, he committed something like 30 different armed robberies and one murder. In fact, his life was ended in a police shoot-out at the end of that three-month period. That is the sort of thing that shows that the National Parole Board needs discretion and an ability to be able to identify those people it feels are potentially violent offenders. The Parole Board needs the authority that is in this Bill.
I could point to many other instances which show that this legislation is needed. It is needed and it is long overdue. If we limit in some way, shape or form the authority of the National Parole Board at this stage, we will be playing with fire. We have seen things like this happen regularly ever since the mandatory supervision provisions were introduced in the first place, and until we find a better method, we have to try to make these provisions work and work properly. I hope that the House will support the Government's position and reject the motion of the Hon. Member.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The first question is on Motion No. 8 in the name of Mr. Robinson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 8 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That disposes of Motion No. 9. The next question is on Motion No. 10 in the name of Mr. Robinson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 10 (Mr. Robinson) negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next question is on Motion No. 11 in the name of Mr. Robinson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those opposed please say nay.
June 17, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 11 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next question is on Motion No. 27 in the name of Mr. Robinson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 27 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We shall move on to Motions Nos. 13, 13A and 14. These motions will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps rather than calling the motions, it will make sense to have an extra minute of statements. We shall resume the matter at three o'clock.



STATEMENTS PURSUANT TO S.O. 21


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I rise today to express my disappointment not only with the Government of Canada but particularly with a Crown corporation, Cape Breton Development Corporation, and a very serious situation that has taken place in industrial Cape Breton. Yesterday the Chief Executive Officer of that Crown corporation refused the Premier of Nova Scotia's representative entrance into the Glace Bay mining building in order to meet with the seven labour leaders who are occupying the management offices. I find that type of action to be totally unwarranted, particularly in view of the fact that we live in a free and democratic society here in Canada.
It is my understanding that the representative attempted to meet with the labour leaders in order to try to resolve a very
important impasse. I would hope that the Minister responsible for that Crown corporation would take it upon himself to act forthwith in the best interests not only of the coal miners of Cape Breton but indeed of the entire community, and take very positive action on their behalf.



SPACE DEVELOPMENT


Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mr. Speaker, whatever happened to the statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) that his Government's stance toward star wars research "is rooted in the need to conform strictly with the provisions of the ABM Treaty"?
Canada is providing targets for Teal Ruby, an infra-red satellite which the American SDIO hopes will be able to track incoming missiles. Article V of the Treaty prohibits the testing of space-based components of ABM systems. Article VI prohibits testing and development of capabilities to counter strategic ballistic missiles. Agreed Interpretation E indicates that new technologies are supposed to be subject to discussions on limitations.
The Government can hide behind the fact that its targets are airplanes, not missiles. However, Teal Ruby is testing the ability to track exhaust plumes, regardless of their source. That certainly casts doubt on the statement of the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) that his Government's priorities "lie more in the investigation of outer space verification technology than in feasibility studies of space-based weapon systems".



THE ARTS


Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, what does Metropolitan Toronto lack that other cities which lay claim to greatness have? I know it is difficult to believe that Toronto lacks anything but, unbelievable as it may seem, Toronto does not yet have a home for the world renowned talents of the National Ballet and Canadian opera companies.
The construction of such an addition will provide 1,554 direct on-site jobs and an additional 5,400 jobs throughout the economy. It will also inject some $98 million into the economy for wages and the purchase of materials. The indirect impact of operations could amount to between $117 million and $139 million annually. After construction, the opera house will employ 367 production staff, performers, and administrators on a continuing basis.

June 17, 1986
This new undertaking will contribute to making the arts in Canada a vigorous and self-sustaining industry. This project has my whole-hearted support, and I urge the Minister of Communications (Mr. Masse) to add his voice to those in support of this important project.



PORNOGRAPHY


Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, our Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) is to be praised for his proposed new legislation on pornography. With the assistance of two exhaustive studies, the Badgley Report on Child Sexual Abuse and the Fraser Report on Pornography and Prostitution, the Minister of Justice has taken action to stop the trend of excessive permissiveness.
With a clear definition of pornography, law enforcement officers will be able to take action on sexual abuse and exploitation of children. The production or sale of hard core pornography depicting sexually violent behaviour, bestiality, incest, and other sordid acts, will not be permitted in Canada under the proposed legislation.
Certain critics are already calling the legislation too puritanical. I wish they would take the time actually to see the degrading material which is so readily available today.
As legislators we have an onerous responsibility to enact legislation which will help to protect the social and moral fabric of the country.



NATIONAL CAPITAL COMMISSION


Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, today at noon close to 200 people took part in a demonstration on Parliament Hill demanding that the Tory Government leave Mile Circle Park the way it is-a park for the people of Canada to enjoy. The park has been in existence for 71 years, and we do not want the Government to turn it into a building site for the United States Embassy.
Other sites are available across the city of Ottawa. Let us not destroy a park by playing petty politics and by trying to give away things to the United States. The Minister of Public Works (Mr. La Salle) should stand up now and immediately order the National Capital Commission to leave Mile Circle Park to the people of Ottawa for generations to come.

Mr. Speaker, several Canadians living in the National Capital Region are still wondering why the Government is
absolutely determined to destroy a green park in the vicinity of our city and give it away as a site for building a new United States embassy.



FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL RELATIONS STATUS OF QUEBEC

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: For some fifteen years, Mr. Speaker, federal Liberals had looked down from the top of their ivory tower, which seemed absolutely immovable at the time, on Quebec nationalists, either separatists or federalists, both options being quite possible.
At the time, we all felt the affront of hearing the Prime Minister of Canada referring to Premier Bourassa as a "hot dog eater". We will not forget it, Mr. Speaker.
Seventy-four Liberal Members from Quebec were then standing by the despicable way the Liberal Party of Canada was treating Quebecers who were aware of their difference within Canada.
In 45 minutes, in Saint-Hyacinthe over the past weekend, what remains of the Liberal caucus kneeled down before the great chief and decided all of a sudden to recognize Quebec's difference. This abject grovelling in a forthcoming electoral context reminds me of the streetwalkers of Ancient Greece ready to sell themselves for money.
I wish to remind these Liberal turncoats without memory, remorse or national conviction that they will never deceive Quebecers.



SMALL BUSINESS


Mr. John Parry (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, according to the Canadian Federation of Independent Business, one half of the small businesses in the country complain about the paperwork burden they face taking up six to 10 hours a week of a proprietor's time. There is no doubt that small businesses are currently prisoners of excessive regulations and reporting requirements, and the federal Government is the major architect of these.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) promised on July 26, 1984, that a PC Government would take action on this problem but almost two years later there has been none. The Government owes Canadians some action on this front to
June 17, 1986

loosen the paper bonds which are binding the small businesses of the land.



IMPORTANCE OF FREE TRADE WITH THE UNITED STATES

Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, as Canadians, we have to decide whether we want to get away from the Americans or whether we have the national will and courage to make sure that openings are provided under a trade agreement with them, those openings allowing us to exchange goods and services on a broader scale.
I sincerely think that in our present economic world, we do not really have any choice. To tell the truth, economic blocs are not a hellish scheme of the US aimed at destroying us. The world already is divided into economic blocs.
We all know about the European Community and the European Free Trade Association. We also know about the Arabian Common Market or still the Central American Common Market.
The reason why I have mentioned them is that those modern trading countries, even those which are considered less progressive than our own country, acknowledge the fact that special arrangements are the basis of any economy. Therefore, it is essential that we act quickly to conclure a mutually profitable agreement.



MUNICIPALITIES


Mr. Gabriel Desjardins (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, the centennial of a municipality is always an exceptional event. Allow me therefore to draw the attention of the House to the centennial of the municipality of Ville-Marie, the main community in Temiscamingue, the craddle of northwestern Quebec.
Ville-Marie played a major role in the local history of Quebec at a time when the municipality was a strategic and major trading post.
I should like to take this opportunity to extend my best wishes to the residents of Ville-Marie and pay homage to these pioneers who, over the years, have been able to build a dynamic, warm-hearted and friendly community.
I also commend the committee members who organized the centennial celebrations and all the volunteers who did not spare any effort to ensure that this will be an unforgettable event.
To highlight the ceremonies, Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) will be in attendance on June 24, and he may be assured of a very warm welcome from the people of Temiscamingue.



INDUSTRY


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, the sign at the entrance says "Welcome to Leathertown". Acton, Ontario, proudly billed itself as Canada's leather capital, that is, until the Conservative decision to lift footwear quotas spelled the end of the town's major employer, the Beardmore Tanner. After 142 years the tannery will close its doors in September citing the Government's lifting of footwear quotas as the main reason for the move. The closure will cripple Acton, laying off 20 per cent of its workforce. What was the response of the local Member and Minister involved? "The Government move will benefit Canadians".
The closure makes a mockery of the promise made by the Minister for International Trade (Mr. Kelleher) that no Canadian jobs would be lost on the footwear issue. If we cannot believe the Minister's word on shoe quotas, how can we accord him the responsibility of representing Canada in international trade talks?
I call on both Ministers to revoke this unfair decision.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-IMPORTANCE TO ATLANTIC CANADA

Mr. Lawrence I. O'Neil (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, Atlantic Canadians were appalled last evening to hear the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) tell them that he is against the development of an improved trading environment with the United States.
We in Atlantic Canada have much to gain from the new trading arrangements. We are right next door to the large and natural markets of the eastern United States.
Atlantic Canadians waited to learn why the Leader of the Opposition is against a new and better trade arrangement that will mean jobs. I am sure he will now respond that he is only against sitting down to work one out with the Americans. That is a bit like wanting to go to Ottawa without leaving home. That is the logic of the Leader of the Opposition, Mr. Speaker. His lack of self-confidence should not be attributed to all Canadians.

June 17, 1986
In the 1960s Canadians and Americans negotiated a deal for the auto industry that has served us well. There is no reason to believe we cannot negotiate a mutually beneficial trade agreement today.



ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, I have received many letters of concern about plans by Bradbury Industries to build a plant in Lone Butte, B.C., to produce Pentachlorophenol and Tetrachlorophenol. Both PCP and TTCP contain dioxins and the Bradbury plant could pose serious health risks to both the local population and those who will ultimately have to use the chemicals Bradbury plans to produce.
Sweden has already banned the use of these chemicals, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency seems likely to ban the use of PCP in the near future. If past experience is any indication, only then will Canada, probably somewhat reluctantly, follow suit.
Why wait, Mr. Speaker? The Minister of the Environment (Mr. McMillan) likes to talk about the dangers of living in a chemical society and has promised tough legislation. If the Government is serious about controlling toxic chemicals, I suggest it could show some leadership in this area by moving quickly to ban the use of PCP and other chlorophenols that pose serious health risks to humans and, in so doing, remove the rationale for the Bradbury plant altogether.



CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-IMPORTANCE TO BRITISH COLUMBIA

Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian and British Columbia economies depend heavily upon competitive and aggressive marketing of goods and services in the international market-place. In British Columbia exports account for 34 per cent of our gross domestic product, and close to half of these exports are to the United States.
We in the Government have made a commitment to finding and sustaining markets for B.C.'s coal, lumber, fish, minerals, manufactured products and services. Unfortunately this commitment is not shared by the Liberals and their Leader, the Member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Turner), who refuse to recognize the entrepreneurial spirit of British Columbians and their determination to compete in the free market-place.
At least we now know where the Liberals stand on a new trade agreement with the U.S.-with their backs to the border and their heads in the sand.
We in British Columbia believe that as Canadians we can hold our own against the best the world has to offer. We are not afraid; we are strong. One only need look at Expo 86 to realize that we can meet-


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


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



OFFICIAL LANGUAGES


Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Mr. Speaker, if you walk down Rideau Street here in Ottawa you will see signs above the stores, not only in English and French but in Chinese, Italian, and other languages. Such will be found to be the case in most other cities in Canada and throughout the free world. Only repressive regimes seek to stamp out the liberty of individual small business people to advertise their businesses in the language of their choice.
Therefore, those of us who have anything of a sense of freedom and fair play cannot stand idly by when the Liberal Government of Quebec prosecutes, fines, and chastises store owners for the sole reason that they choose to advertise their businesses in one of the official languages of Canada rather than the other.

[ Translation]



CANADA PENSION PLAN


Mrs. Lucie Pepin (Outremont):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to express concern over a particular aspect of Bill C-l 16 to amend the Canada Pension Plan.
Hon. Members would know that this field comes under the joint jurisdiction of the federal and provincial Governments. The eleven Governments have had important discussions in recent months and they reached the conclusion that, in divorce cases, the Canada Pension Plan credits acquired during marriage would automatically be shared by spouses when married couples or common law partners separate.
Mr. Speaker, the provinces and the federal Government have agreed on these very important measures but, unfortunately, they are not included in Bill C-l 16. I wonder who lays down the law in the Department of Justice! The public
June 17, 1986

servants? Their views seem to prevail and I wonder what they stand to gain by blocking Bill C-l 16.
I would suggest it is imperative to set the situation right and include the automatic sharing of Canada Pension Plan credits when a marriage breaks up.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The 60 seconds have expired.



UNITED STATES TARIFF ON CANADIAN CEDAR SHAKES AND SHINGLES

Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, the House has once again been entertained by the Hon. Member for Capilano (Mrs. Collins) as she rose to extoll the virtues of free trade. She told us that the people of British Columbia are excited about the prospect of having free trade with the United States, and urged that we embrace it with all our hearts.
I wonder if she is speaking for the shakes and shingles workers who, until now, have been operating within a free trade agreement and in fact have had tariff-free trade for 50 years. The very moment they proved they were more competitive and could produce the product better and cheaper than their counterparts in the United States, they learned that free trade was not really free after all.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, like many other Canadians I listened with great interest to the Prime Minister's speech on television last night. Like many other Canadians I am confused as to where he stands. In his argument he cited as Exhibit A the Auto Pact with the U.S. Yet he must know the Auto Pact is not an example of free trade, given the safeguards properly imposed to protect Canadian investment and employment. Where does the Prime Minister stand? Are we moving towards a comprehensive free trade agreement? Are we moving towards a managed sectoral agreement? Are we moving towards freer trade or enhanced trade? What was he trying to tell us last night?
Oral Questions


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I was repeating a political and economic engagement by the Government of Canada in what I hope were clear terms. That, I suspect, is more than can be said for the Right Hon. Member and his Party regarding their position. What I was talking about last evening was essentially what we have talked about in other circumstances, a new, comprehensive, bilateral trading arrangement with the U.S. designed to create more jobs and greater prosperity.


INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO NEGOTIATOR
John Napier Turner: have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. Last night, the only example the Prime Minister gave of good trade relations with the United States was the Auto Pact, but the Pact is certainly not an example of free trade. In fact, it is a pact that was introduced by the Liberals and opposed by the Concervatives at the time. My question is as follows.
Has the Prime Minister, after last night's speech, given new instructions to his principal negotiator to make specific and sectoral arrangements with the United States instead of negotiating a comprehensive free trade pact? Did he change his instructions to Mr. Reisman?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I think my hon. friend's memory is at fault. It is true that the Auto Pact raised a tremendous amount of concern and opposition, and the almost ongoing opposition has come mainly from the United Auto Workers and the New Democrats. Last night I said history has shown that when barriers to trade fall away, a new properity ensues. Take for instance the Auto Pact in 1964. It has been profitable for both countries. It has brought us jobs. That is what I said last night. In the general field of trade exchanges, we have to start by eliminating barriers, and that is what the discussions that started this morning are about.


CANADIAN OBJECTIVE
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, let us see whether we can get this absolutely clear. When the Prime Minister was contesting the leadership of his Party against the now Secretary of State for External Affairs and the now Minister of Justice, he opposed free trade. I want to read to him the words of President Reagan on May 29 before the National Association of Manufacturers. He said: "Just last week we began negotiations with Canada on a new, comprehensive free trade agreement." That is not some minor American official, that is the President. Does the Prime Minister agree that is the objective, so we know where we stand?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the objective is exactly the one I set forth last night. The objective is more jobs and greater prosperity. The Leader

June 17, 1986
Oral Questions
of the Opposition said that "Mr. Mulroney has given away our cards too early. He has dismantled the Foreign Investment Review Agency". However, when he was in private practice at MacMillan Binch he said "We can't afford the outflows associated with FIRA-induced Canadianization". Make up your mind!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


POSSIBLE RESULTS OF NEGOTIATIONS
Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, in his speech last night the Prime Minister put forward for the first time the concept of Canada seeking national treatment as a trade goal, thereby endorsing the American theory of a level playing field. That is a quite radical departure in Canadian trade policy. Is the Prime Minister prepared to spell out what the level playing field will mean for Canada? Does he understand it could mean full access by the U.S. to our oil and gas resources, our water resources, and our financial and cultural industries? Could the Prime Minister tell us what the cost to Canada is of the level playing field?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I mentioned very clearly that in a good negotiation that, indeed, would ultimately, over a period of years, be a fair result. I indicated that our objective is to conclude an arrangement that creates jobs and greater wealth for Canadians.
I also said very clearly, and I hope my hon. friend will remember, that if it is not a good deal for Canada there will not be any deal.


POSITION OF PROVINCES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what is a good or bad deal is in the eyes of the beholder, and we have some questions about that. In putting forward the idea of a level playing field does the Prime Minister have the full concurrence of the provincial Governments, considering that a level playing field would wipe out many of their procurement policies, the agricultural marketing boards and the regional development policies? Has he received their agreement to pursue the level playing field policy that he announced last night?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, Premier Peterson, for example, was one who at the Halifax conference pointed out the desirability of beginning the process of eliminating interprovincial trade barriers. He made very clear what I thought was an excellent position, which I and others have had the chance to pick up on since. I think he speaks for a lot of Canadians when he says that the elimination of these interprovincial trading barriers must come down as a pre-condition to growth. Our position is one of jobs, seeking new markets, productivity enhancement, increased
competitiveness, and new wealth for Canadians. I was interested in finally getting the Liberal Party policy stated last night when the Leader said, "I can assure you that we will follow these negotiations closely".


AUTO PACT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister.
Last night, in the course of his speech on free trade, the Prime Minister cited the Auto Pact several times as an example.
Does the Prime Minister agree with the Americans that the Auto Pact is a free trade agreement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, last night I said clearly that history shows when barriers to trade fall away, a new prosperity is the result.
Take for instance the 1964 Auto Pact. I just wanted to show that in international trade prosperity comes after the number of barriers is reduced. And that is what we want to do.


PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, once again we have a Prime Minister who has shifted all over the place on this issue and not answering the question.
Today in Washington Canadian negotiators are sitting down to talk about the Auto Pact and free trade, amongst other things. Would the Prime Minister clarify his remarks that he made last night when he cited the Auto Pact several times as an example, presumably, of free trade. Is he telling Canadians that he agrees with the Americans that the Auto Pact is a free trade agreement, or does he take the traditional Canadian view that the Auto Pact, with built-in safeguards for Canadian investment, is not an example of free trade? It is relevant today, it is relevant to all those workers in other sectors who were watching the Prime Minister. Will he answer the question?


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


Martin Brian Mulroney: The Auto Pact is what I think we have all indicated is an instrument of liberalized trade, and that is what we are working towards. My friend suggests that we are being inconsistent. Perhaps he would care to consult La Presse of May 11, 1965, when the New Democratic Party introduced a motion of censure against the Government for proceeding with the Auto Pact.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


NATURE OF NEGOTIATIONS
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is rewriting history. If he checks carefully he will find
June 17, 1986

out the pact was 1965, not 1964. The motion was moved by us before safeguards were included-


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


John Edward Broadbent: I know that the facts always bother the Prime Minister, but if he checks the history he will find that out. Will he level with the people of Canada, particularly those in fishing, wood products, agriculture, and many others for whom he cited the Auto Pact as an example? Is he telling Canadians in other sectors that what he is negotiating is trade agreements that have built-in safeguards for Canadian investment, in which case he is not negotiating free trade? Will he come clean and be frank with the people of Canada, just once?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, first, I think I said 1965.


An Hon. Member:: Yes, you did.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Second, it says in La Presse:

La Presse:
"The NPD opposition once again put the existence of Mr. Pearson's Liberal minority Government in jeopardy yesterday by moving a motion of censure in connection with the recent Canada-U.S. agreement on the auto industry."

You were dead set opposed-


John Edward Broadbent: There were no safeguards and the Pact was there.


Martin Brian Mulroney: You were dead set opposed to the Auto Pact then and now you are hugging it to your breast as though you invented it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: That is wrong.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


ACCESS TO U.S. AND CANADIAN MARKETS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. In beginning my question I want to say that one thing is clear. In 1965 it was the Conservatives who clearly opposed the Auto Pact. If the Prime Minister wants to achieve "the same standing in U.S. law" for Canadian companies "as American companies", which means in his words: "a truly level playing field", will he not admit that to achieve this he will have to give exactly the same standing to American companies in Canada? If that is the case, he will have to allow them to buy control of our banks and trust companies, our newspapers and magazines, and dismantle Investment Canada. Why does he want to do that?
Oral Questions


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to my hon. friend, although I know it offends his sense of paternity, that FIR A has long since been dismantled. You can be sure of that. There will be no more FIRAs.
With regard to the fundamental point raised, as I indicated to the House of Commons on September 26, as reported at page 7056 of Hansard:
Our political sovereignty, our system of social programs, our commitment to fight regional disparities, our unique cultural identity, our special linguistic character-these are the essence of Canada. They are not at issue in these negotiations.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, if the Prime Minister means what he says, in the words he just used, why did he also say in the same speech that he would "seek national treatment" as well as a "level playing field"? National treatment clearly means treating American companies in Canada the same as Canadian companies, and that means dismantling all our measures of sovereignty that he claims to support. He cannot have it both ways. Why does he not come clean with the Canadian people on this?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, that is a pretty laughable suggestion and I know my hon. friend realizes that.


Mr. Tobin:: What about the movie you made about yourself: "The Life of Brian"?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We set out the parameters on September


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please, with respect. Interjections should be stopped.


Martin Brian Mulroney: We indicated that we would engage in these comprehensive bilateral negotiations within certain parameters. This is a trade negotiation. It has nothing to do with our cultural sovereignty in any way, shape or form, as I and the Secretary of State for External Affairs have indicated in many instances. We will pursue the negotiations in a mature way, being very vigilant of Canada's interests, in the belief that the unemployment rate in Canada must be reduced and can only be reduced through a growing economy which grows through an expanded international trading capacity. That is why we want to enhance the productivity and competitiveness of the nation. It is to provide jobs through expanded trade.


AUTO PACT DEBATE
Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Prime Minister. Does he not recognize that on May 10, 1964, when the New Democratic

June 17, 1986
Oral Questions
Party put a motion requiring the inclusion of safeguards to protect the workers and the auto industry in Canada, that that motion was supported by the Conservatives?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry-


John Edward Broadbent: Turn up your hearing aid.


Martin Brian Mulroney: I would be happy to respond to the question. I did not hear the beginning of the question. I would be happy to respond to it.


Ian Deans: I hope this is not considered a supplementary question. Does the Prime Minister recognize that the motion that was put by the New Democratic Party in 1964, that requested that additional safeguards be included in the negotiation process to protect workers and the Canadian industry, which ultimately occurred, was supported by the Conservative Party?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if there was a motion 20-odd years ago-


Ian Deans: That's what you're talking about.


John Edward Broadbent: ft was you, you!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It was-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. Members who are waiting to ask questions should know that if they interject it may cause a problem later.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The motion in 1965-


Ian Deans: Sixty-four.


Martin Brian Mulroney: -or 1964, to support the interests of the workers: one may be sure that the Progressive Conservative Party supported it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: So much for consistency.


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Ian Deans: Let me ask the Prime Minister, however, on a more serious note, is the free trade that the Prime Minister is suggesting we want the free trade that we have had for 50 years in shakes and shingles, or is it the managed trade arrangement that we have had for the last 15 years, or thereabouts, in the auto industry?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, whether we achieve it or not, I do not know; and I have indicated this to the House and to the country. What we are seeking is a comprehensive bilateral trade arrangement-


Ian Deans: What type?


Martin Brian Mulroney: -which secures the access of Canada to the American markets to ensure that such things as shakes and shingles never happen again.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROVINCES' PROCUREMENT POLICIES
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister's memory is as flexible, it appears, as is his definition of free trade today. Last night he held out a tremendous carrot to Canadians. He said that Canadian companies would be able to compete on an equal footing with U.S. companies for American government contracts worth up to $750 billion. What he did not say was that American companies would expect the same treatment here in Canada.
I want to ask the Prime Minister whether or not the provincial Governments have agreed, with respect to their procurement policies, to set aside their preferential treatment policies where they exist in some provinces and to open up their bidding processes to American companies, in a free trade agreement, to the detriment of companies in their own provinces.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, if, as a result of a liberalized trading arrangement, contractors in Quebec, for example, could use bricks from Ontario-if you limit that kind of restrictive measures, as I think Premier Peterson quite properly pointed out-the national wealth grows. What we are trying to do is create a larger market which will attract Canadian skills and technology and Canadian know-how so as to ensure a greater creation of wealth and jobs at home. The question is, has it been specifically discussed and resolved as betwern levels of government? I think the answer to that is no. Is it there as a matter for discussion with the First Ministers? Absolutely, and we shall hopefully resolve it on an ongoing basis as we continue a very intensive process of consultation with the First Ministers of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has given us a straight answer, and I appreciate it, because he has confirmed that there is no such agreement with the provincial Governments to seek this kind of national treatment policy.


FEDERAL POSITION
Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, given the fact that the Prime Minister has admitted that the mandate he proposed last night has not been accepted in this country among Governments, will he tell us now that he will instruct negotiators not to pursue this national treatment policy he articulated last night until such time as he has received from the provinces of this country an agreement to proceed whereby they will open up their procurement policy to American contractors south of the border? Not bricks between
June 17, 1986

Ontario and Quebec; bricks from south of the border and Quebec. That is what we are talking about.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we are seeking agreement in intimate consultation with the provinces, and we shall continue to do so, as I think we have indicated in an unusual degree of commitment to the process. 1 want to point out to my hon. friend, however, that the right of the Parliament of Canada to initiate these negotiations is not en cause. This Parliament and this Government are empowered by the people of Canada to act on behalf of the people of Canada and we shall-


An Hon. Member:: Get though with the provinces.


Martin Brian Mulroney: The provinces indeed have a full right with regard to those areas where their area of jurisdiction and area of competence are involved, and we will continue to consult intimately with them. We are trying to find a formula of ratification. However, there can be no doubt about the Parliament of Canada acting on behalf of all Canadians.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AUTO PACT PROVISIONS
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Prime Minister why last night, in his attempt to rise above the tide of battle, he did not mention, at any time, either of the two key safeguards that have been responsible for the success of the Auto Pact in my community, the Canadian content provisions and the equal production to sales commitment in this country. Why was that essential part of the Auto Pact left out of what was supposed to be a clarifying statement?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, there was nothing left out. There was a reference to-


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Not much put in, either.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Well, my hon. friend says that there was not much put in. It is interesting that many people, I think, came to that conclusion, having heard the Leader of the Opposition; but I did not, because anything that we hear from the Leader of the Opposition on this subject is news.
With regard to my hon. friend and his very good question, 1 just point out that the statement is:
History tells us that whenever barriers to trade come down, new prosperity follows.
Take the example of the 1964 Auto Pact.
I am using the illustration of the advantages that flow to free societies with liberalized trade, and I drew no conclusions beyond that.


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


Steven W. Langdon: In fact, the industry, unions and the communities all conclude that it is the safeguards in that pact-


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Relevance, Mr. Speaker.


Steven W. Langdon: -which have won those jobs.


AUTO PACT DEBATE
Steven W. Langdon: My question for the Prime Minister is the following. Does he agree with these comments from the Conservative Member for Peace River in 1965?


Charles Joseph Clark: Order.


Steven W. Langdon: He said:
-this United States-Canada automotive agreement, falsely called a free trade agreement. If there was ever a misnomer, Mr. Speaker, this is it, because I can see no measure of free trade in this agreement at all.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: I will allow the answer if the Prime Minister wishes to make it, but the Hon. Member could phrase that question in such a way as to make it more direct, I think.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Surely, Mr. Speaker, my hon. friend is not attempting to suggest that the Auto Pact is anything other than an instrument of liberalized trade and commerce between two countries and that it has been very, very instrumental in bringing new wealth to Ontario and great trading advantages to Canada. If I may say so, and I think it will interest my hon. friend, as I said just a few days ago in Toronto with regard to this item, that is what the trade talks are all about: extending the benefits of Auto Pact to all industries, to all parts of Canada, not by piecemeal action but, rather, by a comprehensive treaty covering all our trade with the United States.
[ Translation]


FREE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES-EMPLOYMENT CONSEQUENCES
Alfonso Gagliano: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
Yesterday evening and again today, the Prime Minister said that free trade with the United States would create more jobs. Can he explain the study carried out by the Department of External Affairs which states that a free trade agreement with the United States would cause a net loss of at least 130,000 jobs?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, it is not the first time that I am misquoted.


FREE TRADE WITH UNITED STATES-PRICE PAYABLE BY CANADA IN JOB LOSSES AND PLANT CLOSURES
Alfonso Gagliano: I have a supplementary, Mr. Speaker. What price will Canadians have

June 17, 1986
Oral Questions
to pay in lost jobs and plant closures for a free trade agreement with the United States?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, we clearly said yesterday evening that our objective was to create jobs. As I have said, and I think that this was in the speech yesterday evening, the new Government has created about 600,000 new jobs since coming into office. This is more than all Western European countries combined, but in spite of this impressive record in the field of job creation, we still say that it is not enough, that we want to do more, and we are going to choose the instrument of international trade to do so.


FOREST INDUSTRY
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Prime Minister. The Canadian shake and shingle industry became a thing of the past on the opening day of negotiations on free trade. But many forest industry workers took note of what the Prime Minister said last night. Just exactly what benefits will be extended to the forest industry in relation to the Auto Pact, as the Prime Minister made the comparison last night?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, what was made abundantly clear by the Prime Minister last night, and as it has been made clear on a number of occasions before, is that we have an instrument of liberalized trade that benefits the auto workers, principally those of central Canada. I do not know why the NDP wants to deny the same kind of advantage coming from a liberalized trade arrangement-


John Edward Broadbent: We've called for it, knucklehead!


Charles Joseph Clark: -to the workers of British Columbia, and to the workers of the rest of the country. I do not know why members of the New Democratic Party cannot see the nation whole, as this Government is doing.


POSSIBLE BENEFITS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister and not for the former Prime Minister. It is very simple. I want to know what benefits the Prime Minister is suggesting be extended to forest industry workers, since he compared the Auto Pact and free trade to the forest industry. The Prime Minister just read that into the record. What benefits is he proposing be extended to the forest industry?
Right Hon. Joe Clark (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Mr. Speaker, one of the benefits that may well come to the forest industry if these negotiations are successful is that we will not be faced with the same kind of countervail arrangements that are now threatening the softwood lumber
industry in British Columbia. That could well be a consequence of the negotiations. If we do not undertake negotiations, if we do not try, we will never have a better system than the one we have now. The NDP, the Party of the status quo, and of 1964-


Ian Deans: Those are your quotes, not ours.


Charles Joseph Clark: -is happy with a system that does not work. We want a better system for Canadians.


IMMIGRATION
Bill Attewell: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State for Immigration. The Standing Committee on Labour, Employment and Immigration released its excellent report on family reunification today. However, I note that since 1982 only 12 family-class applicants have been refused on security grounds. In this age of international terrorism will the Minister act immediately regarding recommendation No. 32 to ensure that security clearances will guarantee the protection and safety of Canadians?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank the Hon. Member for his question. The report which was tabled only a few hours ago is one which I will want to study extensively. I want to express my appreciation to the members of the standing committee for the work that they have done.
The Hon. Member raises a sensitive question with respect to the desire to have policies that will facilitate family reunification while at the same time balance the security concerns of the country. I can assure the House that I will be consulting with my colleague, the Solicitor General, and other Ministers, to move forward on these recommendations.


RAILWAYS
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. The situation is serious.

CN has just announced that it intends to sell its Moncton shops to GE, which will result in the loss of 600 jobs. Last August the Minister gave his assurance that there would be no massive lay-offs and, furthermore, that the shops would not be
June 17, 1986

closed as long as he was Minister. Will the Minister tender his resignation since CN is abandoning its shops in Moncton?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, contrary to the Hon. Member's suggestion that the shops will be closed, the shops will remain open.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Contrary to what the Hon. Member alleges, the President of CN has indicated that when agreement is reached between CN and Canadian General Electric all 1,022 shop employees should either retain jobs or be accommodated through existing benefit plans. I think that is a pretty good deal.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SITUATION OF WORKERS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, the shops will be just as empty as the promises the Minister made last summer.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Fernand Robichaud: What is the Minister prepared to do for the workers who will lose their jobs? Is he prepared to do something right now for those whose jobs will be lost?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member is attempting to argue that black is white. CN will enter negotiations with Canadian General Electric on the basis of the retention of the 1,022 jobs, or existing benefits will be transferred for earlier retirement or retraining. All of those things will be looked after.
It is important for the Hon. Member to get on the bandwagon in support and urge his union friends to support this process because it will provide a strong, stable, and secure future for the people of Moncton.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FREE TRADE NEGOTIATIONS WITH UNITED STATES-ALLEGED QUEBEC REQUEST FOR INCLUSION OF COMMUNICATIONS AND CULTURE-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister concerns the free trade negotiations.
Oral Questions
The Quebec Minister of Communications has asked that communications be part of the free trade negotiations. Is the Government going to say no to Quebec, even though the provincial Government asks for the inclusion of communications and culture?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As far as I
know, Mr. Speaker, we have received no formal request from the Quebec Government in this area. But I mentioned last night in my speech that our unique cultural identity and special linguistic character are elements of the very essence of Canada. They are not the issue in these negotiations. Such is the position of the Federal Government.


GOVERNMENT RESPONSE
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, it appears that the Government may be receiving such a request. Will the Prime Minister tell us when the request comes, which request was mentioned in answer to a question yesterday in the Quebec House, will the answer continue to be no, culture will not be on the negotiating table even if there is a provincial request for it?


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, we have not discussed this issue in any shape or form at any of the meetings I have had with Quebec Government representatives.


PRICE PAID TO ALBERTA OIL PRODUCERS
Mr. Murray Dorin (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. She will be aware of many recent reports indicating that Alberta producers receive the lowest price in the world for their oil. In view of the fact that the oil industry in Alberta is already devastated, has the Minister examined this system to ensure that Canadian producers receive at least equal treatment with their foreign competitors?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the federal Government deregulated oil markets a year ago this month. We have completely removed ourselves from the market-place in this area. I would suggest that the only resolution to this issue has to come from discussions between the producers and the refiners.
14540

June 17, 1986
Oral Questions


NATIONAL RESEARCH COUNCIL
Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for Science and Technology. I would like to remind the Minister of his own words as reported in yesterday's Hansard in answer to a question about the National Research Council's Industrial Research Assistance Program in which he said: "There are no cuts in the program." Yet less than two hours later an NRC Vice-President confirmed to me that, indeed, a cabinet directive orders a $71 million cut in the program. Will the Minister explain this contradiction? Will he level with Canadians and tell us that he was misinformed? Or will he explain why he is hiding the truth about this decision which will affect some 2,000 small and medium-sized businesses?


Hon. Frank Oberle (Minister of State for Science and Technology):: Mr. Speaker, I stand by what I said yesterday. The Government has announced some new directions and some new priorities. These were communicated in the normal fashion to the National Research Council in this particular case. There were consultations. A portion of the new space program was allocated to the IRAP in consultation with senior officials of the National Research Council. There has been no reduction to the IRAP Program. There will be a requirement, as requested by the National Research Council, to spend 5 per cent of this year's IRAP Program on space-related activities. I do not care to whom the Hon. Member talked, but that is the fact.
[ Translation]


MAGNITUDE OF RESEARCH FUNDING
David Berger: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well that those two programs are absolutely incompatible. Why does he insist on saying there are no cutbacks when the Vice-President of the National Research Council and people in the private sector are saying the opposite?
I would ask the Minister to have the courage to rise and tell us the whole truth on this matter.


Frank Oberle: Mr. Speaker, the Vice-President of the National Research Council does not sign the cheque, I do. That is why I know.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADA-UNITED STATES AUTO PACT
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. I have in hand an unexpurgated version of the External Affairs study of the Auto Pact and it says that the Americans consider the Auto Pact a free trade arrangement and the United States administration will continue to argue against the existence of production safeguards. Does the Prime Minister agree with that description of the American notion of the Auto Pact?


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, Mr. Speaker, I agree with the definition I just gave.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister answered that question as if everything he has said is clear. We all know that that is not so. Does the Prime Minister agree with the American notion of the Auto Pact as a free trade arrangement, or does he agree with the essentially Canadian view that the Auto Pact is a sectoral arrangement with safeguards?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Auto Pact is an instrument of liberalized trade.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mrs. Lise Bourgault (Argenteuil-Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, recently there were newspaper reports dealing with the concerns raised by the Trade Practices Commission as to the apparent lack of monitoring of the activities of registered charitable organizations.
I would ask the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Revenue what kind of action he has taken to maintain continued public confidence in that vital sector of the economy.


Mr. Bernard Valcourt (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, the
Department's role in monitoring the activities of registered charitable organizations flows from specific requirements under the Income Tax Act. Therefore it is so structured as to ensure that provisions of that Act are adhered to. Charitable organizations are treated by the Department the same way all taxpayers are, whether they are individuals or corporations.
I can assure all Members of this House and especially the Hon. Member that the Department is applying the provisions of the Act to the charitable organizations as required.
June 17, 1986


CAPE BRETON DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Acting Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and concerns the attitude and actions of the Chief Executive Officer of the Cape Breton Development Corporation. Could the Minister explain to the House the rationale and reasoning behind the Chief Executive Officer prohibiting the Leader of the Official Opposition in the Province of Nova Scotia from entering a federal building in order to speak with seven labour leaders to try to resolve the matter which the Minister knows can become a very serious matter at the Cape Breton Development Corporation? Why is the Minister allowing the Chief Executive Officer to prohibit duly elected personnel from speaking with these labour leaders?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the Hon. Member is aware that union elections are taking place today. I do not think it would be proper for politicians to intervene in the election process or to be seen as interfering. I indicated to the House yesterday that I thought it was inappropriate and that it would seem to me to be right and proper to allow the elections to be finished. There is a task force mechanism in place that can be used, I hope, to resolve the problem, and if it is necessary to supplement or complement that process, we will take that under consideration.


MINISTER'S POSITION
David Charles Dingwall: Mr. Speaker, can I take it from the Minister that, pending the outcome of those elections, he would then give a directive to the president of the corporation, as well as send down a special envoy to meet with the labour leaders, in order to address in a very substantive way the rightful concerns over high unemployment and the future of the Cape Breton Development Corporation, or is the Minister saying that we will have to wait until there is a situation like the one in Edmonton with people on the streets?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I did not indicate that I would give the Chief Executive Officer a directive. 1 did indicate, as the Hon. Member knows, that there is a task force in place that is equipped to resolve these kinds of issues, and I did indicate that if it was necessary to supplement that task force I would consider doing so. I think the important thing is to get the elections over with so that there is a cooling off period. Then we can take a look at it.
Oral Questions TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS
Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Which form of liberalized trade is he advocating, the one with safeguards like the Auto Pact, or the one with no safeguards like free trade?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, what we advocate is Progressive Conservative liberalized trade.


PRIME MINISTER'S VIEW
Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, we have always known that there is no difference. Perhaps the Prime Minister would like to tell us which view his is closest to when he talks about liberalized trade. Is it closest to free trade or is it closest to sectoral trade? If he is not prepared to say yes or no, perhaps he could say which view is closest to his own.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, perhaps 1 could put it this way. It is far removed from the NDP, United Auto Worker, Bob White position, and it is very, very close to the position of trying to create new jobs and wealth for all regions from Newfoundland to northeastern British Columbia. We want everyone involved in a new dimension of prosperity and we want to give all Canadians a mechanism for growth and prosperity.


REFUGEES
Mr. Sergio Marchi (York West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. On June 9 the Minister told the House that letters inviting refugee claims had not been sent to alleged murderers and drug traffickers. Today we learned that the Director of Refugee Affairs told the Kitchener-Waterloo Record that in fact thousands of letters to such individuals were sent. Why did the Minister deny in the House last Monday that such a letter existed? Why were such letters of invitation sent to those individuals? Who is in control of her Immigration Department?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, if the Hon. Member has information about individuals in Canada who are murderers, he has an obligation to bring that information forward.


REQUEST FOR TABLING OF DOCUMENT
Sergio Marchi: Mr. Speaker, where has the Minister been for the last 10 days? I deposited that very

June 17, 1986
Business of the House
information in the House on Monday and Tuesday and she continues to deny the letter. Since the Minister's own official has confirmed the letter, will she table in the House the new directives that will replace the infamous letter so that Canadians will be assured that individuals involved in such criminal activities will not be invited to seek fraudulent refugee status in Canada?


Walter Franklin McLean: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member seeks to confuse an issue about which there is no deceit or misrepresentation. The tone of the letter is at issue here. Officials have redrafted the letter in order to clarify the tone of the letter. There has been no substantive change, and in no way will criminals be dealt with preferentially.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: The Chair has been given notice of a desire on the part of the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) to raise a point of order. Is the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rising on a point of order?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties, and it has been agreed that the business to be called at this time will be report stage of Bill C-106, an Act respecting the Young Offenders Act. I think there is agreement in that respect. The Hon. Member for York South- Weston (Mr. Nunziata) has some amendments which he wishes to table. I think the House would agree, by unanimous consent, to the Hon. Member tabling those amendments at this time. They were not tabled when we dealt with the matter previously.
However, by the same token, I think there would be unanimous consent in respect of the motion put forward on behalf of the Government. Hon. Members of the House are inclined to accept that particular amendment as being appropriate. If there is any question in respect of same, or if Your Honour has any concern about the matter, I should like to indicate that I have consulted with members of the other Parties and that the House would be inclined to allow the matter to come forward and be put to a vote.
Also it was discussed that we would proceed with report stage and, following the disposition of report stage, that we would carry on with third reading of the Bill.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has several dilemmas. The first one is that it has been very difficult to hear what the Hon. Minister has said because of the noise behind him. Could all Hon. Members who do not have any business in the House at this moment please leave.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: There will be nobody left!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Could I be clear on what the Hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is suggesting with regard to Bill C-106? Is the Chair being asked to accept the tabling of the amendments of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) without notice?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I will go over it again. First, the order of business will be the consideration of Bill C-106 at report stage. Second, the Hon. Member for York South- Weston has distributed copies of proposed amendments, and he wishes to seek unanimous consent to table them at this time without appropriate notice having been given. As far as we are concerned, we are quite prepared to have the Hon. Member table those motions for consideration by the House. Third, there is a Government motion already before the House. I have consulted with members of the other Parties, and they are agreeable to having that matter put to a vote if there is any question in respect of the motion. Fourth, once we have completed report stage of the Bill, I think Your Honour will find disposition to proceed with third reading today.


Ian Deans: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. With regard to the tabling of amendments without appropriate notice, Your Honour will recall that two days or three days ago I raised the dilemma with which we are confronted, inasmuch as Bills are being reported back from committee and have to be dealt with during the course of the next five days or six days. Because of the necessity to proceed with legislation, the normal requirement for tabling, and therefore printing on the Notice Paper, is not always possible.
However, having said that, I suggest that we should not consider this to be a precedent for the following reason. I should like to suggest that in future if Hon. Members want to bring forward amendments for consideration which have not gone through the proper channels, at the very least the amendments ought to be given to each of the Parties and to the Chair in advance of debate commencing, so that we do not have amendments brought forward of which we have absolutely no knowledge and which may in fact be out of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Before recognizing the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, I have no problem if the House seeks to waive the notice provision. However, in advance of seeing a motion, the Chair cannot determine whether it is in fact in order, whether or not notice is waived. The Chair has to make that caveat.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the difficulty is that the Government wishes Bill C-106 to be passed by Parliament before it adjourns for the summer recess. We reached an agreement at committee that the Liberal Party would move its amendments at report stage in the House. The committee concluded clause by clause consideration of the Bill in question last Tuesday. There was some difficulty in getting the amendments together. We were not told until today that the Government intended to bring forward Bill C-106.
June 17, 1986

The Government has three motions on the Order Paper which it would like to bring forward. I am advised that the three motions do not meet with the Chair's approval. However, we would be inclined to support those three particular motions, if the Liberal amendments are allowed to be introduced and briefly discussed at report stage.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This started out as an understanding that there was agreement among the Parties.


Mr. Lewis:: There is.


Mr. Speaker:: I take it there is agreement to waive notice. If the Hon. Member will send me his motions, I will attempt to deal with whether they are in order. The motions which are on the Order Paper are out of order. I have a ruling to that effect which is quite lengthy. I take it the Chair is being asked to find some way to allow a motion to be put which the Chair finds to be out of order, and I do not think the Chair can do that.
I cannot rule upon the motions of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston until I have seen them. I take it that it is now proposed that we call Bill C-106. However, since we are doing matters by consent, in order to guide further the matter which the Chair thought was called, the Chair is ready to read into the record the remainder of the ruling with regard to Bill C-67. With the approval of the House, I think it would be wise to get that matter on to the record so that Hon. Members who have to deal with it will then know where the Chair stands.


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could you clarify that Bill C-67 will be called immediately after C-106?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. When Bill C-106 is before the House, what the Government calls thereafter is the Government's business.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: At this point I should like to indicate the Chair's view in respect of Bill C-67, and then I will deal with the point of order by the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). There are 39 report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act.
Motion No. 1 presents the Chair with some procedural difficulty. It goes beyond the scope of the Bill as passed by the House at second reading stage, in that it gives powers to the
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
standing committee which it does not presently have over Order in Council appointments. The committee cannot initiate appointments and this motion, if adopted, would give the committee a veto power. For these reasons, it is my intention to rule this motion out of order.
Motion No. 1A has been carried. Motions Nos. 2, 3, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 27 have been negatived.
Motion No. 4 was moved and negatived in committee. As these amendments were on the Notice Paper prior to the rule changes relating to the selection of amendments, I have decided to allow the motion to be put. It will, however, be grouped with Motion No. 29, with separate divisions on both motions.
Motions Nos. 5, 6, and 7 attempt to reach into the Criminal Code and import portions of Section 687, which was not contemplated in the Bill when it was read by the House a second time. Therefore, I intend to rule the motions out of order.
As with Motions Nos. 5, 6, and 7, Motion No. 12 also reaches into a section of the Criminal Code which was not considered by the House during second reading debate. Therefore, it is beyond the scope of the Bill, and I will rule it out of order.
Motions Nos. 13, 13A, and 14 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motion No. 15 tries to introduce a new concept into the Bill. While an inmate already has the right to appeal on the basis of law, granting him the right to appeal on any ground of law or fact or mixed law or fact is a new concept and clearly beyond the scope of the Bill as passed by the House at second reading. I intend, therefore, to rule the motion out of order.
Motions Nos. 16 and 17 affect the same lines in the Bill and both are in order. However, after consultation with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), the Chair will select only Motion No. 17 for debate and Motion No. 16 will be dropped from the Notice Paper.
Motions Nos. 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20 and 20A will be combined for debate. Motion No. 17 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 18 will also apply to Motions Nos. 19 and 20. Motions Nos. 18A and 20A will be voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 21 and 22 will be grouped for debate but voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 23, 23A will be the object of separate debates and separate votes.
Motions Nos. 24, 25, 31 and 32 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motions Nos. 25, 31 and 32.
Motion No. 26 will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 28 and 30 both seek to amend Clause 11 of the Bill. After consultation with the Hon. Member for

June 17, 1986
Point of Order
Burnaby, Motion No. 30 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 28 will be dropped from the Notice Paper.
Motion No. 30A will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Motions Nos. 31 and 32 were dealt with earlier.
Motion No. 31A will be debated separately and voted on separately.
Since Motions Nos. 33 and 34 affect the same line of the Bill, the Chair has again consulted the Hon. Member for Burnaby and will select Motion No. 33 which will be debated and voted on separately. Accordingly, Motion No. 34 will be dropped from the Notice Paper.
To recap, the Chair has procedural difficulty with Motions Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 15. It would be my intention, should Members wish to present procedural arguments, to hear these arguments when the order is next called.
Motions Nos. 16, 18 and 34 have not been selected and are dropped from the Notice Paper.


Mr. Speaker:: I have a point of order from the Hon. Member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson).


POINT OF ORDER
Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. This morning at the Public Accounts Committee there was no simultaneous translation. I understand this was the case with two other committees also. I am sure, Mr. Speaker, we all agree that even if Members are sufficiently bilingual to be able to carry on their business the principle is very important and we should somehow find the resources to ensure'that all committees have on simultaneous translation. I am bringing this to your attention, Mr. Speaker, knowing that you will find a solution.


Mr. Speaker:: I thank the Hon. Member for the quality and the brevity of her presentation, and for her vote of confidence in the Chair. I have to tell her that it is not nearly as simple as she would wish it were, and she may know that translation is provided to the House by the Government department responsible for translation. These matters are now under discussion and I hope we will be able to resolve these problems.


Aideen Nicholson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: "These problems"; is that sufficiently unclear that it makes it clear?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of clarification.


Mr. Speaker:: If the Hon. Member is going to ask me what I mean by "these problems", however-


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker. I want to bring to the Chair's attention that I have four documented cases in the last 10 days-if the Chair wants to read them, I will gladly send them to him-where simultaneous translation has not been available to committees.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is well aware of the problem.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: That is part of the problem.


Mr. Speaker:: That the Chair is part of the problem?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: No, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: My goodness. The Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) would not want the Chair to think such a thing and, therefore, the Chair does not! Order, please.


YOUNG OFFENDERS ACT, CRIMINAL CODE, PENITENTIARY ACT AND PRISONS AND REFORMATORIES ACT MEASURE TO AMEND
[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Did I understand you to say earlier that all the Government's amendments on Bill C-106 were out of order?


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair had to find, with regard to the motions on the Order Paper, that they went beyond the scope of the Bill as passed at second reading and reached into the parent Act. There is another kind of objection the Chair sometimes has, and that is with matters that might require Royal Assent, which is a different procedural problem.
I must say that I have the same problem with regard to the motions, now that I have seen them, from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). They appear to go beyond the scope of the Act and reach into the parent Act. The Chair is willing to hear arguments, if there is some understanding on which the House wishes the Chair to try to find a way to agree.


Philip Derek Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Am I to understand that you have suggested that if there is a disposition, in an effort by all three Parties to see that the intent and the spirit of the Act is met, that the amendments of my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), be accepted by the House for debate, and also that
June 17, 1986

the Government's amendments be accepted by unanimous agreement, that this could be done? I think that is the sense of what we want to do.


Mr. Speaker:: The Chair is in some procedural difficulty. I think everybody knows that. Would the House allow a suspension of five minutes, if that is possible, while the Chair tries to see if it can resolve this matter.
At 3.18 p.m. the sitting of the House was suspended.


SITTING RESUMED
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed at 3.22 p.m.
Mr. Speaker:: May I advise the House that I have totally and inadvertently misled the House with regard to at least the initial amendments of the Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) which I have had a second chance to review. I misunderstood the word I was getting from my Table officers. They were trying to tell me that at least the first six motions of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston are procedurally in order. Having examined the first six, I propose to allow them. We will have to come back to the rest after we have examined them. That is the only way in which the Chair can proceed in order to determine for certain that the motions are in order.
The Government's three motions technically reach beyond the scope of the Act and go into the parent Bill. The Chair would normally have to find those motions inadmissible. When the Chair is presented with the consent of the Opposition Parties to avoid requiring the Government to present a band new Bill, it does not make a lot of sense to go the whole route one more time when there is a willingness to do something which would otherwise be possible simply by taking a different route, if the House follows me. I therefore propose to seek unanimous consent to allow the motions on the Order Paper standing in the name of the Government to be put to the House. Is there such consent?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: Given the nature of the amendments and the consent, I propose to allow the three Government motions to be put.


Mr. Ouellet:: Mr. Speaker, I would like to have clarification on this point. Are you telling the House that, in relation to the Government's amendments, if there is consent among the Parties to allow a government motion to be introduced like this to avoid starting the process again and reintroducing a Bill, this type of action could take place exclusively in the House at report stage, or could also be entertained at committee at the time of the study of the legislation there?


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member is asking me to rule on a matter 1 have not been asked to consider. I do not think I can do that. He is asking me to enter into an extrapolation or
Young Offenders Act
obiter dicta of what I have just done which was an attempt, in this set of circumstances at this moment in time, to try to resolve a problem the House seems to want resolved. The Chair cannot answer what flows from that in other circumstances and situations.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have in mind what happened with Bill C-91. In that case the Government was to amend a clause of the parent Bill in order to do away with reference to the Restrictive Trade Practices Commission. That amendment was ruled out of order in committee and was reintroduced at report stage by the Government when it was also ruled out of order by the Chair. It was impossible to do this because of that decision. Indeed, I welcome this new decision by the Chair-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The Hon. Member knows the Chair's view about treating what I have just said as a ruling and then trying to extrapolate from that to other circumstances. The Chair certainly cannot do that. The Hon. Member may have an opinion as to what that means, but the Chair is not saying whether it agrees or disagrees with the Member. The Chair has ruled these motions out of order. Let us be clear. The Chair is faced with an apparent unanimous desire of the House, which is master of its own destiny, that the House be allowed to consider those motions. The Chair regards itself as the servant of the whole House. In the situation, which we just faced, the Chair understood the will of the House and tried therefore to follow it. The Chair cannot go beyond that in any way with regard to a committee.
The Hon. Member is now indulging in a conversation with the Chair which puts the Chair in a difficulty, unless the Member is refusing unanimous consent.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respect your advice and ruling. I will leave the House to allow unanimous consent.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps when I am out of the Chair later the Hon. Member will come and see me and we can discuss this further. I suspect he will want to.
Unless there is some other disposition, I propose to put the three motions which are on the Order Paper in the order in which they are listed. We will then come to the motions of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, by which time I should be able to comment further on Motion No. 7 and beyond.


Philip Derek Lewis: It is possibly already being done, but would it not be in order to suggest that the motions of my hon. colleague be reproduced and distributed?


Mr. Speaker:: It is an excellent suggestion. I presume that is being done.


Thomas Scott Fennell: Yes, Mr. Speaker, that is being done.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (for the Solicitor General of Canada) moved:: June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act
Motion No. 1
That Bill C-106, be amended by adding immediately after line 45 on page 5 the following:
"(9) Subsection 11(1) of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"11.(1) A young person has the right to retain and instruct counsel without delay, and to exercise that right personally, at any stage of proceedings against the young person and prior to and during any consideration of whether, instead of commencing or continuing judicial proceedings against the young person under this Act, to use alternative measures to deal with the young person."" and by renumbering the subsequent Clauses accordingly.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the amendment to Section 11 of the Young Offenders Act is required as a result of a ruling by the Manitoba Court of Appeal to the effect that young people are considered incapable of directly instructing legal counsel. Rather, that court has held that young people can only instruct counsel through a parent or guardian.
This is obviously in conflict with the principle that adolescents are responsible for their behaviour and should be held accountable for their illegal acts. It also contradicts many of the expressed provisions and other principles of the Young Offenders Act. The ruling is the source of potentially disastrous impediments to the reasonable and proper administration of the juvenile justice system.
While this amendment was beyond the scope of the committee's power to act, it was nevertheless generally supported and recommended as a measure that would provide a ready and clear direction to the courts in Manitoba and elsewhere. The amendment itself is a simple one, but one of immediate importance as a clear expression of Parliament's intent that young people dealt with under the Young Offenders Act independently and personally instruct defence counsel.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise only to indicate that I am pleased that the Government has put this amendment forward. I raised this issue during the hearings of the legislative committee on Bill C-106. I indicated that this particular provision should have been included in the legislative package. We received representations from a number of witnesses on this point. I believe that the argument put forward by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General (Mr. Towers) is an important one. Young people should in fact have the right to retain and direct their own legal counsel. While the Manitoba Court of Appeal decision was being appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada, I believe it was an erroneous interpretation of the Young Offenders Act.
That being said, it was felt that it was important to clarify this matter and I am pleased that by virtue of the creativity of the Chair we have been able to achieve that important objective.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, on behalf of the Official Opposition I too would like to express support for this provision. I concur fully with the submissions
made by the Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). I am also appreciative of the fact that the Chair found a way of allowing this amendment to come forward.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 1 agreed to.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Solicitor General of Canada) moved:: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-106, be amended in Clause 19
(a)	by striking out line 41 at page 14 and substituting the following therefor:
"19.(1) Subsection 27(1) of the said Act is".
(b)	by adding immediately after line 14 at page 15 the following
"(2) Subsections 27(3) to (5) of the said Act are repealed and the following substituted therefor:
"(3) In any province where the youth court is a superior court, an appeal under subsection (1.1) shall be made to the court of appeal of the province.
(4)	In any province where the youth court is a county or district court, an appeal under subsection (1.1) shall be made to the superior court of the province.
(5)	No appeal lies pursuant to subsection (1) from a judgment of the court of appeal in respect of a finding of guilt or an order dismissing an information to the Supreme Court of Canada unless leave to appeal is granted by the Supreme Court of Canada within twenty-one days after the judgment of the court of appeal is pronounced or within such extended time as the Supreme Court of Canada or a judge thereof may, for special reasons allow."


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would adjust the Section references in Section 27 of the Act to accommodate changes which have been introduced. The amendments are technical drafting matters but serve to ensure that the appeals process under the Act is not open to interpretation difficulties or rendered inoperative because of technical problems.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 2 agreed to.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-106, be amended by adding immediately after line 2 at page 30 the following:
"38.(1) Subsection 60(1) of the said Act is renumbered as section 60.
(2) Subsection 60(2) and (3) of the said Act are repealed." and by renumbering the subsequent Clauses accordingly.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would alter the provisions affecting the testimony of young people and,
June 17, 1986

most importantly, children in youth court proceedings. Bill C-106 already removes the requirement for corroboration of a child's testimony. This amendment would ensure that the Act was not interpreted as denying the admissibility of a child's unsworn testimony. If approved, it will allow the evidence of a child to be taken under oath or affirmation, or as unsworn evidence in accordance with the rules established for ordinary courts. Thus the Young Offenders Act will ensure that the full protection of the law is available where children are the victims of criminal offences. In addition, the amendment means that the Act will be able to accommodate changes in the rules of evidence such as those proposed in the Bill introduced by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) last week.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, once again I support this amendment. As originally presented to the legislative committee, the Bill would have had a rather unusual effect. The amendment as originally proposed would have given full operation to Section 16 of the Canada Evidence Act with respect to young persons. By virtue of that particular section, capacity in young persons is not presumed until the age of 14. By the amendment as originally presented in the Bill young people of 12 and 13 years of age would be presumed to have criminal capacity but not the capacity to take an oath. As the group Justice for Children put it so clearly and pointedly, that is absurd and unacceptable. It is to deal with that unacceptable implication of the amendment originally proposed that this amendment is proposed, and certainly I support it.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion No. 3 agreed to.


Mr. Speaker:: The next matter before the House is Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). May I try to deal with the rest of the Hon. Member's amendments?
The Hon. Member will know that Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 all deal with essentially the same Section in the Act. It is normally the Chair's practice to ask that the Hon. Member involved select one of the motions. The Hon. Member may want to think about that and simply let me know as we proceed.
Motions Nos. 9, 10, 11, 12, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19 and 20 are in order. There is a problem with Motion No. 13. That motion goes beyond the scope of the Bill, as far as the Chair can tell, and the Chair must therefore rule Motion No. 13 out of order.
The Chair proposes to call debate on Motion No. 1 and seek the advice of the Hon. Member as to which of Motions Nos. 6, 7 and 8 he would like. He can do it in one of two ways. He can simply tell me, or he can simply not put the motion. The procedure in this case is that I am now calling Motion No. 1.
Message from the Senate


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-106, be amended in Clause 5 by striking lines 27 and 28 on page 3 and substituting the following therefor:
"no case later than imediately after the appearance of the"
He said: Mr. Speaker, the effect of this amendment is to limit somewhat the overly broad standard "first reasonable opportunity" as used in the Act. Subsection 4 of Clause 5 says:
Subsections (1) and (2) do not apply in respect of any temporary restraint of a young person in the hands of a peace officer after arrest, but a young person who is so restrained shall be transferred to a place of temporary detention referred to in that subsection as soon as is reasonably practicable, and in no case later than the first reasonable opportunity after the appearance of the young person before a youth court judge or a justice pursuant to section 454 of the Criminal Code.
The amendment we propose would require that the transfer referred to take place immediately after the appearance of the young person before a youth court judge, rather than at the first reasonable opportunity. This amendment was recommended and supported by the group known as Justice for Children.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I just wanted to take this opportunity to indicate that I received the proposed motions amending Bill C-106 approximately one-half hour ago. I regret not having had an opportunity to study them in depth. Certainly I am confident that a number of them have considerable merit, but in the absence of any opportunity to examine them I do not intend to comment on them during the course of report stage debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 1 negatived.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-91, an Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof, without amendment.

I also have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill C-115, an Act granting to Her Majesty certains sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987.

June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act



THE ROYAL ASSENT

['On division. Motion No. 11 negatived.']
Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a communication has been received as follows:
Government House,
Ottawa,
Sir:
June 17, 1986
I have the honour to inform you that the Right Honourable Brian Dickson, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 17th day of June, 1986, at 4.30 p.m., for the purpose of giving the Royal Assent to certain Bills.
Yours sincerely,
Leopold H. Amyot, Secretary to the Governor General

* *



[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, as reported (with amendments) from a Legislative Committee.
That would ensure, if Section 8(1) were to remain in the legislation, that where a youth court judge was available then the youth court judge should in effect make a decision relative to a young offender. So in effect the amendment that I am proposing would reinstate Section 8 of the Act requiring that a youth court judge make an order for bail, if one is available.
This amendment is recommended and supported by both the Canadian Council for Children and Youth and Justice for Children. It seems to me that when there is a youth court judge available, the youth court judge should in effect make the decision. As you know youth court judges have exclusive jurisdiction to deal with young offenders, and one would hope that where a youth court judge is available that judge would be making the decision.
A judge that is dealing with matters relating to young offenders day after day after day acquires a certain expertise and sensitivity to the issue of young offenders, an expertise that might be lacking in some other judge that does not deal with youth court matters on a regular basis.
Section 8 of the Act does not make it mandatory that a youth court judge deal with such a matter, but it simply says that where a youth court judge is available that that youth court judge should deal with bail matters. I was not convinced by the Government as to the reasons why it wanted to eliminate Section 8 of the present Young Offenders Act. Both the organizations that I mentioned, the Canadian Council for Children and Youth and Justice for Children, were very concerned about this particular provision. They expressed complete support for the retention of Section 8 in the Young Offenders Act.
John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 2:
That Bill C-106, be amended in Clause 6 by striking lines 24 and 25 on page 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to apologize to the Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for submitting the amendments at this point in time. As you are aware, there was an agreement at committee to report the particular Bill out of committee last Tuesday in order to ensure that the Bill would be given third and final reading in the House and to receive Royal Assent before the House rises for the summer break. I appreciate that the Hon. Member for Burnaby was not in attendance at committee last Tuesday when there was some discussion with respect to some of these amendments. I will try, during the course of my submissions, to explain in a succinct fashion what the amendments mean.
Amendment No. 2 has the effect of striking lines 24 and 25 on page 5. That is Clause 6. What in effect Clause 6 does is repeal subsection 8(1) of the Young Offenders Act. Subsection 8(1) of the Young Offenders Act reads as follows:
No order may be made under section 457 of the Criminal Code by a court, judge or justice, other than a youth court judge, for the release from or the detention in custody of a young person against whom proceedings have been taken under this Act unless, having regard to the circumstances, a youth court judge is not reasonably available.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 2 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 3:
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 15 by striking line 29 on page 8 and substituting the following therefore:
"such place, other than a custodial facility, as the provincial director".
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this amendment makes it clear that a provincial director does not have absolute discretion to place a young person in a custodial facility. The provincial director or anyone authorized by the provincial director under proposed Section 2.1 should not be able to circumvent the guidelines restricting court use of custodial dispositions by resort to Section 23(2)(f). As well, this amendment that I am proposing is supported by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth.
June 17, 1986


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 3 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 4:
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 18 by striking line 37 and substituting the following therefor:
"(g) or paragraph 20(1 )(j) or (1), other than a violation of a treatment
order which is a term of a probation order under paragraph 20(1 )(j), and
who".
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, this amendment exempts non-compliance with a treatment order, which is a term of a probation order from criminal prosecution. In our view no punitive measures should be taken for refusal to accept treatment, because treatment should be conditional upon consent of the young person.
As you know at times when a probation order issues with respect to a young offender a condition of the probation order is that the young offender obtain certain forms of treatment. What this amendment does is make it a criminal offence if a young offender refuses to accept the treatment under a probation order. It is felt by a number of experts in the field representing justice for children that treatment should be conditional upon the consent of the young person.
It would appear logical that if treatment is to work with young offenders, as an appropriate disposition, that one needs the co-operation of the young offender. If treatment is being imposed on a young offender contrary to his or her will then it is likely, almost inevitable, that the treatment would fail. We do not believe that failure to co-operate with a treatment program should result in a possible criminal charge similar to a criminal charge for a breach of any other condition of probation.


Mr. Speaker:: Is the House ready for the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Young Offenders Act
Motion No. 5
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by striking line 39 on page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
"report, after proceedings have been commenced under this Act."
He said: Mr. Speaker, Clause 28 is probably the most contentious clause of the Bill. It deals with the publication of information by the media that would lead to the identification of a young offender, a victim of a young offender or, for that matter, a witness.
At committee, we heard from representatives of the Ottawa Citizen, a daily newspaper in Ottawa. The publisher and the managing editor appeared before the committee and expressed some very serious concerns about the whole issue of the publication of information relative to young offenders. They pointed out that it would be in the best interest of society that in certain limited circumstances the media should be permitted to publish certain information with regard to a young offender, a victim or witness that would be appearing in a particular trial.
It was felt that Section 38 of the existing Young Offenders Act did not allow for sufficient discretion in the court to deal with this particular issue.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), speaking on behalf of his Party, indicated that he would not support giving the court added judicial discretion. I was convinced not only by the Ottawa Citizen but by representatives of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that there should be limited judicial discretion with respect to the publication of evidence. I felt it important that there be criteria in the legislation itself that would limit the nature of the judicial discretion.
One of the amendments that I proposed, which was ruled out of order because it does not comply with the rules of the House, would in effect give that discretion with stipulated criteria.
Motion No. 5 would amend Clause 28 of the Bill by striking line 39 on page 19 and substituting the words: "report, after proceedings have been commenced under this act." Section 38 would read: "subject to this section, no person shall publish by any means any report after proceedings have been commenced under this act."
The concern expressed by a number of individuals is that it is not clear under the existing legislation whether Section 38 would ban the publication of evidence before proceedings have commenced under the Young Offenders Act. For example, the police might be investigating a particular offence but the media would not be permitted to publish any information that might lead to the identification of the young offender, the victim or any witness. This amendment would clarify that the publication of reports prior to commencement of a proceeding under this Act is not prohibited. In effect, the media would be permitted to publish information prior to the commencement of a proceeding.

June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act
The purpose of making it an offence to publicize certain information is to protect young offenders. The argument is very persuasive that young offenders should be protected and that if there is media coverage of a particular trial, then the young offender might be stigmatized for the rest of his or her life as a result of that publication.
As I indicated, the present language could be interpreted to require reporters to refrain from publishing material on the possibility that a proceeding might be commenced. Reporters would have to wait until a proceeding could no longer be filed before publishing a report. In my opinion, applying this retroactive ban on publication violates fundamental justice. The amendments would eliminate this possible misinterpretation, and this particular amendment is one which was recommended by the Ottawa Citizen, and which we in the Opposition support.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 5. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 5 negatived.


Mr. Speaker:: I require some advice from the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata). Would he like me to call Motion No. 6, Motion No. 7 or Motion No. 8?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, perhaps you could call Motion No. 7 and I will speak to it briefly.


Mr. Speaker:: Motion Nos. 6 and 8 shall be dropped.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 7
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by striking line 5 on page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"the offence alive at the date of publication or a child or a young person."
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would exempt publication of the identities of deceased victims from the prohibition on publication. The prohibition on publication would prohibit the media from publicizing the identity of a deceased person. Protection from publicity which generally justifies exclusion is no longer necessary where the victim is deceased. Also, there is significant public benefit from the ability to inform the public of who has died and how.
This particular amendment was recommended by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and we in the Opposition support this amendment. We propose it because we believe there is no justification for disallowing the publication of the identity of a person who is deceased.


Mr. Speaker:: The question is on Motion No. 7. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 7 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 9
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by striking lines 20 to 33 on page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1.2) A youth court judge may on the application of a police officer, make an order permitting any person to publish a report described in subsection (1) that contains the name of a young person, or information serving to identify a young person, who has committed or is alleged to have committed an indictable offence, if the judge is satisfied that:
(a)	there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the yong person is a serious threat to public safety; and
(b)	there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that publication of the report is necessary to assist, and will assist in apprehending the young person.
(i)	The youth court judge shall appoint counsel to represent the young person in any proceedings in respect of an application under this subsection.
(ii)	Notice of an application under this subsection shall be provided to the parent of the young person, unless it is impracticable to give such notice."
He said: Mr. Speaker, since the motion itself is somewhat self-explanatory, perhaps I could read it. The motion states:
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by striking lines 20 to 33 on page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1.2) A youth court judge may on the application of a police officer, make an order permitting any person to publish a report described in subsection (1) that contains the name of a young person, or information serving to identify a young person, who has committed or is alleged to have committed an indictable offence, if the judge is satisfied that:
(a)	there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the young person is a serious threat to public safety; and
(b)	there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that publication of the report is necessary to assist, and will assist in apprehending the young person.
(i)	The youth court judge shall appoint counsel to represent the young person in any proceedings in respect of an application under this subsection.
(ii)	Notice of an application under this subsection shall be provided to the parent of the young person, unless it is impracticable to give such notice.
This, once again, deals with Clause 28 of Section 38 of the Bill which deals with the publication of information that would lead to the identification of individuals involved in a crime by a young offender. On the ex parte application of a peace officer, which means that a peace officer can make an application without giving notice to any other person, the youth court judge must-it is mandatory-make an order permitting any person to publish a report described in subsection (1) that contains the name of a young person, or information serving to identify that young person who has committed or is alleged to have committed an indictable offence, if the judge is satisfied that (a) there is reason to believe that the young person is dangerous to others and (b) publication of the report is necessary to assist in apprehending the young person.
So, practically speaking, what would happen is that a police officer would make an application to a youth court judge and would submit evidence in order to satisfy the judge that there
June 17, 1986

is reason to believe that the young person is dangerous to others and that publication of the report is necessary to assist in apprehending the young person. Once the youth court judge is satisfied with those two facts, then the judge, under this particular section, would have no alternative but to allow for the publication of evidence.
The purpose of my particular amendment is, first, to give the court some discretion in this respect. As I indicated, this amendment provides that the youth court judge may issue an order for publication but leaves the judge discretion to refuse an order. So, I would change the word "shall" to "may" so that even if a police officer is able to convince a judge of the two matters that I indicated, that there is reason to believe that the young person is dangerous to others and that publication of the report is necessary to assist in apprehending the young person, the judge would not be required to make an order to allow for the publication.
Second, the wording of my amendment would increase the standard which, under the proposed clause by the Government, under Clause (a), is that "there is reason to believe". I would submit that we should include the words, "there be reasonable and probable grounds for believing the existence of a serious threat to public safety and, therefore, the need for the publication of evidence". That simply raises the standard. It places a heavier burden, I suppose, on police officers rather than just showing that there is some reason to believe certain facts, namely, that the young person is dangerous. Amendment 9 would require that there be reasonable and probable grounds, which is a higher standard with regard to the police officer.
The third part of the amendment I am proposing would require that counsel be appointed to represent the young person. There are some difficulties with respect to this particular provision. I am recommending that the wording include "The youth court judge shall appoint counsel to represent the young person in any proceedings in respect of an application under this subsection". This particular amendment is recommended by Justice for Children and the Canadian Council on Children and Youth. It was felt that where an application is made ex parte, the young person should have some representation. Therefore, we are proposing that the youth court judge appoint counsel to represent the young person to ensure that the provisions of this Act are complied with, to ensure that in fact there are reasonable and probable grounds to believe that the young person is dangerous.
Of course, the young person would not be in a position to instruct counsel, and that particular counsel who would be appointed by the court would perhaps not know of the whereabouts of the particular individual; but nonetheless, it was felt to be important that the young person be represented by counsel even though the young person would not be in a position to give instructions to the lawyer.
Fourth, in view of the serious consequences concerning the privacy of a young person and the family in the event of a published order, notice will be provided to the parent of a
Young Offenders Act
young person unless it is impractical to give notice. Rather than there simply being an ex parte application, amendment No. 9 would require that notice of the application for publication be given to the parents where practical to do so.
As I indicated, the Justice for Children association and the Canadian Council on Children and Youth are fully supportive of this particular amendment that would ensure the best interests of the young person, the young offender.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 9 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 10
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by striking lines 34 to 36 on page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"(1.3) The length of such order is in the discretion of the court".
He said: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated earlier, Section 38 would allow for a police officer to apply to a court for an order to allow the publication of certain information that might lead to the identification of a young offender. Clause 1.3 states that an order made under this particular section shall cease to have effect two days after it is made.
It was argued by The Citizen of Ottawa and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that there should not be a two-day limit. They made a very persuasive argument. They argued that under this particular section, which is new to the Young Offenders Act, a court could allow the media to publish certain information about a young offender who was at large in order to alert the public that this young offender might be at large in a particular community. The publication might also assist the police in apprehending a young offender.
Let us assume for a moment that an application is made and that the media publishes the fact that a young offender who has committed a crime, let us say the crime of murder, is at large somewhere in the community. Let us say that the public is informed by the media that this particular offence has been committed and that a particular young person is dangerous and at large in a particular community. Such an order would expire after two days. So the public may be alarmed by the media, or cautioned by the media to take necessary precautions, but after the second day the media would not be free to advise the public that the young offender had been apprehended and that there was no further need to be concerned.
In the circumstances it was felt that what ought to be done is that the length of the order should be in the discretion of the court. Given the circumstances of a particular case the court could allow for an order for publication to last for a certain

June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act
period of time. To restrict it to two days might do a disservice to the community.
I hope that Hon. Members opposite will see the wisdom in adopting this particular amendment which was supported by a number of groups and individuals who made representations to the committee and to the Solicitor General.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 10. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 10 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 11
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by striking lines 38 to 46 on page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"application of any person, make an order permitting any person to publish a report serving to identify any person in subsection (1), if the court is satisfied that, considering all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the extent of community interest, the age of the accused, the prior criminal history of the accused, and the views of the young person or child involved and of the parent of the young person or child, the public interest would be best served by publication.
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment would amend Bill C-106 in Clause 38 by striking lines 38 to 46 on page 20 and substituting the following therefor:
"application of any person, make an order permitting any person to publish a report serving to identify any person in subsection (1), if the court is satisfied that, considering all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence, the extent of community interest, the age of the accused, the prior criminal history of the accused, and the views of the young person or child involved and of the parent of the young person or child, the public interest would be best served by publication.
This is what I was referring to earlier. It would allow, not only a police officer but any person to apply for the permission of the court to publish information. However, it would provide for meaningful criteria. We are not suggesting that the court be given a blanket discretion to decide when and if a publication should be permitted in any particular case. What we are suggesting is that discretion be given to the presiding youth court judge, but that certain criteria be applied before the publication is made and before an order is issued.
The amendment prescribes the factors that a judge would have to consider in making such an order, including the wishes of the young person. If this amendment were adopted the judge would have to consider all the relevant circumstances, including the nature of the offence. It was argued by The Citizen of Ottawa and the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation that in certain cases, depending upon the nature of the offence, there is very little if any harm done to the best interests of a
young offender if there is publication. There are certain cases in which serious offences have been committed which would suggest that there not be publication.
It is also recommended that the extent of community interest be a factor or criterion that the judge should take into consideration, as well as the age of the accused. If, for example, an accused person is 17 years of age going on 18 years of age, then that should be a factor taken into consideration by the judge. For example, let us assume that an offence is committed by a young person before he or she turns 18, but prior to the final disposition of the particular case the person has his or her eighteenth birthday. In those circumstances the court might want to allow for the publication of the identity of this particular young offender who ceases to become a young offender because he or she reaches 18 years of age. So there are certain circumstances in which the court might want to allow for publication, considering the age of the accused.
This amendment would also require the youth court judge to consider the prior criminal history of the accused. If the young offender is a hardened criminal, so to speak, who has a long and unfortunate history of breaking the law, then the damage done to that person through publication is less than the damage done to a young offender who has never before committed a criminal act and who is being prosecuted for the first time. It was felt that if a person had a lengthy criminal record then the court might be inclined to allow for the publication of information that would lead to the identification of that particular accused.
This amendment would also require the court to take into consideration the views of the young offender involved. In this way the young offender could, through his or her lawyer, make submissions to the court as to why the court should not allow for the publication of information. The amendment also requires the court to consider the views of the parents of the young person who is the subject of the application.
In conclusion, Motion No. 11 would give limited judicial discretion to allow for the publication of certain evidence. It would require the court to consider certain factors. Above all, it would ensure that the court consider whether the public interest would be best served by publication. If there is no public interest in publication then the court should not allow for publication. However, if there is public interest, and the criteria are considered, then in our view the court should at least have the discretion to allow the publication of evidence.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 11. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
June 17, 1986


Some Hon. Members:: On division. Motion No. 11 negatived.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 66, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner)- Public Service-Indexation of pensions; the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse)-External aid- Ethiopia-Canadian development policies; the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald)-Women- Inquiry if groups subsidized last year will receive same aid this year, (b) Size of funding.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, As reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 12
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 28 by adding the following subsection:
"(1.5) anyone may publish any information or report otherwise prohibited under the Act provided that the express written consent is obtained of:
(a)	the child or young person involved, and the parent of the young person, or
(b)	the adult involved, who was at the time of the proceedings a child or young person to whom subsection 38(1) refers.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Amendment No. 12 proposed by the Liberal Party would amend Bill C-106 in Clause 28 by adding the following subsection:
"(1.5) anyone may publish any information or report otherwise prohibited under the Act provided that the express written consent is obtained of:
(a)	the child or young person involved, and the parent of the young person, or
(b)	the adult involved, who was at the time of the proceedings a child or young person to whom subsection 38(1) refers.
As you know, Mr. Speaker, there is a blanket prohibition on the publication of evidence. Clause 38 would allow, in certain limited circumstances, a police officer to apply to the court for
Young Offenders Act
an order to allow for the publication of evidence. This particular clause would permit the publication of evidence that would otherwise be banned from being publicized if there is consent. It is felt that if the young person and the parent of the young person consents, or if the young person who becomes an adult during the course of the proceedings consents, the media should be permitted to publicize information. It could very well be in the best interests of the person involved that there be publicity surrounding the particular offence.
Very briefly, it is felt that where all parties consent to the publication of evidence it should be allowed and the consent should be written rather than oral to ensure that the consent is bona fide. The amendment is supported by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as well as the Ottawa Citizen.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 12. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 12 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: It is my understanding that Motion No. 13 has been disposed of as being out of order.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 30 by striking line 1 on page 22 and substituting the following therefor:
"40.(1) In this section and in sections 41 to 46, "record" means
(a)	any document within the Court's immediate possession, including the information, all docket documents, the transcript of any proceedings (including the court reporter's notes, whether written or audio), the judges' notes and any evidence produced for the purpose of trial or disposition; and
(b)	the documents of any other person involved directly or indirectly with the proceedings, to the extent that the document identifies the young person as an accused person or contains details of the court proceedings.
(1.1) A youth court, review board or"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this amendment lists the definition of a record and paragraph (b) excludes medical and psychological reports from being considered records as long as they do not contain the identity of a young person or details of the court proceedings. This amendment is supported by the Canadian Council on Children and Youth and by Justice for Children.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.

June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 14. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the
motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 14 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 15
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 33 by striking lines 30 to 41 on page 23 and substituting the following therefor:
''(0 any peace officer, for the purpose of investigating any offence that the young person is suspected on reasonable and probable grounds of having committed, or in respect of which the young person has been arrested or charged, whether as a young person or as an adult;"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is pretty hard work. I am justifying the lucrative salary they pay us here. Thank goodness we are nearing the end. I would invite Hon. Members opposite to justify their salaries by rising to indicate why they do not support these particular amendments.
Amendment No. 15 limits the access of police officers to the records of a young offender for investigative purposes where the young person is suspected on reasonable or probable grounds of having committed an offence or where the young person has been charged with an offence.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 15. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 15 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 16
Tha Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 33 by striking line 20 on page 25 and substituting the following therefor:
"(5) Any record necessary for the purpose of bringing a civil case that is kept pursuant to"
He said: Mr. Speaker, this is democracy in action. Members of Her Majesty's Loyal and Official Opposition are proceeding in a very constructive and responsible fashion by recommending and moving amendments to the legislation that would make it better legislation, but government Members are using their huge majority to strike down these very worth-while amendments one after another.
The record will speak for itself in the years to come. We in the Official Opposition will be able to say that we tried to move amendments but Hon. Members opposite kept saying
nay, nay, nay. The record will speak for itself and will say that we tried to move Amendment No. 16 but the huge majority opposite used its clout to strike down this amendment.
Amendment No. 16 would allow a victim of an offence access to only those records necessary for the bringing of a civil action. This amendment was recommended by Justice for Children. We in the Official Opposition were persuaded that this amendment would improve the Bill substantially, and I would hope for a change in that Hon. Members opposite will say yea rather than nay. I am beginning to feel that we are here with a bunch of those animals that say "neigh".


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 16. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 16 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 33 by striking lines 30 to 41 on page 25.
He said: Mr. Speaker, very briefly, Motion No. 17-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: It seems that Members on all sides of the House are becoming rather weary of this exercise, but it is important to ensure that we put forward the amendments. They were recommended by some very responsible organizations which deal with young people and young offenders. These amendments were proposed and recommended by members of the media who deal with these situations day in and day out.
Had the Government the wisdom to adopt the amendments, I believe very strongly that we would have a near perfect piece of legislation. However, given its refusal to adopt any of these recommendations, the Bill will continue to be flawed. I am sure time will tell whether these amendments would in fact improve the legislation.
For the record, so that my grandchildren and great grandchildren will be able to read it in years to come-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: When?


Jean-Robert Gauthier: Tell us when, John.


Philip Derek Lewis: I wouldn't touch that one.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Are you announcing something, John?
June 17, 1986


John V. Nunziata: I have no plans as yet, but I will make sure she is a Liberal. I could not imagine living with anyone other than a Liberal.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I am glad there is some life on the other side of the House. I was beginning to feel, apart from the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier) and the Hon. Member for Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador (Mr. Rompkey), that everyone was in a deep sleep.
Motion No. 17 eliminates the provision allowing for a police officer to disclose to any person information in a record relating to investigation of an offence or, to an insurance company, information in a record relating to investigation of a claim arising out of an offence or alleged offence. The court and not an individual police officer should decide whether disclosure is necessary.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 17. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 17 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 18
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 34 by striking out line 8 on page 27 and substituting the following therefor:
"40, 42 and 43 may, in the discretion of the".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I should like to speak very briefly to the third last amendment which will be proposed by the Liberal Opposition today. It clarifies a technical error in the Bill. We even found a technical error; it is up to the Opposition to find technical errors in the Bill.
Under subsection 45.2, records kept by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police pursuant to Section 41 must be destroyed, while under subsection 45.3 all records, including those pursuant to Section 41, may be destroyed before or after certain circumstances are realized. The amendment will make clear that the RCMP does not have discretion to keep records as subsection 45.2 would suggest. In effect, it provides that in all cases the records should be destroyed under particular circumstances, and that there should not be a distinction between the RCMP and other police forces in Canada.
I am sure the Government will want to support this technical amendment. I look forward to the Tories all shouting:
"Yea, yea, yea".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 18. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
Young Offenders Act


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 18 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 34 by striking lines 34 to 47 on page 27 and lines 1 to 18 on page 28.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 19 would eliminate the court's discretion to grant access to records to any person according to broad criteria. Subsection 45.1 of the present legislation would provide access to records even after the qualifying period of non-disclosure had passed, if the broad criteria in the interests of the proper administration of justice were satisfied. Plus, the Crown could reopen a case because of an offence as an adult five years later.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 19. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 19 negatived.


John V. Nunziata: Motion No. 20
That Bill C-106 be amended in Clause 38 by striking line 3 on page 30 and substituting the following therefor:
"Section 61 of the said Act is repealed and the following substituted therefor:
'61. Young persons shall be presumed to have the capacity to take an oath in proceedings under this Act, including proceedings in ordinary court pursuant to Section 16' ".
He said: Mr. Speaker, finally we have reached Motion No.
20.


Mr. Rompkey:: A nice round number.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, you will notice that the Opposition always deals in round numbers. We have proposed 20 amendments to the legislation. I am sure the record will show that the Government refused each and every one of the 20 amendments, all of which were supported not only by members of the Official Opposition but by very responsible groups who spent many years working in this particular area. These groups came before the committee and made some very persuasive submissions to amend particular sections of the Young Offenders Act.
The Young Offenders Act is only two years old. However, there were some very serious problems with the legislation originally passed by Parliament at that time. As a result of those concerns, a number of months ago the Department of the Solicitor General embarked upon a consultation tour across the country to listen to various groups and organizations and to see how the Bill could be improved. The groups have spoken

June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act
out. They have reviewed the Bill; they have recommended changes.
What we find today is that although the Government purports to listen to Canadians before it acts, although it purports to care about the consultative process, and although it purports to be concerned about having legislation which is fair and reasonable, the Government has refused or is about to refuse each and every one of 20 responsible amendments which have been proposed by the Liberal Opposition. However, the record will show that we tried. Unfortunately these groups and individuals will have to wait a few short years for a change in Government before these amendments will become law.
Motion No. 20 would eliminate the anomaly created by the repeal of the present Section 61 whereby 12-year and 13-year olds would be presumed to have criminal capacity but not the capacity to give an oath, as capacity under Section 16 of the Canada Evidence Act is not presumed until the age of 14 years. This amendment is supported by Justice for Children.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 20. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 20 negatived.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: When shall the Bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as I was indicating, the Solicitor General's Department over the last number of months-I believe the consultation process started over six months ago-listened to quite a number of organizations across Canada and dozens of individuals expert in the area of young offenders. It is obvious to us now after what we have gone through over the last hour and a half that the whole consultation process was somewhat of a farce. The Government did speak to these groups and individuals, but it is obvious they did not listen to the groups and individuals.
The Young Offenders Act was introduced two years ago by the Liberal Government of the day. It was felt that there should be uniform laws across Canada to deal with young offenders, that there should not be one law in one part of the country and another in another part. Prior to the Young Offenders Act we were dealing with the Juvenile Delinquents
Act, an Act to which a lot of Members of Parliament opposite were subjected when they were younger-I am only kidding, Mr. Speaker. I just want them to wake up across the way.
The Young Offenders Act did replace the Juvenile Delin-quints Act and provided, among other things, for a uniform age across Canada for criminal responsibility. Prior to the passage of the Young Offenders Act two years ago a person who in Ontario might be considered a young offender would not be a young offender in another province in Canada. In Ontario, the province where I reside, young adults were those who were 16 and older under the Juvenile Delinquints Act. The sixteen and seventeen year olds who committed offences contrary to the Criminal Code of Canada were treated like any other adult who committed a crime. It was felt that young people are as much victims as they are offenders in a lot of circumstances. A person, for example, who is 10, 11 or 12 years of age should not, in our view, be treated as a criminal. The young offender should be treated rather than punished for his or her particular offence.
It appears obvious from the outset when the Young Offenders Act was introduced that there was not the necessary public acceptance of the legislation in order to ensure its success. We found that the police and provincial Governments reluctantly co-operated with certain provisions in the Bill. There was a hue and cry for amendments to the legislation at least to assure the public that some of their concerns were being addressed.
There have been a few celebrated cases in the last two years, some major murder cases in Ontario, which caused considerable controversy and caused people to condemn the Young Offenders Act. It was felt the Act was not working. In one particular case I recall, one young person murdered a number of people. Rather than transferring the matter to adult court, the matter was dealt with in the Young Offenders Court, thereby restricting the court as to the type of disposition that could be handed down. The Young Offenders Act limits the period of incarceration to three years. In this particular case the person who had committed murder could only be sentenced to a three year period of incarceration. Had the Crown attorney in the case done his work, that case should have been transferred to adult court where the young offender could have been given the maximum sentence for murder.
Because of that particular case and others the public was alarmed. The Solicitor General's department decided to undertake certain changes to the Act. Before so doing, the Department decided to consult with provincial Attorneys General and interest groups throughout Canada. As I indicated earlier, the Solicitor General's department did not listen to the submissions made by quite a number of those groups and organizations. It is interesting that there was consultation before the introduction of Bill C-106, but there was very limited consultation after its introduction. It was difficult to determine where Canadians stood on Bill C-106. They expressed concerns prior to the introduction of the Bill. They expressed concerns relative to the general provisions of the
June 17, 1986

Young Offenders Act, but they were not given sufficient opportunity to consider the Bill as proposed.
The Bill was introduced for first reading about a month and a half ago, but it was not brought back for second reading until sometime later. We were told time and time again that it was an extremely urgent piece of legislation, yet the Government waited a full month before it brought the Bill back for consideration in order to refer it to committee. Once the Bill got to committee, as you know, Mr. Speaker, the committee was given a very limited period of time in which to deal with the legislation. We were continually rushed. The Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) and his Department kept telling us that public safety was threatened. We did not hear from groups that should have been before committee to give us their perspective of the Bill. We did rush it through. There were agreements by all three political Parties to expedite the Bill. We in the Official Opposition indicated at the outset that we would not obstruct the Bill, that we intended to move amendments to the Bill but we wanted to see speedy passage of it.
I wonder whether we have done a disservice to the Young Offenders Act by rushing this Bill through as quickly as we have. It is an improvement of sorts, but the Bill could have been made even better had the Government adopted some of the amendments proposed by the Official Opposition. The Government, because it is the Government, is always reluctant to adopt recommendations and amendments by the Opposition.
I guess the New Democratic Party is so frustrated by this whole process that it did not even propose any further amendments at report stage. Some of the concerns of the New Democratic Party were addressed by certain amendments that were adopted at committee. Some of those concerns, if not all, were concerns of the Liberal Opposition as well. We were appreciative of the fact that we were able to move some of those amendments at committee and that they were all adopted by the Government. However, most of them were technical in nature. We believe that some of the substantive motions we moved today would have improved the legislation. I suppose there will be other opportunities in the future to deal with the Young Offenders Act. Even though this Bill continues to be flawed to a certain degree, I hope the public will accept the principles underlying this piece of legislation.
I must say publicly that I am pleased that the Government did not move any amendments to the Young Offenders Act which would derogate from the basic principles of the Act. I know that there are those in society who would have preferred major amendments to the Bill which would have attacked the very heart of the legislation. For example, there are those who argued that the three-year maximum period of incarceration provided for under the Young Offenders Act was too short. They want that period extended to five, six, or seven years. I am glad the Government resisted in that area.
I am appreciative as well that the Government resisted the arguments to reduce the age of criminal responsibility from 12.
Message from The Senate
Police forces from across Canada argued that the age of criminal responsibility should be reduced from 12. I am not sure what age they wanted to reduce it to, but the Government resisted, and that provision of the Bill remains.
We in the Opposition believe very strongly that young people under the age of 12 should not be held criminally responsible. We fail as a society when youngsters aged 6 to 11 commit Criminal Code offences. The parents of an offender of that age must take considerable responsibility. Rather than subjecting a child of tender age to criminal prosecution we believe that those children should be treated through mechanisms put in place at the provincial level through social services programs available in the provinces of Canada. I am glad that the Government did not change that age provision in the Young Offenders Act.
In conclusion, the Bill which we are passing today is a step in the right direction, but not a big enough step. If the Government had adopted the 20 amendments which the Liberal Opposition proposed, it would have been a giant step in the right direction. The Bill would still have been slightly flawed, but there is no Bill which is absolutely perfect. Had the Government listened to the Official Opposition and adopted those amendments, this would have been a near perfect piece of legislation which would have been the pride of this Parliament. It would have been one of the finest pieces of legislation to come out of this Parliament in the last two years.
I hope that all those involved with young offenders across the country will be happy with this legislation and will work together to ensure that when we deal with young offenders in Canada we consider first and foremost their best interests rather than treating them as adult offenders. Thank you for the opportunity to speak at third reading.


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have the honour to inform the House that the Senate has passed Bill C-93, relating to self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band without amendment.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay (for the Solicitor General of Canada) that Bill C-
[Stage Direction]
June 17, 1986
The Royal Assent
106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the third time and passed.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate at third reading stage of Bill C-106. There are very important amendments contained in Bill C-106. Before speaking to the amendments which have been adopted, some of the amendments which we in the New Democratic Party believe should have been included in this legislation and some concerns about the juvenile justice system generally, I want to note that we are pleased that the Minister did not knuckle under to those who argued that we should abandon the fundamental philosophy underlying the Young Offenders Act.
There were those who argued that we should reduce the upper age under the Young Offenders Act from 18 to 16. That would have the effect of putting even more 16 and 17 year olds into the adult correctional system. The failures of that system are such that we would not want to inflict that on our young people. I might note that at the time of the adoption of the Young Offenders Act-Mr. Speaker, I hear knocking at the door.
OO)



THE ROYAL ASSENT

[Stage Direction]
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod as follows:
Mr. Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
Accordingly, the Acting Speaker (Mr. Davis) with the Elouse went up to the Senate Chamber.
And being returned:
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate Chamber the Deputy Governor General was pleased to give, in Her Majesty's name, the Royal Assent to the following bills.
Bill C-107, An Act to implement the United Nations Convention on the Recognition and Enforcement of Foreign Arbitral Awards-Chapter No. 21.
Bill C-108, An Act relating to commercial arbitration-Chapter No. 22.
Bill C-110, An Act to approve, give effect to and declare valid certain agreements between the Government of Canada, the Government of Ontario, Reed Inc., Great Lakes Forest Products Ltd., the Islington Indian Band and the Grassy Narrows Indian Band-Chapter No. 23.
Bill C-109, An Act to amend the Income Tax Act-Chapter No. 24.
Bill C-86, An Act to amend the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation Act- Chapter No. 25.
Bill C-91, An Act to establish the Competition Tribunal and to amend the Combines Investigation Act and the Bank Act and other Acts in consequence thereof-Chapter No. 26.
Bill C-93, An Act relating to self-government for the Sechelt Indian Band- Chapter No. 27.
Bill C-l 15, An Act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1987- Chapter No. 28.
Bill S-7, An Act to amend the Act of incorporation of Pine Hill Divinity Hall.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacKay (for the Solicitor General of Canada) that Bill C-106, an Act to amend the Young Offenders Act, the Criminal Code, the Penitentiary Act and the Prisons and Reformatories Act, be read the third time and passed.
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, after that temporary interruption I am pleased to resume my remarks with respect to third reading of Bill C-106, the Act to amend the Young Offenders Act. At the time the knock came at the door I was referring to the fact that the Government, in my view, quite properly resisted the calls by some to lower the maximum age under the Young Offenders Act from 18 to 17, or even to 16. As well, we were pleased to see that the lower age of 12 was not reduced even further. The suggestion that a child of 8 or 9 years of age should be dealt with as a criminal or as a young offender, as opposed to what is under the provisions of child welfare legislation, is certainly one that we would very strongly resist.
Finally I am pleased that the move to increase sentences under the Young Offenders Act was also resisted by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty). It is always an option for the Crown to seek a transfer in the case of a serious offence to adult court, but where an offence is being dealt with under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act it seems to me that a three-year maximum sentence is entirely appropriate.
I note as well that a number of the major groups, organizations and individuals that are particularly active in the field have echoed this support for the Government's decision in the Bill to maintain the fundamental philosophical thrust of the Young Offenders Act. Those groups include, among others, the John Howard Society, the Canadian Council on Children and Youth, and the Canadian Council on Social Development.
We in the New Democratic Party did, at the time of second reading of this legislation, introduce a number of concerns of a very serious nature with respect to the proposed amendments. In the course of discussions on the Bill I am pleased that I was able to persuade the Government to introduce four key
June 17, 1986

amendments to the legislation. I made it very clear that, were the Government not to move with respect to these four key areas, we in the New Democratic Party would be prepared to stand in our place both in committee and in the House and take the steps necessary to ensure that the Government did move. Move it did, and I am just going to outline briefly the nature of the amendments proposed by the New Democratic Party, and ultimately accepted in committee by the Government.
1 might say as well that it was because we were successful in seeing these four important motions adopted that we did not unduly prolong proceedings by introducing amendments at report stage.
In listening to the remarks of my colleague for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) I would support the thrust of a number of amendments that he put forward, but, once again,
I regret that there was no notice of that whatsoever. I think the proof of effectiveness in the law-making process is results. When you look at the results, clearly it was the efforts of the New Democratic Party that resulted in success. They resulted in four key amendments being adopted in committee.
As the Hon. Member has pointed out, so successful were we in achieving these amendments that we were able to persuade the Government to move the amendments in committee on our behalf. That surely is the mark of success.
The amendments which we were successful in seeing adopted were the following: first, with respect to temporary detention an amendment was moved in committee at the request of the New Democratic Party which would make it very clear that the concept of supervision and control of a peace officer was essential. We are opposed to the provisions of this Bill which further water down the separation of young people and adults in detention. I will come to that later in the course of my remarks. We were successful in persuading the Government to strengthen the provisions as they now stand in the Bill.
Second, the Bill made provision for a transfer of a young person from open custody to secure custody. The original provision of the Bill was completely open-ended. It would have allowed the provincial director or the delegate of the provincial director to transfer a young person in circumstances in which it was necessary for the safety of the young person or the safety of others in the place or facility of open custody or for the maintenance of order.
That wide open discretion was severely criticized by many witnesses appearing before the committee. At the behest and inspiration of the New Democratic Party we were prepared to move an amendment and, indeed, on our behalf the Government moved the amendment proposed by the New Democratic Party to remove the words "or for the maintenance of order". That significantly tightened the discretion which is granted to the provincial director under the provisions of this legislation.
As well, with respect to the provisions for disclosure of information to the public, that provision was tightened by an
Young Offenders Act
amendment to Clause 28. Finally, I want to underline the final amendment which was sought by the New Democratic Party, because in many ways this was the most significant change to the legislation. The Bill, as it was presented to the committee, made provision for an oral waiver of the rights of a young person, those rights being the right to consult with counsel and the right to consult with the young person's parents. Surely those rights are fundamental. Under the provisions of the Young Offenders Act, as it was adopted in 1982, those rights could only be waived in writing. That was in recognition of the fact that young people are not in the same situation as adults. They do not fully understand their rights. If those very important rights are to be waived they should be waived in writing and not orally.
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has persuaded the Government that it should eliminate that requirement for a written waiver and that it should allow an oral waiver to take place. I am pleased that that provision, proposed Section 56(4) of the Bill was dropped completely at the insistence of the New Democratic Party and, certainly, that is an important and significant amendment which we welcome. I would note, for example, that the editorial board of the Toronto Star commented on this point and noted:
-under the proposed amendment a young person, who is often confused, frightened and vulnerable to manipulation following an arrest could waive these rights "orally". This objectionable proposal would strip young persons of their basic rights; it deserves quick death.
At the hands of the New Democratic Party a quick death is exactly what it got. Certainly we welcome that important change.
Before moving into other areas of concern on the legislation I do want just to take note of the fact that the process does leave something to be desired, as my colleague for York South-Weston indicated. The process of consultation with groups outside the House was widespread and extensive. However, that was a consultation with the Minister, without the involvement of parliamentarians. I certainly hope that this is not the last that this Parliament sees of the Young Offenders Act and legislation dealing with juvenile justice. There are many fundamental issues which remain to be addressed, but which this Bill completely ignores.
The federal Government must play a key role in monitoring the implementation of the Young Offenders Act. That point has been made by a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee. We have seen too many provinces paying lip service to the principles of this legislation.
There are concerns in a number of areas. For instance, the number of custodial dispositions, both open custody and secure custody, have increased quite dramatically. In the Province of Ontario, for example, there has been an increase of approximately 200 per cent in the number of young people who have been sentenced to secure custody. In my Province of British Columbia, the statistics show an alarming increase in the

June 17, 1986
Young Offenders Act
number of young people who have been sentenced to secure custody and open custody. This completely undermines the principle of the original Young Offenders Act, which was that custodial dispositions should only be used as a last resort and alternatives to custody should be provided by the province. Clearly, it is important that the federal Government play a role in the funding of these alternatives, but we have seen too many provinces simply not implement alternatives to custody for young people.
The Liberal Government in the Province of Ontario has refused to implement the pre-trial alternative measures that are set out in the Young Offenders Act. I hope that federal Liberal Members might bring some influence to bear on their colleagues at the provincial level with respect to that point. As well, it is a Liberal Government in Ontario that has allowed a two tier system to prevail for young people. The Young Offenders Act states that young people under 18 should be dealt with under the provisions of the Act, but under a Liberal Government in the Province of Ontario we see one regime for young people aged 16 and 17 and another regime for young people aged 15 and under. The same is true in the Province of Nova Scotia. That double standard of justice is not only unacceptable, it is quite likely in violation of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.
Let me deal with some of the concerns about the provincial implementation of the Act. They include inadequate detention and custody facilities and facilities that are hopelessly outdated and, in some cases, located adjacent to adult facilities. There are delays in obtaining assessments and predisposition reports. There are difficulties in obtaining access to counsel, and in some localities there is concern about the competence and training of lawyers involved in youth court.
I have mentioned the problems in the Province of Ontario with respect to alternative measures programs. There are very few programs directed toward particular concerns of female young offenders, and there is a problem in many localities with a lack of community-based dispositions.
We still hear disturbing reports that in too many jurisdictions the police are not respecting the rights of young persons. At this point it is difficult to know how widespead the problem is, but certainly it has been drawn to our attention.
There are other concerns with respect to implementing the Young Offenders Act and its underlying policy that has been ignored by the Government.
We heard very eloquent testimony from groups representing native young people. We heard from the South Island Tribal Council and the Anishinaabe Child and Family Services, representing some eight reserves in the Province of Manitoba. Chief Ed Anderson, representing the Anishinaabe Child and Family Services, spoke very eloquently.
They want an opportunity to have juvenile and probation services for Indian people, within Indian priorities. I want to
pay tribute to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly), for the work he has done in this area of native self-government. This is an area in which the Government could move forward to ensure that native young people are not being dealt with in a criminal justice system that is totally alien to them.
Chief Anderson pointed out that native young people are disproportionately represented among the ranks of the accused and the incarcerated not only in Manitoba, but across Canada. He pointed to the problems of destructive practices in the courts as a result of a system of justice which has been described by Manitoba Senior Family Court Judge Edwin Kimelmann as "cultural genocide".
Chief Anderson underlines the concerns about education, poverty, alienation, unemployment and the alarming number of young people who appear before the courts. He noted that in the last four generations, Indian children in large numbers have been removed from their homes and communities, placed in residential schools, medical foster homes, group homes, adoption homes, institutions, and detention centres. They are dealing with non-Indian prosecutors, non-Indian lawyers, nonIndian judges and non-Indian probation officers. Once they have been prosecuted, they are sent away to non-Indian open custody homes and closed custody institutions.
These non-Indian institutions do not respect the traditions and values of native people and the authority of elders. Rather than instilling a sense of respect for the law, they engender bitterness and hostility.
It is essential that Parliament listen to the plea of native people in this country for resources to ensure that they have a system of juvenile and probation services that responds to the concerns and hopes of native people. Presently, there are far too many native people not only in our juvenile institutions but in our adult custody institutions as well. In fact, a native person has a 70 per cent chance of doing some time in jail by the age of 25. That is an appalling statistic in this country, and when Bishop De Roo speaks of one law for the rich and one law for the poor, I can think of no better evidence that that statistic.
With respect to this legislation, we still have concerns that the Government has not taken sufficient steps and, in some respects, has aggravted problems with the Young Offenders Act. There was no need for a change in the requirement that where a provincial court judge is reasonably available, that judge should deal with a young persons application for bail, not a justice of the peace.
The provisions with respect to the transfer from open custody to secure custody are far too broad. There should be an opportunity for young persons to be heard before this transfer is made. At the present time, a delegate of the provincial Director-some minor functionary-can effectively transfer a young person to jail. Surely that decision involving the deprivation of liberty is one that should only be taken
June 17, 1986

following a hearing before a judicial tribunal or, at the very least, before a provincial court in the province involved.
We are seriously concerned about the provisions of this legislation with respect to records. This issue was raised by a number of witnesses who appeared before the committee, including Justice For Children. The current provisions of the Young Offenders Act for the destruction of fingerprints and photographs in the hands of the police are being eliminated. We are being told that we must trust that the police will file them in another file. Again, that dilutes the protection of young people.
Very serious changes for the worse are being made to the provisions about detention with adults. The Bill would substantially ease many of the restrictions on the detention of young people with adults. I note that this is one area where the Young Offenders Act took a backward step from the Juvenile Delinquents Act. Prior to the adoption of the Young Offenders Act, a young person who was 12 or 13 years old could not be put in jail with an adult. That was changed with the adoption of the Young Offenders Act. This Bill would go even further because, immediately following an arrest, the police would not have to take any care whatsoever in keeping a youth separate from adults who are detained. For example, a young person of 12 or 13 could be transferred in the same vehicle with an adult of 35 or 40 who has been charged with serious offences.
Indeed, the necessity to keep detained youths and adults apart would not even arise until the arrival at the place of detention. It could wait until it becomes reasonably practical. That is totally unacceptable and effectively discriminates against young people in rural communities such as those represented by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) and the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret that the Hon. Member's time has expired. There are still questions or comments.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Question, comment or debate.


Mr. Manly:: Question and comment, Mr. Speaker. I would like the Hon. Member to elaborate on his last comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will allow the Hon. Member to finish after that question and comment.


Svend Johannes Robinson: I am pleased to be able to elaborate on that last point in response to the question from my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-


James Douglas Manly: Since you're referring to my riding.


Svend Johannes Robinson: -since I was referring to his riding. As I was noting before my time expired, the provisions of this legislation
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
with respect to detention, in effect, discriminate against young people in rural communities because, in many cases, the facilities are simply not available. The intent of Parliament at the time this legislation was adopted was surely that there should be one standard of justice in this country for young people and one should not be denied access to justice based upon where one happens to live. As well, I would note that for the first time under this legislation, sentences can be served in federal penitentiaries. I believe that that, again, is a regressive step. I also suggest, in response to the question of my colleague, the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands, that it is important that we note that the provisions with respect to custodial disposition should have been significantly tightened in this legislation, and there should have been a provision that secure custody will only be ordered where open custody is, in fact, not appropriate.
There are a number of other concerns in this legislation: There are no provisions for conditional discharge, and there is no opportunity for a young person to earn remission while serving a custodial sentence. There are a number of other concerns of a similar nature, but I do not want to abuse the discretion given by the Chair. I will certainly be pleased to answer any other questions in the time available to me, Mr. Speaker.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed to and Bill read the third time and passed.


PAROLE ACT AND PENITENTIARY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, as reported (with amendments) from the legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Motions Nos. 13, 13A, and 14 will be debated separately and voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 13
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 43 at page 7 and substituting the following therefor:
"harm to another person, the Board may, with the consent of the Attorney General of Canada,"
He said: Shifting gears, Mr. Speaker, from Bill C-106 to Bill C-67 on Motion No. 13, this motion would have the effect of amending Clause 5 of Bill C-67.

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
I use the word "gating" in the knowledge that that may be a foreign concept for some, but that, effectively, is what this legislation is addressing. Before a prisoner who has earned remission can be denied that remission and be ordered to serve time until warrant expiry, this amendment would require that not just the National Parole Board but also the Attorney General give consent to the order. At the time we were previously debating the Bill, it was suggested by my colleague, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata), that in a number of instances individuals who have been released on mandatory supervision have committed serious crimes of violence and other crimes in our communities. No one will quarrel with that suggestion. Of course, that is a very serious matter. Many of us would suggest that there should be far more effective resources available to prisoners who are leaving institutions in order to assist them to reintegrate into the communities. However, I would note that the effect of the Bill is really just to delay, by an average of some two years, the release of those very same individuals.
Let us look at that in practical terms. Let us consider the individual to whom my colleague from York South-Weston was referring or those to whom colleagues from other parts of the country have referred. I believe one of my colleagues from the Metropolitan Toronto area mentioned an individual from Brandon who was accused and convicted of having murdered while he was out on mandatory supervision. The argument is that had he not been out on mandatory supervision, he would not have been in a position to commit that terrible act. The reality is that that same individual, had this Bill been in effect, would have been released some two years later. Let us look at the circumstances of the release. That individual would have earned remission within the prison and then would have been told, some few months before his release date, after having been in prison for a number of years and expecting to be released, "Even though you have earned remission, you will not be released until the warrant expiry date, the end of your sentence". Well, that individual will not exactly be less hostile, less belligerent, less violent at the end of that two year period; in fact, it would be quite the contrary. What we are doing in these circumstances then, is not releasing an individual, at two-thirds of the sentence date, under mandatory supervision, and in some cases it could be and should be under very strict conditions of supervision, but at least releasing that individual and giving him chance to phase back into the community. If such proposal is adopted, that person would be released directly from a maximum security institution, right on to the street, without any supervision whatsoever. How could anyone suggest that that is a safeguard to the community?


James Ross Fulton: Only a Tory would.


Svend Johannes Robinson: My colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) says, "Only a Tory would". Unfortunately, the Liberals supported the same principle. Indeed, my colleague from York South-Weston said, "Yes, yes, this gating power is all right, but it should be done by a judge instead of the National Parole Board". If the Bill is adopted, instead of the
level of violence in our communities decreasing, what we will see is a group of very dangerous, bitter and hostile prisoners who are forced to remain behind bars right until the end of their sentence, and then they will be released on to the streets from a maximum security institution with no surveillance whatsoever. If that is not a greater threat to our communities than the current situation, I do not know what is. Therefore, I say that the Bill, which deals with prisoners, is a colossal con job on Canadians. The victims of this con job will be the people in the constituencies that all of us in this House represent.
As well, there is no doubt but that there will be a higher rate of recidivism. As well, there will be even more people incarcerated as a result of these provisions. The prisons which are already overcrowded, already involved in double-bunking, will be even more crowded. That is why prison guards and prison wardens are totally opposed to these provisions as well. In fact, there are not many people in the country who support them.
The committee on which I had the honour to sit representing the New Democratic Party heard from many witnesses. We heard from the John Howard Society, from the Elizabeth Fry Society, from the Canadian Council of Churches and from the Canadian Association of Criminal Justice. Witness after witness said: "Stop! This approach is fundamentally wrong. It is misguided. It will not decrease the level of violence in our communities". Yet the Government is determined to plow ahead.
The purpose of this amendment is to insert, at the very least, an additional level of safeguard into the Bill. The National Parole Board now has a sweeping and almost unfettered discretion. As I pointed out earlier today, its record is not a particularly good one. In this regard we can look to the statistics with respect to release on parole as opposed to release on mandatory supervision, which is now automatic release. One would have thought that if the Parole Board were effective then people who were released on parole would have a significantly lower rate of commission of violent crime than those who are released on mandatory supervision automatically, those who have been deemed by the Parole Board to be too dangerous to get out on parole. It ain't so. In fact, the level of violent crime is almost the same. So that great mass of discretion-in fact, it has been referred to as tyrannical discretion by former Chief Justice Laskin of the Supreme Court of Canada-is being used in a way which really does not make an awful lot of difference in the end. It contributes to significant overcrowding and to warehousing in our penal institutions.
I say that this amendment, which includes the Attorney General as an additional level of safeguard, is one which should be supported. I hope that Members of the House will vote in favour of Motion No. 13.
June 17, 1986


FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT NOTICE OF ALLOCATION OF TIME TO CONSIDER THIRD READING STAGE OF BILL C-96
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to inform the House that there have been consultations among the respresentatives of the Parties in this House and that it has not been possible to reach an agreement pursuant to Standing Orders 115 or 116 with regard to the allocation of time on the third reading stage of Bill C-96, an Act to amend the Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements and Federal Post-secondary Education and Health Contributions Act, 1977. Therefore, at the next sitting of the House it is my intention to propose the following motion pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 117:
That, 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 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.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


James Ross Fulton: It's not acceptable.


Philip Derek Lewis: Yes, it is.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: It is a notice and the Minister can move it at any time.


James Ross Fulton: He can?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Yes. The Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who has been around here for a long time, and also the Hon. Member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin)-does he have a point of order?


Mr. Benjamin:: Mr. Speaker, is it permitted under the rules to ask any questions with regard to this proposal?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I regret to say that the Hon. Member should know very well that that is not permitted. The Hon. Member for Regina West has been here since 1968 and he should know the rules.


PAROLE ACT AND PENITENTIARY ACT
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-67, an Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, as reported
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
(with amendments) from the legislative committee: and the amendment of Mr. Robinson.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for
the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 13 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 13 negatived.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Motion No. 13A
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by adding immediately after line 16 at
page 8 the following:
"(4.1) For the purpose of determining the order to be made in respect of an inmate pursuant to subsection (4), the Board shall take into consideration any factor that is relevant to the case of the inmate and, without limiting the generality of the foregoing,
(a)	a pattern of persistent violent behaviour established on the basis of any evidence and, in particular,
(i)	the number of offences committed by the inmate causing physical or
psychological harm,
(ii)	the seriousness of the offence for which the sentence imposed is then being served,
(iii)	reliable information demonstrating that the inmate has had difficulties controlling violent impulses to the point of endangering the safety of any other
person,
(iv)	the use of weapons in the commission by the inmate of any offence,
(v)	explicit threats of violence,
(vi)	behaviour of a brutal nature associated with commission of any offence
by the inmate, and
(vii)	a substantial degree of indifference on the part of the inmate as to the reasonably foreseeable consequences to other persons of the behaviour of the
inmate;
(b)	psychiatric or psychological evidence that the physical or mental illness or disorder of the inmate is of such a nature that the inmate is likely to commit, prior to the expiration according to law of the sentence the inmate is then serving, an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another
person;
(c)	reliable information the existence of which compels reaching the conclusion that the inmate is planning to commit, prior to the expiration

June 17, 1986
Federal-Provincial Fiscal Arrangements Act
according to law of the sentence the inmate is then serving, an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person; and
(d)	the availability of supervision programs that would offer adequate protection to the public from the risk the inmate might otherwise present until the expiration according to law of the sentence the inmate is then serving."


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, in answer to the question posed by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) this morning, I would like to bring to the attention of the House that this part of Clause 5 deals with the procedure to be followed by the board in reviewing the cases of inmates referred to it for potential detention until warrant expiry date. In deciding the order to be made as a result of the review, whether it be a detention order or release subject to a residency condition, or subject to the usual condition, the board would be required to follow certain guidelines.
When Bill C-67 was first introduced these guidelines were included as part of draft regulations. In response to suggestions made during the discussions which have taken place since that time we are moving that the guidelines be enacted as part of the statutory provisions rather than as part of the regulations. These guidelines delineate factors which the board shall take into consideration, and include such things as persistent violent behaviour by the inmate, psychiatric evidence of dangerousness, and the availability of supervision programs which would provide adequate protection to the public from the risk the inmate might otherwise present.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary might indicate whether there is any basis whatsoever for the suggestion that "psychiatric or psychological evidence that the physical or mental illness or disorder of the inmate is of such a nature that the inmate is likely to commit, prior to the expiration according to law of the sentence the inmate is then serving, an offence causing the death of or serious harm to another person"? That is one criterion. No witnesses who appeared before the legislative committee which studied this Bill indicated that it was possible, or that there is any scientific evidence to support the suggestion that such evidence has any predictability whatsoever. In fact, the Solicitor General's (Mr. Beatty) own study on conditional release and on mandatory supervision clearly stated that it was not possible to predict in the manner in which this criterion suggests it is possible to predict. With leave of the House I wish to ask the Parliamentary Secretary whether he might indicate whether there has been some new evidence that has come to the fore since the committee heard witnesses on this question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to permit the Parliamentary Secretary to answer the question?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, it has not been that long since this Bill was passed. This question was brought up and
discussed quite thoroughly at the committee hearings. There has been no new evidence brought to the attention of the Government. It is just a matter of using common sense, that is all.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The question is on Motion No. 13 in the name of Mr. Robinson. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: In my opinion, the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 13 agreed to.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 14
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 42 to 44 at page
8.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the effect of Motion No. 14 would be to amend Clause 5, the clause that establishes the new gating procedure, by eliminating Subclause 7 of Clause 15.4. That clause indicates that an inmate who is in custody pursuant to an order made under paragraph 4(a) is not eligible for parole. It is a clause which is clearly totally without foundation and, ironically, ties the hands of the National Parole Board after having just given it sweeping discretion to designate certain individuals as posing a potential threat to the community.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: We can designate the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise).


Svend Johannes Robinson: My colleague suggested that we designate a variety of other people. When he participates in the debate, he can certainly elaborate on that point.
We heard representations on this particular point from a number of witnesses. I would like to draw to the attention of the House concerns that were raised by a number of professors from the Department of Criminology at the University of Ottawa, these being Professors Acosta, Ciale, dos Santos, Gaucher, Laplante, Pires and Melchers. These are very
June 17, 1986

respected criminology professors and this is what they have to say with respect to the proposition that is now before the House:
The Solicitor General of Canada is once again prepared to change the rules of the prison system by giving increased power to the National Parole Board and the Commissioner of Correctional Services Canada. We view with grave misgivings the power contained in article 15.1 and 15.3 of Bill C-67.
They point out that it is best left to the courts and not the National Parole Board to decide who is to be held in custody while a sentence is being served. They go on to say the following:
An inmate who has been denied parole or has refused to apply for parole will not know until he has reached his probable release date whether he will be released or not. The anxiety and stress it will create among the classes of inmates who have committed crimes as noted in schedule 15.3 is inestimable. It is cruelty of the highest order and devised either by a bureaucratic mind or monster.
It is a return to pre-Beccarian times, an era characterized by unequal, arbitrary and barbarous punishments obeying the whims of an impersonal fate.
They point out that the Bill does not take into consideration the reaction it will produce among federal prisoners who will basically perceive these changes as an automatic increase of one-third in their sentences. When this is put together with serious overcrowding which is already taking place within our institutions, we will have a profound institutional crisis.
The professors go on to say the following:
Bills 67 and 68, institutionalize the arbitrary nature and severity of existing penitentiary sentences. The proposed measures contained in these bills is extremely dangerous for guards because they will have to face more anxious and frustrated inmates. These measures do not protect the community because the prisoner who will eventually be released, will have suffered greater social deterioration than he would have within the traditional carceral system, which was already highly damaging.
This motion deals with the ability of the Parole Board to look at least at each individual to see if he has made some progress during the period of incarceration. The Parole Board would have the discretion to release individuals back into the community on parole. As it now stands, it does not have this discretion. I would note that this is a provision that was not included in the predecessor legislation, Bill S-32.
As I mentioned, we heard from many witnesses on this point. One of the witnesses from whom we heard was a representative of the Elizabeth Fry Society of Halifax who expressed concern with respect to the denial of the possibility of re-applying for parole. The Elizabeth Fry Society representative pointed out that that provision taken in conjunction with all of the other provisions of this legislation might very well open it up to challenge under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms as it is a denial of the values which have been set out and established in the Charter of Rights and Freedoms.?
I mentioned earlier today that the Senate has studied this legislation and has tabled an interim report. That interim report goes directly to the amendment which is now being discussed. The interim report which was tabled on May 14 has four basic concerns.
Official Developmental Aid
I emphasize that this report was a unanimous report prepared by the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee representing both the Liberal Party and the Conservative Party. They said that any detention decision to warrant expiry with respect to an alleged dangerous offender should be reached by judicial resolution and not by the National Parole Board. Fortunately, my friend, the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, has come around to our side and has agreed on the fundamental point of judicial review as opposed to review by the National Parole Board.
As well, the Senate report suggested that earned remission should remain effective if revocation is a result of a contravention of the terms or conditions of mandatory supervision. In other words, mandatory supervision should not be one shot and there should not be a denial of the right to earn remission if the revocation was on a purely technical basis. I see you are signalling that it is six o'clock, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: I am signalling that it is about 10 seconds to six o'clock. Would you like me to put the question?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: All right, then we will call it six o'clock. It being six o'clock p.m., pursuant to order made Wednesday, June 11, 1986, the House will now proceed to consideration of Private Members' Business as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-MOTIONS   EXTERNAL AID ADVISABILITY OF ESTABLISHING A LEVEL OF GNP
James Douglas Manly: That, in the opinion of this House, the Government should consider the advisability of introducing legislation to establish a level of 0.7 per cent of the Gross National Product for official developmental aid.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to bring this motion before the House. I am very thankful that the committee, in its wisdom, decided that this would be one of the motions which could be voted upon.
The purpose of my motion is to send a strong signal to the Government that it should establish the level of official development assistance at .7 per cent of the Gross National Product, and that this should be established by legislation rather than simply at the whim of the Government of the day. It is important for all Hon. Members to be able to vote on it, and I hope the process will continue so that the issue can come to a vote.
June 17, 1986

Official Developmental Aid
I want to see this level established by law in order to remove it from the vagaries and uncertainties of the budgetary process. The development needs of the world are too great for them to be subjected to the different political and financial priorities of our Governments. When we change Government, we naturally change priorities. Canadians, and the world in general, must recognize that this is a fundamental priority which should not be subjected to that kind of whim or change. It should not be possible to change our goals in this respect without the matter even coming before Parliament in the form of a Bill.
Parliament already recognizes that there are certain areas which need this kind of protection. We have legislation establishing formulae for such things as family allowances, old age security, established programs funding, and equalization payments. As a matter of fact, the Government just finished announcing closure on a Bill to change the formula for Established Programs Financing. We do not like to see some of the changes of the Government, but at least it must come before Parliament when it wants to make a change. That important principle should also be incorporated into our entire foreign aid program.
The need for such a principle in our foreign aid program or development assistance program can be seen by looking at the history of the way in which we have dealt with the entire .7 per cent program. The .7 per cent of the Gross National Product goal for official development assistance was first accepted by the Canadian Government in 1970, following the recommendation in the Pearson report which was done for the United Nations. That report recommended that each aid giver should increase commitments of official development assistance to the level necessary for net disbursements, to reach .7 per cent of the GNP by 1975 or shortly thereafter. It also indicated that in no case should it be later than 1980. It is worth repeating that the report recommended 1975 as the target date and that it should be no later than 1980. We accepted this somewhat like a reluctant bridegroom in 1970, but we did not set any timetable for it. In 1980, we said we would make our best effort to reach the .7 per cent goal by 1990. That promise was repeated in 1983 by the Liberal Government. In the 1984 election campaign, the goal was endorsed by all three political Parties.
At that time the Canadian Council for International Cooperation asked candidates of all three Parties in 135 different ridings whether they supported increased, untied development assistance. The background material sent out by the Council explained the .7 per cent target. It is very instructive to look at the results of the survey, in that 91 per cent of the candidates who responded were elected to the House of Commons in the 1984 election. Of the 91 elected, 63 were Conservatives, 12 were Liberals and 16 were New Democrats. Of this total from all three Parties, 81 said that they supported increased aid; 81 out of 91 respondents supported increased aid, five were negative, and five were uncertain. This indicates a very high
level of political support for the principle of increased aid or increased developmental assistance.
When the new Government was sworn into office in September, 1984, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) went to New York and appeared before the 39th General Assembly of the United Nations. At that time he made a very good speech, from which I should like to quote. He said:
Our new Government intends to maintain Canada's commitment to reaching .7 per cent of the GNP by 1990 in Official Development Assistance.
That was the commitment which the Secretary of State for External Affairs made on behalf of Canadians to the people of the world at the United Nations in September, 1984. That was after the new Government was elected and all its promises were shiny and bright; some people thought that the Government might even keep them.
Then came November and the financial statement introduced by the Government in which the .7 per cent goal for ODA was postponed from 1990 to 1995. Further, in the February Budget of this year, it was postponed to the 21st century. The budget speech indicated that in the Government's perception the economy had performed better than expected. It said that the economy was doing well. Despite that, it cut back on the timetable for reaching the goal of .7 per cent of GNP for official development assistance.
Also the Secretary of State said:
Despite serious economic problems at home, we shall not turn our backs on the world's disadvantaged peoples.
In 1986 the Government said that the economy had improved better than expected, but it turned its back and postponed the goal once again.
In the past year Canadian attitudes toward development assistance and aid generally have been documented by Decima Research in a project commissioned by the Canadian Emergency Co-ordinator for African Aid. The results were made available in a little booklet entitled "How Much Aid?", which I urge all Hon. Members to read. It is available from CIDA. Some of the more interesting conclusions in the survey show that a growing percentage of young people want Canada to become a world leader in providing aid rather than being eleventh out of 21 OECD countries.
Young people particularly do not want Canada to be a mediocre follower. They want to see Canada as a leader which takes seriously the problems of world hunger and world underdevelopment. Despite a general desire to restrain Government spending, the survey indicated that 74 per cent of Canadians opposed cutting back on foreign aid. That is exactly what was done when the Government postponed the timetable for increasing aid to the .7 per cent goal.
Also Decima found that 39 per cent of the people interviewed thought that poverty .and hunger were the most serious issues facing the world. This was compared with 24 per cent who named the arms race and 22 per cent who named economic problems. A majority of people, whatever they chose
June 17, 1986

as the main problem facing the world, did not see the Government as having the same priority. Some 45 per cent who were interviewed said that the Government's main priority was economic issues, only 22 per cent saw the Government as being concerned about poverty and hunger, and only 19 per cent saw it as being primarily interested in reducing the threat of war. The priorities of people do not correspond to the priorities of the Government.
In conclusion, I simply point out that being eleventh out of 21 OECD countries is not good enough for Canada. Other countries such as Denmark, France, the Netherlands, Sweden and Norway have all reached and surpassed the .7 per cent goal. These are countries that take good care of their people. Mediocrity in the face of 800 million people who go to bed hungry every night, if they have a bed, is not good enough for Canada. I urge all Members to give their support to this goal that has widespread support among Canadians. We should urge the Government to bring in legislation to establish .7 per cent of our GNP for development assistance, that that be done by legislation and not left to government whims.
[Translation\


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to take part in the debate this afternoon. I do not agree with the previous speaker that our party or our Government is a Government of followers, as he says. The Hon. Member was in New York two weeks ago when the Minister announced a number of important measures under the Africa 2000 program, and we are not only not a Government of followers, we have also shown this Government provides leadership.
It is true, Mr. Speaker, and the Hon. Member for the New Demagogic Party's main argument was that we had promisd to meet that commitment, that all three parties in the House were unanimous, and the Decima Research polls had shown that Canadians were prepared to do their share and have the Government do its share for international development and international aid. That is absolutely true, but although we made that promise, we also promised to provide sound management.
Mr. Speaker, if there was a consensus in the House, there was also a consensus among almost all Canadians in 1984 that we needed a Government that was responsible and fair and serious about its responsabilities.
Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, the polls have shown-and I am very pleased because we are talking about a poll that was taken after the crisis in Ethiopia-that Canadians agreed with the Government's action. In fact, they not only agreed, but the Government had to run to keep up with all the initiatives launched by Canadians individually. That is how with less money we were able to do more. Let the Hon. Member wait his turn!
Official Developmental Aid


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: You won't be let off the hook that easily.


Jean-Guy Hudon: I hear barking on the other side of the House.
Mr. Speaker, the fact remains that in a democratic system we must have fair Government and we must have sound financial management.
Mr. Speaker, we are still committed, but as long as we do not have the requisite budget and budget items and as long as we cannot reconcile this with the budgetary measures to which we are committed, I cannot vote in favour of this proposal at this time.
Our commitment remains, and we will meet that commitment and let Canadians-in fact they did so for the famine in Ethiopia-take the lead and encourage them in a positive movement towards increased aid for the countries concerned.
We have two options. As far as the economy is concerned, we promised to restore the confidence of the people in our system, Mr. Speaker. Either we go on like that, or we ask Canadians to tighten their belts. Obviously, I intend to argue against the second option, which asks Canadians to tighten their belts, since that is the one they have chosen.
Had the first option been chosen, Mr. Speaker, what would have happened in a few years? If you examine the federal budget you can see that the last few years were highlighted by a drastic increase in public expenditures and a sharp rise in the budget deficit, which led to an immediate increase in interest rates and the inflation rate. If this trend continues, Mr. Speaker, it will be easy to tell Canadians: Not to worry about next year, the deficit will grow to $60 billion, then to $90 billion the year after. That is the easy way to administer the country. But what is going on, and why indeed can our country grow richer or become poorer? It is strictly a matter of confidence. The Canadian currency, the Canadian economy, it is just like any other market where supply and demand principles prevail.
When foreigners want to invest in Canada, what is their first question? Is this a serious country? Is this a country which has control over its economy? If the answer to those two questions is not affirmative, they go elsewhere. They want their investment to be profitable. Mr. Speaker, this is why certain countries are closed tight to foreign investments: people have lost confidence in the economy, the administration or the policy of those countries. So we could have opted for the first method and said: Let us spend our way out of this mess. In other words, a larger share of our revenues would have been earmarked for debt servicing. But, Mr. Speaker, the more we do that, the heavier the deficit grows, the more we have to tax Canadians. We decided to go for the second method.
We told the people: Let us tighten our belts. And when we ask people to tighten their belts, we expect the Government to do the same, and this applies to external aid as well. What this actually means, Mr. Speaker, is that we have to learn to do more with our limited financial resources. We have had examples of this, you referred to the Ethiopian crisis a moment

June 17, 1986
Official Developmental Aid
ago, it is true, a striking example where with less money we managed to convince Canadians to contribute more, and this has a significant driving and collective impact on international aid. It is the method advocated by the Government at this time. There is something else we said-they keep referring to our broken promises-one of the thing we promised was to restore sound management, a balanced economy and fair government.
Can we tell people today, and I know the Hon. Member would object, that we will no longer index family allowances, we will no longer index old age security pensions for the first 3 per cent as well, and that we will spend more on external aid? If we ask Canadians to tighten their belts, I think we should also ask people outside our country to tighten their belts, and in the final instance we will have to find new ways of making our money more productive. That is how society works and that is also how a just society works. Mr. Speaker, the lower interest rates and lower inflation rate we are enjoying today, something which benefits all Canadians, remain in the eyes of some people just the Government's doing. But it is not just the Government's doing, it is thanks to the renewed confidence of all Canadians and of outside investors in the Canadian economy. This means we can make more resources available to the people of this country, in some cases with less financial outlay. That is the kind of solution we have chosen, and I repeat, Mr. Speaker, we are a responsible and a fair Government. I do not want to ask Canadians to make more sacrifices for our economy than other countries have to make. That, Mr. Speaker, is the most important promise that we have kept.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, while I was listening to the Hon. Member, I was reminded of when I was a student, in the days of the former Premier of Quebec, Mr. Duplessis, who had a natural flair for the dramatic turn of phrase. Duplessis, when faced with the external aid proposal made by St. Laurent, then Prime Minister of Canada, remembered the aid he had given to the village of Cabano in the Lower St. Lawrence area which had burnt to the ground. St. Laurent, on the other hand was asking Canadians-this was in the fifties-to realize they had international responsibilities under what was called the Colombo Plan. So Duplessis' slogan became: "Duplessis gives to Cabano and St. Laurent gives to Colombo", to confuse people.
What we must understand today is that the Hon. Member presented this motion because we must remind Canadians that this is our objective. The Right Hon. Lester B. Pearson under whom I had the honour of being elected and of serving as a Member of Parliament, had tabled this UN report which was adopted by Canada in 1970, as the Hon. Member recalled, and we made this our objective: 0.7 of 1 per cent of our Gross National Product would go to external aid.
Due to circumstances, the objective was postponed from 1975 to 1980, at the latest. My party remains committed to achieving this objective as soon as possible. Just because this country is having problems with the economy and the deficit,
and so forth, and I know we are, and I hope it will be temporary, it does not mean we should shirk our international responsibilities.
Not long ago, Canadians reacted with great enthusiasm while Government was hesitant about spending quite considerable sums of money in connection with the famine in Africa. Canadians knew where their responsibilities lay, and the Hon. Member said so himself. It was the Canadian people who pushed the Government. This means that there is in our society a tremendous amount of understanding for these things, and we should not let this understanding for our international responsibilities and international sharing be diverted to the economy or the Budget or the deficit. Because if we do, there will always be people, both in the House of Commons and across the country who will say: They are right, charity begins at home.
It is a very bad principle to start talking about our international responsibility. We must have a goal. The goal which was set and accepted was .7 of 1 per cent of our Gross National Product. If you start attracting the attention of Canadians to our difficulties and deficit, you stand the chance of killing the base of good will which Canadians have recently manifested toward aid for those who have much less than us. It is not enough to pretend that we are going through difficulties in Canada and to reduce our commitment toward the international community and the people who need so much and look toward Canada as a leader.
My colleague who presented the motion reminded us that young Canadians want leadership on this question. The major preoccupation of young Canadians is the hunger in the world. Young Canadians will pay more taxes than I because I am on my way out while they are on their way in. Yet, their commitment is toward hunger in the world. Their second preoccupation is disarmament. We could link disarmament with development if we understood better what disarmament meant and stopped being paranoid that communists are going to rearm, and always trying to be a step ahead of them. What is going on today on the question of armament is pure madness.
I have no hesitation in connecting the two. If we understood the madness of armament versus disarmament and the immense base of money which could be spent on development, we would understand very well that we would have an easier time. Everything is interlinked. You cannot talk about hunger and poverty and then say that the debate is over and that we will now discuss disarmament. That is all interconnected, Mr. Speaker, as you know very well.
The goal should be to remain committed. That is exactly what my colleague has asked. He asks that we reaffirm that commitment. We may not achieve it, but at least we are committed to it, which means that we will work harder. If you reduce your commitment, of course you work less hard to achieve it. The commitment was reaffirmed at the United
June 17, 1986

Nations by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) in September, 1984. He said that we are still committed to .7 of 1 per cent. He was greatly applauded. Everyone said that this was a country which understood its commitment, it is in difficulty and yet reaffirms its commitment. They said that was the kind of Canada they liked. Suddenly we say that .7 is difficult and we will make it .6 until 1990. However, it is now .6 until 1995. I am afraid it is going to be .5 by 1995. When you have no goal or vision, it is easier to reduce your commitments.
I suppose that the intention of my colleague from the New Democratic Party today is to ask Members to recommit themselves publicly, to say that regardless of the difficulty they have noticed that Canadians are way ahead of them and that they are recommitting themselves to that goal. I beg of you not to reduce our commitment. We must not postpone what we strongly believe. There are only six Members left in my Party who sat under Pearson. You would, therefore, understand that I am more committed than others because I have followed his policy ever since.
I am not laying blame. I am only begging people to understand. Regardless of how many pockets of poverty there are in our country and regardless of how much temporary difficulty we may have, there is no better country in the world in which to live than Canada. I said that last Friday when I spoke on the emergency debate on South Africa. People expect leadership from Canada on the issue of apartheid in South Africa. People expect leadership from us. The Government's own polls show that. The youth of the country are committed. They understand the commitment. They will pay taxes much longer than us.
There is no doubt that we can link aid and disarmament. We must understand that any country to which Canada is providing leadership is going through much greater difficulty than Canada has ever known. We must understand that those we help and co-operate with today are the partners of tomorrow. That is something to reflect on. You do not throw money away. You do not exchange technology. You create future partnerships with people who have less than you. That is the message for those who are strictly business-oriented. I am not, but I am practical. I understand that for some people that is their commitment. I think of them as future partners in development for people who have nothing.
Please, I beg of Members to understand the meaning of the resolution put forward by my friend, which is to publicly recommit ourselves to that goal. It should remain the goal of Canada.


Mr. Cyril Keeper (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to participate in this debate. I thank my colleague for having introduced the motion. It is very timely and worth while. The idea of introducing legislation to set aid levels is interesting and unique. Obviously it is no guarantee that Governments will set appropriate targets. All
Official Developmental Aid
we need do is look at the present debate on Established Programs Financing.
The Government is moving in the direction of cutting back on transfer payments to the provinces for education, health and human development in Canada. In fact the Government has just moved closure on that legislation, so it is moving very quickly in that direction. However, even though it is possible for a mean-spirited Government whose priorities are not well placed to ignore the human development needs on this globe, that does not mean that legislation like this would not be a useful vehicle in setting goals for international aid. It would certainly give these programs more permanency than they have right now.
The goal of .7 per cent of GNP for international aid was set by the UN so it is an international goal. We should associate ourselves with it in order to show solidarity with the aspirations of all peoples around the globe for the development of the individual and community. It is a minimal obligation to which we can tie ourselves.
The most striking aspect of international development aid, at least to me, is the comparison between the amount of money we spend in that direction compared with the amount we spend on armaments. If we could transfer but a fraction of the money we spend on arms to spending on human development and international aid, we could make a real difference. We could improve the quality of the accommodation people live in and the quality of water they drink. We could eradicate forever a number of diseases with just a fraction of the money which goes to armaments. To move money from our military budgets to our development budgets requires that we find ways to resolve peacefully those conflicts which break out on this planet.
While it is important for us to urge the Government to adopt the goal of .7 per cent of GNP for international aid, it is also important to impress upon people the need to provide leadership in peaceful conflict resolution. It is only when we have found the means for resolving conflicts among nations in a peaceful way that people will feel comfortable about putting down their arms. Therefore, this Government should be taking a direct leadership role on the international stage in order to promote conflict resolution.
Another area of interest is the involvement of Canadians in the international arms race. Not only are private companies selling arms on the international market, arms which are bought by military dictatorships and used to repress their people and block human development, more than that, our tax dollars are supporting that kind of trade. My tax dollars, your tax dollars, the tax dollars of those watching this program tonight go to support the arms trade. We are investing public funds in companies so that they can further promote the sale of arms on the international market. This is tragic to say the least. It is obscene. The Government has announced legislation dealing with pornography; it is too bad it did not have the vision to think of the obscene international arms trade and the

June 17, 1986
Official Developmental Aid
direct role the Canadian Government plays in that area by subsidizing our arms trade.
We have brought before this House on a number of occasions examples of where the Canadian Government has been supporting military trade with Chile. Military arms sold to that country are inevitably used in repressing dissent. Therefore, if we are to reach the objective of international aid, then we have to get this country out of the business of subsidizing the arms trade. We have to use those dollars to encourage companies to undertake other types of economic activity. We know from numerous studies that if companies get involved in other kinds of economic activities, they produce more jobs. We would get a better return for the public dollar invested.
It is important to remind the Government of the international goal of .7 per cent of GNP for international trade. It is important for this Government to be reminded that it needs to set its priorities on the basis of what Canadians want. I cannot quote any specific public opinion poll, but I know from talking to people in my community of Winnipeg that the vast majority of Canadians want action on international development. They want Canadians to be in the forefront of promoting justice on this planet through human development. The Government should be setting those priorities on the basis of what Canadians want rather than on the basis of some other set of priorities.
I think I see you signalling that my time is coming to a quick end, Mr. Speaker. I just want to say that I congratulate my colleague for having brought forward this resolution. It is a creative idea for bringing home to this Government the fact that it needs to place a much higher priority on international development and that Canadians want it to do so. It is the responsibility of the Government to respond and this is a creative way of saying that.


Mr. Reginald Stackhouse (Scarborough West):: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Member who has introduced this motion which focuses our attention on one of the most compelling issues that confront humanity. As so often happens, perhaps the most important subject that the House will debate today has been the program for Private Member's Hour. I thank the Member and those associated with him who have made this the primary concern of all of us during this hour together. It is right for them to remind us that the people of Canada share this concern with all of us.
One of the results of the recently concluded study of foreign policy by the Special Joint Committee on Canada's International Relations has been the high priority which the subject of external affairs enjoys throughout the land. It is a priority that has not always been measured within these walls. It has often been assumed that nobody in Canada really cares about foreign policy. That may have been true at one time, but we live in the age of the global village and our people are fully conscious of their belonging to one world. Therefore, people are fully aware of the need for Canada to address the problems
of the world if we are to do justice to our own needs as a nation.
I welcome this opportunity to discuss foreign aid and overseas development. I have to put before the House a concern that the presenter of the motion, and the Member who spoke in support of it, have been guilty nonetheless of certain fallacies; one of them being the fallacy of not relating the necessity to generate wealth in order to provide humanitarian assistance and social development.
One of the most striking fallacies of which we can be guilty of in this chamber is the failure to recognize the need to generate adequate wealth if we are to afford those programs and services without which our life as a people would be poorer, and without which the life of the human race throughout the world would be poorer. It amazes me to hear Members on the other side of the House urge on us one spending program after another, and at the same time oppose efforts that are designed to increase the wealth of this country so that we can possibly afford those spending programs. We often become very superior and very sophisticated about business, industry and commerce. These are in contrast to the intellectual, the cultural, the social activities which are so much more worthy of the mind and the spirit of men and women.
I have to draw to your attention that one Member of the House earlier this afternoon was pleading for funds for the erection of a ballet theatre in the City of Toronto. Now, without the kind of wealth that we hope our burgeoning, booming economy can generate how would such a cultural centre ever be a possibility? We have to keep that in mind whenever we are tempted to close our eyes to the priority of economic concerns. That is equally true when we are talking about overseas aid and foreign development.
The only way by which this country can possibly have the surplus to share with the underdeveloped, with the have-not nations of the world, is by sufficiently generating the wealth that provides that surplus. If all we can produce in this country is that which is required for our subsistence and survival as a people, we have nothing to share. It is only when we have a booming economy, it is only when we have our deficit under control, it is only when we have an economically sound country that we can possibly have something to share with other countries.
I would hope that in the interests of human betterment and overseas aid we would find support for our deficit control policies for they are designed to give us, once again, the surplus that can lift the level of life in this country, and lift the level of life beyond our borders. I point out that our first need as a people, as a parliament, as a government, is to generate the wealth without which our progress as people will be impossible. That is the first fallacy that I noted in the remarks.
The second fallacy is the fallacy of being insensitive to the need for recognizing that simply spending money overseas can be as unproductive as spending it at home. Mention was made
June 17, 1986

of Prime Minister Pearson, for whom we all share an admiration. I recall the war on poverty that he began. He initiated a spending program that people throughout the country supported because of our desire to follow the Government in ending poverty within this land. So year after year the spending continued and mounted and so did the poverty statistics. The intention was worthy, the objective was noble, the effort was admirable, but the results are still there. We now have more people below the poverty level than we had when the war on poverty began. This is true not only in Canada.
Only the other night I read about how this is the sad experience of the people of Sweden. Sweden, of all places, the darling of all the social democrats, that gem of a country, the model that we should all follow. Sweden has now discovered that they have more people below the poverty line than they had 20 years ago. They now have to reassess their approach, not because they have less concern for the poor than they had, but because they are recognizing, as we are recognizing, that you simply do not spend your way into human betterment. We have to recognize that the answer to the needs of the people in the underdeveloped parts of the world lies not simply in our increasing the amount of money we spend there, but lies more in our joining with them in those programs, in those methods by which they will achieve the good life to which they aspire.
For example, in a recent editorial in the London Times, and it is certainly in the parliamentary tradition to quote the Times, and I do so with reference to an editorial called "Africa Help for Self-Help", the Times argues quite rightly that if the level of life in Africa is to be raised it will be raised, solely when the countries of Africa attract, once again, investment capital, in contrast to their failure of recent years. Only 3 per cent of the overseas investment capital of the world has gone into African countries in recent times. So the Times, understandably, urges the Governments of Africa to adopt those policies that once again could attract private investment and join with private investment within the borders of their own countries.
I speak of that because I believe that we have to address ourselves as a Parliament and as a Government to linking our overseas aid with certain developments within the receiving countries, that joined with our aid it will add to the betterment of life within those borders. One of them has been suggested in previous speeches in criticism of military spending. I hope that all Members of Parliament will be conscious of the waste of resources on military spending within so many underdeveloped countries and that we might join together in improving those programs that will lift the level of life. Surely that is the goal of us all.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, let me say at the outset that I believe this is a somewhat historic moment in the history of Private Members' Business in the House of Commons of Canada. Unless I misunderstand, this is
Official Developmental Aid
the first day we have had a debate on one of the votable items of the 20 Bills on the order of precedence. The Bill of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) is one of the three Bills selected so far by the Standing Committee on Private Members' Business that will come to a vote should time permit. There is a possibility that if prorogation occurs, these Bills will die on the Order Paper and not actually come to a vote, but it is worthy to note that this is the first occasion that we are debating a votable Private Members' motion.
It is unfortunate that more Members are not present because the intention of the reform was that there might be more interest, given that a particular subject might actually come to a vote. I must say that there are more Members in the House than is normally the case during Private Members' Hour and perhaps we are on the road to improvement in that respect.
I want to comment on the speech given by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse). I am sorry that he cannot hear me say this-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member has been here quite a while. He should not reflect on who is in the House and who is not in the House. There are monitors outside and I am sure Members are watching the Hon. Member right now and enjoying his speech. There are many Members behind the curtain who are watching the Hon. Member. Therefore, I hope he will stick to debate.
I appreciate him saying that this is the first of the five hours on this votable Private Members' motion.


William Alexander (Bill) Blaikie: Mr. Speaker, I did not mean to reflect any motives about the absence of Members. It was simply my way of expressing my regret. I appreciate the fact that you believe so many people are listening to me.
If memory serves me correctly, it was not Lester Pearson who initiated the war on poverty, but Lyndon Johnson. It was an American phenomenon. I know that the Hon. Member for Scarborough West is not a professor of history. He is a professor of Christian ethics, which is even more amazing. However, it was the Americans who launched the war on poverty.
I must say that with respect to what is happening in the modern welfare state, democratic socialists have not been proven wrong by the welfare state, democratic socialists have been proven right by the fact that the welfare state has not closed the gap between the rich and the poor. We have said all along that the redistribution of wealth without the redistribution of power would not bring about the kind of equality that we in the New Democratic Party want.
I want to address the arguments put forward by the Hon. Member for Scarborough West because I found them quite provoking. Part of the Hon. Member's argument was the old "charity begins at home" routine. I want to say for the interest
14572

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
of those Members who might be listening and to the masses who you say are listening to me, Mr. Speaker, that at one time the Hon. Member for Scarborough West was my professor of Christian ethics. That is either a statement about the infinite flexibility of Christian ethics, or about either one of us, that we can so radically disagree about the argument made by the Hon. Member that we should make sure that our own economy is in perfect order before agreeing to the goals set out in the motion by the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat- The Islands.
I am reminded of a scripture: "Seek ye first the Kingdom of God and its justice and everything else will be added on to you." We should be seeking to do justice in the international economic order and seeking to do justice with respect to what we know is needed in the developing countries in the belief that in the long run it will result in economic benefits as well. It is only through building up the global economy and improving the economies of the developing countries that we will achieve the kind of global community, both economically and politically, that we are looking for.
When the Tories talk about unproductive spending abroad, one can clearly see their long-standing paranoia that someone in the Third World might be getting something for nothing and money may not be spent as productively as possible. It is that kind of argument we have heard from the Conservatives over the years about CIDA and other development projects. It is a totally unworthy argument because no one advocates spending money wastefully or non-productively. I suggest that using the excuse that waste has occurred on occasion as a reason for opposing the objectives in the Hon. Member's motion is totally unacceptable.
The Hon. Member's point about military spending was well taken. Much of the wealth in the entire world is spent in this terribly wasteful way. However, the Hon. Member would have been more credible if he or his Party criticized the way in which the arm's race in the Third World is fueled by the arm's race between the superpowers and the wars by proxy which they like to fight against each other in various parts of the world. If he said that as a result of his view of military spending he was encouraging the Government to use its relationship with the United States of America to ask that country to stop contributing to the very military spending that he was deploring, I would have been more supportive. However, he did not do that. In my opinion, there were many flaws in the argument presented by my former teacher. I hope he will have an opportunity to reflect on what I have said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There is still one minute remaining. I will recognize the Hon. Member for Oxford (Mr. Halliday).


Bruce Halliday: Mr. Speaker, I want to make only one comment on the motion. I congratulate the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly) for bringing forward this motion. I believe the majority of
Members of the House as well as most Canadians support his goal.
However, I was somewhat disappointed that he would suggest that we lack leadership in this country. I remind him of what happened in the United Nations some three weeks ago when a former leader of his own Party scored a real coup. Mr. Lewis, our Ambassador to the United Nations, scored a real coup in having 158 countries approve a development plan for Africa.
I was rather disappointed that the Hon. Member would not recognize that as leadership by the Government in having appointed him as our permanent Ambassador to the United Nations.
[Translation}


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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.




[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of Bill C-67, An Act to amend the Parole Act and the Penitentiary Act, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee; and Motion No. 14 (Mr. Robinson) (p. 14564).
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is the House ready for the question? The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has 30 seconds to finish his debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, at the time I was interrupted by this historic debate, I was concluding my discussion of the interim report that was tabled in the Senate. I was pointing out that the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee had unanimously recommended certain changes. For the benefit of thousands of Canadians watching this debate with rapt attention, we are dealing with legislation concerning mandatory supervision. Of course, the Government House Leader will have a particular interest in the position that is taken by Tory Senators in view of his antecedents, and the good Senators, both Tory and Liberal, propose that regulations affecting personal rights and liberties be part of the legislation and not part of regulations and that the same should apply to information communicated to the inmates. Finally, they propose parliamentary review in three years and a sunset clause in five years.
The Government has ignored each and every one of these recommendations. I would hope that the Government would be
June 17, 1986

prepared to listen to the collective wisdom in the committee on legal and constitutional affairs and accept these very reasonable proposals that have been made.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Bring back Stan Knowles.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it has been suggested by my colleague, the Government House Leader, that we bring back Senator Knowles. I am not aware of a Senator Knowles. There was a Senator Hnatyshyn, although, and I know he served with great distinction.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 14 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next grouping of motions will be Nos. 17, 18, 18A, 19 and 20-


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I believe the Chair may have inadvertently overlooked Motion No. 4, which I believe should be put to the House at this time. It has not yet been put to the House and it was in fact ruled in order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am informed that Motion No. 4 is to be combined with Motion No. 29. If the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) will bear with us, maybe we could deal with this group of motions and ensure that Motion No. 4 is dealt with. Is that agreeable with Hon. Members? I was saying that Motion Nos. 17, 18, 18A, 19, 20 and 20A are combined for debate and Motion No. 17 will be voted on separately. A vote on Motion No. 8 will also apply to Motions Nos. 19 and 20. Motion Nos. 18A and 20A will also be voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 17
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 4 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"order, and shall allow the inmate a hearing for the purpose".
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Motion No. 18
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 6 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"of a review of the case of an inmate".


Svend Johannes Robinson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I just need clarification. Is it in order for a motion proposed by a Minister to be seconded by a Parliamentary Secretary?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes, it is.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 18A
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 12 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"(3) Subsections 15.4(2), (4.1) and (5) apply,".


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 19
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 14 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"stances required, in respect of a".
Motion No. 20
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 18 at page 9 and substituting the following therefor:
"require, in respect of a review pur-".


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Motion No. 20A
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5
(a)	by striking out lines 43 to 46 at page 9;
(b)	by renumbering paragraphs (b) to (h) on pages 10 and 11 as paragraphs (a) to (g), respectively.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, just on a point of order, I had suggested earlier that perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary might speak to those motions in the name of the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) before I spoke to the motions in my own name in order that there might be an opportunity for clarification to avoid unduly prolonging debate. I wonder if he might want to clarify the motions in the name of the Solicitor General.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will recognize the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary. Are you rising on debate or on a point of order?


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am rising with regard to Motion 18A. This section of the clause deals with the procedure to be followed by the board at the annual review of an inmate who has been ordered detained past his or her presumptive release date. This motion is consequential to the one proposed at line 16 on page 8 adding the guidelines to the statute. This motion will require, in statute, that the board apply the same guidelines in annual reviews.

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Perhaps we could deal with Motion No. 20A just after the Hon. Member has a chance to speak to this.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The motions are combined for debate, so may I suggest that the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary address the issue immediately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Speak to them both.


Thomas Gordon Towers: I am speaking to Motion No. 20A, which would amend Clause 5, which specifies the regulation-making authority of the Governor in Council with respect to two various procedures relating to the detention review process. This motion is consequential to the one proposed at line 16 at page 8, removing the guidelines from the regulations and placing them in the statute. This motion deletes the regulationmaking authority to establish a change to the guideline and to renumber the subsequent paragraphs in the subsection.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will call on the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for debate.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I am speaking to Motions Nos. 17, 18, 19 and 20. Motion No. 17 would ensure that before the decision is made to hold a prisoner beyond the eligibility date for mandatory supervision, until warrant expiry, the prisoner would be entitled to a hearing. I think that in making such a fundamental decision, which has been held by the courts to be a decision that does involve the liberty of the subject and for which counsel should be present, the individual surely has a right to a hearing. That is the purpose of Motion No. 17. I hope that it will have the support of Members of this House.
Motions Nos. 18, 19 and 20 collectively, when linked with Motion No. 16, would ensure that there are more frequent reviews of an individual who has been gated by the National Parole Board. As it stands now, that review process would only happen once a year. That is simply not good enough. There should be a more frequent review in view of the fact that, once again, we are dealing with the liberty of the subject. I mention the importance of the need for a review process here, a process by which the prisoner affected might be heard.
The statistics show that the record of the National Parole Board with respect to prediction of violence leaves a great deal to be desired. I now have the specific illustration of that. On many occasions we have been told about the fact that between 1975 and 1979 some 52 people were killed by prisoners who had been released on mandatory supervision. Of that number, 31 were the victims of murder, and 21 were the victims of manslaughter. That represents the following percentage of the total releases on mandatory supervision: 1.2 per cent of all those released on mandatory supervision were involved in murder, and .8 per cent were involved in manslaughter. Of the prisoners released on parole, as opposed to mandatory supervision-in other words those released at the discretion of the National Parole Board-we have the following figures:
nine of the prisoners who were released on parole betwen 1975 and 1979 were convicted of murder and a further nine were convicted of manslaughter, for a total of 18 individuals. However, because the numbers involved on parole were much smaller than for those released on mandatory supervision, the actual percentage was higher. It was 1.3 per cent.
What do we have? We have a situation in which a larger percentage of those who are released on parole at the absolute discretion of the National Parole Board are involved in crimes of homicide as opposed to those who are released automatically on mandatory supervision. What does that say about the ability of the National Parole Board to predict violent crime? It very clearly says that the board has been a failure. We are giving this body, which has so demonstrably failed in its duty, even more discretion and even more power to detain people when it has been admitted without any hesitation whatsoever, and without any doubt, that it has a bad record, and when it has been admitted that violence cannot be predicted.
It is for this reason that, among others, a major campaign was launched out of the prison at Collins Bay by the John Howard Society, Collins Bay Chapter, to abolish mandatory supervision. It was called the one-cent campaign. I personally received hundreds and hundreds of envelopes bearing one-cent stamps which urged the Government to abolish mandatory supervision.
Given the fact that we are wasting millions of dollars on a program which has been proved to be ineffective, and which results in such bitterness and such anger among prisoners who believe that they have been denied their earned remission, I believe that is a recommendation that should be very seriously looked at.
I note as well that it is a recommendation supported by, among others, the John Howard Society, the St. Leonard's Society, many distinguished professors of law and criminology, the Canadian Association for the Prevention of Crime, the Elizabeth Fry Society, and many other concerned Canadians. I hope that the Government will accept these motions, which would certainly move some distance toward ensuring adequate due process in a very Draconian system of designating individuals to remain behind bars after they have earned their remission.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 17 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.
June 17, 1986


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 17 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next question is on Motion No. 18 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 18 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I remind Hon. Members that the vote on Motion No. 18 disposes of Motions Nos. 19 and 20.
The next question is on Motion No. 18A standing in the name of the Solicitor General. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 18A agreed to.
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next question is on Motion No. 20A standing in the name of the Solicitor General. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it. I declare the motion carried.
Motion No. 20A agreed to.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 21
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 23 at page 10 and substituting the following therefor:
"commencement of a hearing".
Motion No. 22
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 29 to 37 at page 10.
He said: Mr. Speaker, these two motions deal with the very important issue of what information must be provided to a prisoner before his or her hearing on parole or before his or her hearing with respect to a decision on gating. As it now stands, the Bill would allow vital information, key information, with respect to this decision to be provided to an inmate or a prisoner, or any other person, by the board before the commencement of, or during, a hearing held pursuant to the provisions of the Act. It is simply not good enough to suggest that a prisoner come into a hearing-such an important hearing on parole or one with respect to gating-and not have any information until he or she literally arrives at the hearing and is told: "Look. Here is the information that we intend to share with you". I say "share" because the National Parole Board has this euphemism of "oral sharing" of information during hearings.
The amendment in Motion No. 22 would delete paragraph (e). The combined effect of these two motions would be to ensure that prisoners are entitled to any information which will be the basis of a decision of the National Parole Board before the hearing and that they have that information at least 15 days before the hearing. I think that that is an elementary and natural form of justice. I hope that the Government will recognize the importance of this particular proposal.
I would like to point out that the provisions with which we are dealing, and particularly "gating", have been described by

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
the former Chairman of the National Parole Board, Mr. William Outerbridge, in the following way:
-it's a brutal tool, it is a clumsy tool and it is a Band-Aid, because it only helps us for a short period of time.
That is the law we are being asked to adopt in Parliament today. In fact, I think we would be doing a disservice to our constituents were we to adopt this law which clearly would result in an increase in the level of violence in our community.
As well, since we are dealing with information provided to prisoners, I would like to take this opportunity to read a letter which was sent to me by a prisoner at the Bowden Institution in Alberta, a letter which touches directly on this point. It reads as follows:
Dear Sir:
I am incarcerated in Bowden Institution in Alberta, finishing an eleven and a half years sentence which started in May 29/75. I have been incarcerated several times in Canadian Institutions starting in 1958, Kingston, Collins Bay, Joyceville and several farm camps.
I have seen so many changes over the last 27 yrs, actually living conditions have improved two hundred per cent, but at the same time violence has increased four times as much on the inside, it seems as institutions increase security, inmates increase their hostilities and people become more dangerous, not because they were actually dangerous to start with, but because their surrounding becomes more hostile. I've known many inmates who while serving sentences for non-violence, have come involved in stabbing and murders while inside.
One thing that is definitely going to increase the violence inside prisons is by the Government bringing in these changes to the Mandatory Parole Act, which actually places an inmate on an indefinite sentence, the Parole Board having the power to take part or all one's remission, if inmates have nothing to lose then look out. I can see prison officials not liking an individual and have the power to have that person incarcerated as long as the sentence is, and also the Prisons & Parole Boards using this power to produce more informers on the inside and on the outside of Prisons. The courts have been well aware for years when sentencing offenders that they received remission on their sentences for good behaviour, but now giving the Parole Board such great Powers over people is terrible, regardless if we are outcast or not.
By Parliamentary act the Parole Board is even untouchable by our Supreme Courts. The Institution now have the power to take remissions when a prisoner misbehaves, for each time he faces charges they can take remission if the charge is serious, they can take them to outside court, but to wait until the mandatory date approaches, and then to tell the prisoner he is one of those chosen, to have to do the remainder of his remission in the Institution, Boy! I just hope Parliament is willing to accept the consequences, many prisoners are a little emotionally screwed up now, but that will be nothing compared to what they will be.
I certainly wouldn't envy anyone working in Federal Institutions, and there will definitely be more killings and violence amongst prisoners and staff.
It all seems strange when people who make the rules actually don't really know what's happening.
I am finished my sentence on October 21, 1985, and will be on my way. It's just too bad the Solicitor General couldn't of spent even one year in here to know what he's talking about.
That is a very serious letter from a prisoner who has had considerable experience within the system. His views are echoed by prisoners from across Canada. The Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs made the same point.
The whole premise of this legislation is that somehow we will protect our community from dangerous individuals. However, if we are not doing that but only delaying the release of those individuals and at the same time significantly
increasing the level of tension within institutions, then of course we are dealing with a potential time bomb.
The motions which are before the House attempt to introduce an element of basic due process in the hearing system and attempt to ensure that there is a hearing before the review and that before the hearing takes place, the individual is provided in writing with all of the information which is the basis of the decision. These are motions which I hope the House will support.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 21 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 21 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next question is on Motion No. 22 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 22 negatived.
June 17, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next two motions, Motion No. 23 and Motion No. 23A, will be the object of separate debate and separate votes.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 23
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out lines 22 to 25 at page 11 and substituting the following therefor:

He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this motion is to delete the reference in proposed Clause 15.6 of the Bill which would allow the Governor in Council or the Cabinet, by simple Order in Council, to amend the Schedule of the Bill to add or delete any offence under any Act of Parliament. In other words, we are dealing with a situation in which Cabinet is being given the discretion to add an offence which could in turn result in loss of liberty. I think that we should not be leaving a decision this important and fundamental to Cabinet or to the Governor in Council. We should ensure that Parliament itself is involved in that decision and that there is an opportunity to debate in the House and in committee that important decision. That, Mr. Speaker, is the basis of the amendment before the House.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 23 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 23 negatived.


Hon. John Wise (for the Solicitor General of Canada) moved:: Motion No. 23A
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out line 46 at page 11 and lines 1 to 3 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"arrest shall cause the inmate to be brought before a person designated by the Chairman of the Board
(a)	where that person is available within a period of twenty-four hours after the inmate is arrested, without unreasonable delay and in any event within that period; and
(b)	where that person is not available within the period referred to in paragraph (a), as soon as possible."


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, this clause deals with Section 19 of the Parole Act which will allow a peace officer to arrest a suspended or revoked parolee without warrant in hand as long as the peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe such a warrant exists. In the analagous Code provision, Section 454, the offenders shall be brought before a justice within 24
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
hours or, if a justice is not so available, then as soon as possible.
Clause 6 requires that the peace officer take the parolee before a person designated by the Chairman of the Parole Board within 24 hours. An exceptional provision allowing this to be done outside the initial 24 hours as in the Code was not included in Clause 6. This motion adds the exceptional provision using the wording of Section 454 of the Code. The provision is intended to cover rare situations such as may occur in isolated communities where a reviewing authority is not always quickly available.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 23A standing in the name of the Hon. Solicitor General of Canada (Mr. Beatty). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: On division.
Motion No. 23A agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The next grouping of motions is Motions Nos. 24, 25, 31, and 32. They will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motions Nos. 25, 31, and 32.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 24
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 2 and 3 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"before a Justice of the Peace".
Motion No. 25
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 5 and 6 at page 12 and substituting the following therefor:
"ant to subsection (3) before a Justice of the Peace, that".


John Wise: Motion No. 31
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 14 to 17 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"arrest shall cause the inmate to be brought before a person designated by the Chairman of the Board
(a)	where that person is available within a period of 24 hours after the inmate is arrested, without unreasonable delay and in any event within that period; and,
(b)	where that person is not available within the period referred to in paragraph (a), as soon as possible".


Svend Johannes Robinson: June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
Motion No. 32
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 19 and 20 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"ant to subsection (3) before a Justice of the Peace, that".
He said: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary could clarify the purpose of the motion moved by the Government, as has been our practice to this point.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, under Section 15.31 of the Parole Act, the CSC is required to refer a potential detention case to the board not later than six months before the inmate's presumptive release date.
Section 15.33 allows the Commissioner to refer a case within the six-month period under limited circumstances because of new information or changed circumstances. Upon proclamation of the Bill there may be inmates, whose presumptive release date is less than six months away, who should be referred to the board but do not fit the conditions defined in Section 25.33.
It is the intention of the Government that the detention provisions of the Bill be effective immediately upon proclamation. Correctional authorities must be able to refer inmates from a detention review hearing within the first six months of operation if public safety is at stake. Consequently, we are moving that a traditional provision be added to the Bill to allow clearly the referral of potential detention cases within the first six months. Any such referral will have to be made as soon as practicable, and the procedures normally applicable to the review will apply with such modifications as circumstances require.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, having heard that explanation, it is quite clear that what we are doing is streamlining justice in the interest of time. I am totally opposed to the provision which is being suggested by the Solicitor General (Mr. Beatty) in the amendment before us. It is important to note that if we are serious about dealing with the concern about the violence in our communities, and if we are serious about dealing with the very real problem of violent crime, this Bill and the approach taken in it are fundamentally wrong and misguided. Surely we should be looking at the causes of violent crime. We should do, to the greatest extent possible, what we can to eradicate the causes of violent crime. However, the Government does nothing whatsoever to deal with that factor.
As well, it is important to examine conditions within our federal prison system and to recognize that conditions in many cases are appalling. It was in 1976-77 that a special subcommittee of Parliament unanimously recommended that unless there were major changes within the prison system, further crises would in fact erupt. A number of recommendations were made in respect of using imprisonment as a last possible resort. Instead, we sentence people to some of the longest sentences in the western world. Our sentences are far too long, and far too many people are in prison. It should be very clearly set out in
the Criminal Code that prison should be the last possible resort for a judge and should only be used when all else fails. Surely the rule of law should apply within prison walls as well as outside prison walls. We have seen too many instances, whether it be at Kingston Penitentiary or elsewhere, where prison officials arbitrarily ignore the law, whether it be commissioners' directives, criminal law or other law.
The purpose of this grouping of amendments is to ensure that the decision to revoke an individual's liberty is not made by a person appointed by the chairperson of the National Parole Board, but at the very least is made by a justice of the peace. In any other deprivation of liberty clearly it should be and must be a justice of the peace or an independent judicial officer, as opposed to some person designated by the chairperson of the National Parole Board, who is given the power to arrest and detain an individual for some considerable length of time. I would hope that the Government would recognize the importance of this series of amendments and move to accept it.
In looking at the whole issue of prevention, as I mentioned earlier we pay lip service to it within the prison system. There are totally inadequate work programs; some of the best work programs have been shut down. Prisoners themselves are the first people to say that they want to work. They want the right to work in institutions, not just on meaningless, mindless drudgery, but on real jobs which will provide them with skills to help them to obtain jobs outside prison.
There may be Conservative Members who want to speak in this debate. I would welcome their participation. However, I note the hypocrisy of the Government's approach in saying that it wants to cut down on violent crime, but at the same time starves institutions of resources for dealing with prisoners who may in fact be violent. Recent figures have shown that there are only 65 psychologists working in all federal penitentiaries in Canada. Many institutions have fewer than three of them on staff. For example, Kingston Penitentiary with over 400 prisoners, many of whom have serious problems, has twotime psychologists. Instead of this backward approach which will increase the level of violence in our communities, why do we not get serious about prevention? Why do we not recognize that we need more resources within institutions to deal with sex offenders, those offenders with psychological and personal problems. Instead, we have seen the federal Government cutting back on programs for sex offenders. The case-loads of psychologists within institutions are absolutely enormous. Basically, handling units have very serious problems and are completely unable to cope with them, given the resources which they now have.
I reject the approach taken in this legislation, as do my colleagues. We suggest that it is about time the Government took seriously its mandate to prevent violent crime, not to increase the possibility of violent crime through legislation such as this. I call upon the Government to adopt the motions which are now before the House.
June 17, 1986


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 24 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). A vote on Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motions Nos. 25, 31, and 32. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. The motion is defeated.
Motion No. 24 negatived.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There seems to be some confusion with regard to Motion No. 31 which is a Government motion.


Svend Johannes Robinson: It was just defeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Mr. Wise for the Solicitor General moved Motion No. 31.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. We have already voted on Motion No. 31. The Speaker ruled and I am quoting now from the ruling of the Speaker:
Motion Nos. 24, 25, 31 and 32 will be grouped for debate. A vote on Motion No. 24 will also apply to Motion Nos. 25, 31 and 32.
That was the Speaker's ruling. The Speaker's ruling was not in any way disputed. There was a vote on Motion No. 24 which was negatived. That, in turn, negatives Motions Nos. 26, 31 and 32. It is completely out of order at this point to suggest a separate vote on a motion that has already been negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: On the very specific point brought to the attention of the Chair by both the Parliamentary Secretary and the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), I can inform the House that there has been an error, a transposition. Motion No. 31 should have read Motion No. 31 A, the motion of the Hon. Member for Burnaby and not Motion No. 31 per se. That is where the error and the confusion comes from. If the House would bear with the Chair, I would propose to the House that the vote would apply to Motion No. 31A and not Motion No. 31.


Svend Johannes Robinson: No way, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I am putting that proposition to the House. Is that acceptable?
Parole and Penitentiary Acts


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, clearly such a disposition would require unanimous consent. I am certainly not prepared to grant unanimous consent to that suggestion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: That would, therefore, dispose of the matter.
That leaves us with Motion No. 31A to dispose of at this point.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 31A
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 12 by striking out lines 16 and 17 at page 18 and substituting the following therefor:
"before a Justice of the Peace".
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 31A is a motion which would ensure that the principle to which I referred earlier that a hearing should take place, not before a person designated by the chairperson of the National Parole Board, but before a justice of the peace and that that principle should apply at all stages within this Bill. I would hope that even though we have defeated that principle in the previous motions which were put to the House, perhaps the House might now recognize the error of its ways and adopt Motion No. 31A.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 31A negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We now move to Motion No. 26 to be debated on separately and voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 26
that Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 8 by striking out line 17 at page 14.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this amendment is to delete the reference in sub-paragraph (i) of the schedule to assault. In view of the fact that that offence can be committed in many different ways, including ways which do not involve any violent conduct at all, I would suggest that this unduly

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
extends the scope of the Bill and I hope we would be prepared as a Parliament to delete that reference, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion negatived.
Motion No. 26 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: We will now move to Motion Nos. 29 and 4. I direct the attention of the House to the fact that they have not been dealt with at a previous time this morning when they were previously grouped together. The Chair will now put them to the House at this time.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 4
that Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 5 by striking out line 23 at page 4 and substituting the following therefor:
"class of penitentiary after the"
Motion No. 29
That Bill C-67, be amended in Clause 11 by adding immediately after line 32 at page 17 the following:
(3) this section applies to inmates released on mandatory supervision after the coming into force of this section".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I remind Hon. Members that the motions will be grouped for debate and voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, in many ways these two motions go to the heart of this Bill and deal with a very fundamental issue. Very briefly, the issue is whether this legislation is to operate retroactively or to apply from the date upon which it is proclaimed. As the Bill is now worded, it would apply to those prisoners who are already incarcerated as well as to those who were sentenced after the adoption of this legislation. In my view it is profoundly unjust and unfair to apply this legislation to prisoners who are already in institutions having been sentenced under a particular regime and then denied the right to which they should be entitled, the benefit of the earned remission that they have accrued during that sentence.
The prisoners that we are talking about were sentenced by judges who were well aware of the provisions of the Criminal
Code and various parole Acts affecting sentence. There have been a variety of court cases on this point. It is very clear that judges have taken this into consideration in determining the appropriate length of sentence. Indeed, in the British Columbia Court of Appeal it was held that remission and parole are proper matters for consideration in the determination of sentence in appropriate cases.
A recent study on sentencing by Professor John Hogarth dealt with this important question. In that study provincial court judges were asked to indicate whether they adjusted their sentences in light of the possibility of parole being granted or, presumably, mandatory supervision. Two out of three judges who were interviewed admitted that they did increase the length of sentence imposed. The majority of provincial court judges admit that they evade the directions of the Ontario Court of Appeal on this matter.
This means the prisoners who are now in federal institutions have been sentenced to terms of imprisonment based upon the existing provisions of mandatory supervision and parole. We are now changing the rules in midstream. We are telling those prisoners that even though they were sentenced on the basis of a previous regime, we are going to apply the new rules to them as well. I suspect that that is in breach of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms of Canada as well as being fundamentally unfair, unjust and unworkable.
This point was made by many witnesses who appeared before our committee. For example, the Canadian Association of Elizabeth Fry Societies pointed out that the detention order could be applied to all prisoners regardless of whether they were convicted before or after the coming into force of the Act. As they said, it is blatantly unjust to prisoners to apply retroactively measures with such potentially serious repercussions.
We have the views of the John Howard Society of Canada. They say that Section 11 (i) of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms provides that no accused can be sentenced to a higher punishment merely on account of a legislative increase in penalty after commission of the crime but before sentence. In other words, increased penalties cannot be applied retroactively. The John Howard Society also refers to Section 7 of the Charter. It seems clear, therefore, that applying the gating order provisions to prisoners who are already serving their sentences and have earned their remission before the passage of the legislation is a blatant violation of Section 11 (i) and Section 7 of the Charter.
Finally on this point, the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers Association said:
Our associations are particularly concerned with the retroactivity of these various legislative proposals .... Simply put, these sections would make the new regime of "gating" and "one shot mandatory" applicable to persons who have already been sentenced.
They continue:
Is this Committee assured that Sections 5 and 12 of Bill C-67 will survive attacks based on Sections 7 or 15 of the Charter? Is it fair for Parliament to change the rules without some prior notice?

Do you not face the very real possibility that many prisoners will now decline release on mandatory supervision entirely, particularly with regard to the findings of the Ouimet Committee to the effect that at that time only about 60 per cent of eligible prisoners applied for parole because prisoners "prefer to complete their sentence in the institution rather than place their-remission period in jeopardy"?
These are grave issues of justice and liberty. Once again the Government has said that it does not care about those provisions and is prepared to apply the whole thing retroactively-
In the House of Commons in the United Kingdom in July of 1910 Winston Churchill put it very clearly. He said:
The mood and temper of the public with regard to the treatment of crime and criminals is one of the most unfailing tests of the civilization of any country.
I suggest that if we adopt the legislation now before the House we as a Parliament and a nation will have failed that test, not only from the perspective of prisoners but also from the perspective of the communities which we represent and from the perspective of the victims of crime. I, therefore, urge the Government to accept this amendment and to ensure that we are not harshly applying these rules retroactively but that if they must come into effect we apply them from the date that the legislation is proclaimed.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 4. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: All those against the motion will please say nay.


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it. I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 4 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 29. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 29 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Motion No. 28 and
Motion No. 30 seek to amend Clause 11 of the Bill. At the
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
direction of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) Motion No. 30 will be debated and voted on separately. Motion No. 28 will not be proposed and will be dropped from the Notice Paper.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 30
That Bill C-67, be amended by deleting Clause 11.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of Motion No. 30 which is now before the House is to delete Clause 11 of this Bill. Clause 11 is the clause which would implement a scheme of denying earned remission to those individuals whose mandatory supervision has been revoked when those individuals fall within a particular category set out in the legislation. This so-called one shot mandatory supervision will have a very serious impact on the population of our prison system which is overcrowded. Indeed, the correctional investigator was recently very critical of the federal penitentiary system in that it double-bunks prisoners. To the extent that this Bill is going to add to the population of our prison system, it will obviously cause very significant problems.
I would also note that as the Bill is now worded it would deny earned remission to those prisoners whose mandatory supervision is revoked merely as a result of the contravention of terms or conditions of "mandatory". The Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Committee unanimously recommended that this should not be the case. I refer to their interim report to the Senate of May 14, 1986. They are referring to one shot mandatory supervision, in other words, the denial of the right to earn further remissions to certain inmates whose mandatory supervision has been revoked.
I might pause here to note that the whole concept of earned remission has been strongly supported by prison guards as well as by prisoners. It provides some incentive for good behaviour in the institutions. As it stands now, if you are not eligible for earned remission then there is no incentive for good behaviour. If we eliminate earned remission for these prisoners we will simply make them that much more likely to cause problems and aggravate tensions in the institutions. They have absolutely nothing to lose.
The Senate committee said that the scope of the amendment on mandatory supervision was considerably narrowed in the legislative committee. Only inmates who have been made the subject of formal consideration for detention under the Bill, but who 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. This amendment, however, fails to take into account the criticism that an inmate may have his release revoked for contravention of terms and conditions of that release which have nothing whatever 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

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
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.
How can Members of the House disagree with that unanimous recommendation of Liberal and Conservative Senators? After all, if mandatory supervision is revoked because an individual travels more than 25 miles beyond the area in which he is supposed to be residing, or if he has a drink when he should not, or if he takes out a line of credit when he is not supposed to take out, we are going to throw the person in jail. Not only that, they will not have any opportunity to earn remission on the remainder of their sentence. That must surely constitute cruel and unusual punishment.
In addition to that, it will add to overcrowding of institutions. What we have proposed is that if this one shot mandatory supervision is to apply, at least make sure it applies only where an individual has been involved in criminal activity, not where he has merely breached a term or condition of his mandatory supervision. That is the reason, among others, that we have suggested that this provision in Clause 11 be deleted. I hope Members of the House will support this very reasonable and modest proposal.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 30 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: No.
Motion No. 30 negatived.


Hon. Andre Bissonnette (for the Solicitor General of Canada) moved:: Motion No. 30A That Bill C-67, be amended
(a)	by adding immediately after line 32 at page 17 the following:
" 12.(1) Notwithstanding subsection 15.3(3) of the Parole Act, as enacted by section 5 of this Act, the Commissioner may, within six months after the coming into force of that subsection, refer the case of an inmate to the Chairman of the Board pursuant to that subsection later than six months before the presumptive release date of the inmate, but the Commissioner shall do so as soon as practicable after the belief referred to in that subsection is formed with respect to that case.
(2)	Notwithstanding subsection 15.3(2) of the Parole Act, as enacted by section 5 of this Act, the Service may, within six months after the coming into force of that subsection, refer the cases of an inmate to the Board pursuant to that subsection later than six months before the presumptive release date of the inmate, but the Service shall do so as soon as practicable after the opinion referred to in that subsection is formed with respect to that case.
(3)	Where the case of an inmate is referred to the Board pursuant to subsection (2) during the six months immediately preceding the presumptive release date of the inmate, subsections 15.3(5) to (7) of the Parole Act apply to that case, with such modifications as the circumstances require."
(b)	by renumbering Clauses 12 to 14 as Clauses 13 to 15, respectively".


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I just want to compliment the Government for simplifying this Act through this wording.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great care to the reading of this particular motion by the Chair and I wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Solicitor General could clarify its purpose.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Mr. Speaker, the section concerned allows the Commissioner to refer a case within a six-month period under limited circumstances because of new information or changed circumstances. Upon proclamation of this Bill there may be inmates whose presumptive release date is less than six months who should be referred to the Board but who do not fit the conditions defined in Subsection 15.3(3). It is the intention of the Government that the detention provisions of this Bill be effective immediately upon proclamation, and correctional authorities must be able to refer inmates for a detention review hearing within the first six months of operation if public safety is at stake. Consequently, we are moving that a transitional provision be added to clearly allow the referral of potential detention cases within the first six months. Any such referral will have to be made as soon as practicable and the procedures normally applicable to the review will apply with such modifications as the circumstances require.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 30A standing in the name of the Hon. Solicitor General. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.
Motion No. 30A agreed to.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Since Motion No. 33 and Motion No. 34 affect the same line of the Bill, the Chair has consulted with the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) and will select Motion No. 33 for debate. It will be debated and voted on separately. Accordingly, Motion No. 34 will be dropped from the Notice Paper.


Svend Johannes Robinson: June 17, 1986

Motion No. 33:
That Bill C-67 be amended in Clause 13 by striking out lines 40 to 43 at page 18 and lines 1 to 16 at page 19 and substituting the following therefor:
13.(1) Three years after the coming into force of sections 15.2 and 15.6 of the Parole Act and the schedule thereto as enacted by sections 5 and 8 respectively of this Act and subsections 24(3) to (5) and section 24.11 of the Penitentiary Act as enacted by subsection 10(2) and section 11 respectively of this Act shall cease to be in force.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Motion No. 33, which is now on the floor for debate, would provide in effect for a sunset clause within this legislation. Many of us would argue that the sun should not rise with this particular legislation, but at the very least if it does rise it should set three years after it comes into effect. That is precisely what the purpose of this motion is. It would provide that the sections in question, the heart of this Bill, would cease to be of any force or effect three years after the coming into force of the Bill.
What that would do is to ensure that the Government puts substance into its promise that it intends to undertake a comprehensive review of correctional law. This review is long overdue. It has been ten years since Parliament last examined the whole question of corrections and prisons in our country, and what we have seen is a prison system which has grown out of control.
It is a system in which prisons are built not on the basis of correctional criteria, but built on the basis of patronage, such as Port Cartier Prison, which by sheer coincidence happens to be located within the Prime Minister's constituency, or Renous Penitentiary, which was built by the previous Government on exactly the same socio-economic conditions, pork-barrelling to help a Liberal Member in New Brunswick.
We believe the time has come for a very fundamental review. Even the Nielsen task force said that it was about time that we recognized that the S800 million plus a year that we are spending on corrections should be reviewed. We are sending far too many people to prison in this country and not using alternatives to imprisonment, wherever possible. We are not emphasizing prevention of crime, which is so fundamental.
The legislation before us which would be the subject of a sunset clause contains many very serious implications, the first one being the loss of inmates' earned remission and the possibility of any earned remission. Second, I would note that prisoners who were incarcerated prior to the passage of the Bill would automatically and arbitrarily have their sentences basically increased by one-third because of the fact that judges will not have taken into consideration in sentencing the fact that an individual would serve the total amount of time.
It would grant new quasi-judicial powers to the National Parole Board when we have seen clearly that it has not used the powers which it has with any great degree of wisdom. Judicial powers are the mandate of the courts, and not the mandate of a Parole Board which has been appointed by the Government of the day, and the members of which in too many cases have been appointed on the basis of partisan
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
political considerations. We have seen a lot of former Members of Parliament who finally found their resting place on the National Parole Board. Surely that is not acceptable with a body which has such sweeping quasi-judicial and judicial powers.
The Bill will lead to an increase in tension between and among inmates and penitentiary staff, which may increase the level of violence within institutions. It will lead to overcrowding, which may also lead to such violence because of increased stress and the total absence of any meaningful programs within the penitentiary system. It will lead to increased psychological damage to prisoners and their families. It will lead to an increase in the level of violence in our communities due to the fact that the prisoners who have been designated as the most dangerous of all are going to be released directly on to the street without any form of surveillance whatsoever.
I would note as well that the Elizabeth Fry Society in Halifax pointed out that a Government which endorses a free enterprise system should not consider the counterproductive measure of removing all incentives from confined human beings. As they say, the increased anxiety and bitterness generated among the inmates who will have their rights denied by the passage of this Bill increases the potential of even more violence in society once these embittered people are released from the human warehouses in which they now find themselves.
The suggestion that there be a sunset clause is not one which is particularly radical. The Senate unanimously recommended such a sunset clause. The Standing Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs in the report to which I referred earlier recommended that. It said the following:
The fourth and final issue has to do with the duration of this proposed legislation, and the process by which it should be reviewed. The Solicitor General has indicated that Bill C-67 is in many respects a stop-gap measure intended to deal with some pressing issues pending a more thorough revision of corrections legislation in the near future.
The last time we heard about a stop-gap measure which was just a temporary measure pending more fundamental review was on the prostitution legislation. Members of the House remember that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Crosbie) said that Bill C-49 is a stop-gap measure, an interim step, and he promised that he would be bringing in more comprehensive legislation to deal with the issue of prostitution. Of course the Government got cold feet and backed off. The so-called stopgap measure, a repressive sledge-hammer piece of legislation, remains on the books today. It is a piece of legislation which was criticized by the Government House Leader when he was a distinguished member of the Justice and Legal Affairs Committee. That legislation is on the books today. It was a stop-gap measure and certainly was not followed by any comprehensive legislation.
That is the fear that we have with this legislation which is now before the House. We are told it is a stop-gap measure, but we know very well that it is likely to be the end and not the beginning of any meaningful change.

June 17, 1986
Parole and Penitentiary Acts
The Senate recommended that there be a sunset clause and I quote:
committee is of the opinion that the Bill should contain a "sunset" clause which would deem its provision to have no force after a certain date. We would fix that date at five years from the coming into force of the legislation.
Mr. Speaker, they are a fairly conservative body over there so I suggested three years, but the principle of a sunset clause is one which was unanimously supported by the members of the Senate Committee on Legal and Constitutional Affairs, and I would hope that this House would see the wisdom of supporting a similar provision.
Finally, I just want to draw to the attention of the House an excellent article which was written by Graham Stewart, the Executive Director of the John Howard Society of Kingston and district. His article, which is entitled Mandatory Supervision: Politics and People, sets out very clearly the arguments for abolition of mandatory supervision. Mr. Stewart also appeared before the legislative committee studying this Bill and made very powerful and compelling arguments as to why we should not adopt this backward approach. In the article Mr. Stewart sets out the objectives of mandatory supervision and shows how these objectives have not been realized since it was adopted in 1970. He concludes:
From a correctional perspective, the Committee-
The committee which studied mandatory supervision, a committee established by the Solicitor General-
-could not possibly have produced a more scathingly critical indictment of Mandatory Supervision.
He then suggests:
-the money spent on Mandatory Supervision could be spent much more effectively; first, in demystifying the correctional process for the public, and secondly, by ensuring that housing, employment and family support networks are maintained for inmates and ex-inmates. This action may not satisfy those who seek punitive revenge, but it might do something to save ourselves and our neighbours from being victims of future crimes. That seems reasonable to me.
That seems reasonable to this Member of Parliament and to this Party as well. I suggest that far from saving ourselves and our neighbours from being victims of future crime, if we adopt this legislation we will be adding to the level of violent crime in our society. For that reason I propose that we reject the Bill before the House, that we adopt the sunset clause, and that we come to our senses and recognize that it is time to examine the fundamental approach taken in this country to corrections, correctional law and the prevention of crime.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 33 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it.
I declare the motion lost.
Motion No. 33 negatived.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will recap very briefly. The Chair has already stated having procedural difficulties with Motion Nos. 1, 5, 6, 7, 12 and 15. It also stated its intention to hear procedural arguments on these motions. I will offer this opportunity to Hon. Members if they have procedural arguments to make on the motions that have been declared out of order.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, I want to take this opportunity to say that I have had discussions with the Clerk at the table, who was most helpful. On the basis of those discussions and that review, I certainly have no objection to the proposal of the Chair with respect to the admissibility of the motions before the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Therefore, the ruling, as the Chair had stated, is now definitive and I declare the motions out of order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion, the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
June 17, 1986

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code, as reported (with amendments) from a legislative committee.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: There are three report stage motions on today's Notice Paper in amendment to Bill C-68, An Act to amend the Parole Act, the Penitentiary Act, the Prisons and Reformatories Act and the Criminal Code. They will be debated and voted on separately.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 1
That Bill C-68, be amended in Clause 6 by striking out lines 43 to 45 at page 4 and lines 1 to 25 at page 5.
He said: Mr. Speaker, the focus of my concern in the discussion of Bill C-67 and Bill C-68 was on the Draconian and unacceptable provisions of Bill C-67. Motions Nos. 1, 2 and 3 now before the House are largely of a technical nature, although they address important concerns that were raised by witnesses during the course of the committee hearings.
I was pleased to receive the assurance of the Minister during the hearings, and following the amendments that were tabled, that the amendments put forward to Bill C-68 by the Government did in fact respond to the major concerns addressed by the Canadian Bar Association and the Criminal Lawyers' Association. On that basis, I believe that the three motions in question do speak for themselves and, while I would certainly seek to have them put before the House, I do not intend to elaborate on the motions.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 1 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the nays have it.
Parole Act
Motion No. 1 negatived.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 2
That Bill C-68, be amended in Clause 10 by striking out line 30 at page 6 and substituting the following therefor:
"14.(1) Where on or after".


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 2 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Svend Johannes Robinson: Motion No. 3
That Bill C-68, be amended in Clause 32 by striking out lines 38 to 42 at page 16 and lines 1 to 7 at page 17.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The question is on Motion No. 3 standing in the name of the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


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

June 17, 1986
Marine Atlantic Inc.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some Hon. Members:: No.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: In my opinion the yeas have it.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

[Stage Direction]
The House proceeded to the consideration of Bill C-88, An Act to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc. and to provide for other matters in relation thereto, as reported (without amendment) from a legislative committee.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: that the Bill be read the third time and passed.


Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise and say a few words with respect to third reading of this Bill. I understand that some colleagues may want to add a few words about the Bill.
Let me simply indicate to the House that the ferry services in Atlantic Canada have not done a bad job. In fact, they have done a very good job. We have heard that they could do better. We have heard that perhaps the sea lane links to Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland should in effect, be extensions of the Trans-Canada Highway. I must say, as an Atlantic Canadian, that is not a concept that I have opposed. Indeed, it is one that I supported for 25 or 30 years.
The Bill in front of us tonight does not deal with that. It deals with the simplicity of giving form and legal structure to a child of Canadian National Railways, born some seven or eight years ago in the form of CN Marine. At the time, all in this Chamber were agreed that when CN Marine, Incorporated found its feet, found itself in the position of being able to serve Atlantic Canadians in terms of freight, passenger and vehicle traffic between the mainland and the islands and the intercoastal trade, that we would place it in a position of being independent, separate and apart; indeed, we describe it as an entity on its own and a Crown corporation responsible to itself.
There is always a conflict when we ask an agency to respond to the needs of another agency that, in fact, serves an entirely different goal. The matter in front of Your Honour tonight gives body and spirit to that. It gives to the management and employees of CN Marine its own identity. We call it Marine Atlantic, Atlantic Marine, and we do so because it reflects the Atlantic regional nature and concept of the effort and activity of CN Marine. We call it that because in fact it does finally separate it from CN. We do so because we believe that, and so do the employees. They are quite prepared now, today, and tomorrow to stand up on their own, to build for Atlantic Canadians that type of service, that type of facility, that is required by people living in Prince Edward Island and in the great Province of Newfoundland.
We would hope that members of this Chamber would give it expeditious passage. It was dealt with, I must say, with expedition. I must commend the Chairman of the legislative committee. Regretfully, he is not able to be with us this evening. I would commend the members of both opposition Parties for their role in rapidly dealing with this. I would commend them for their very reasonable consideration of evidence that was given to us by the President of CN Marine, who will become the President of Marine Atlantic. I would ask that this matter pass somewhat expeditiously.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I will call on the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus).


Iain Francis Angus: Actually, Mr. Speaker, I think there is the suggestion that Mr. Baker should have the floor.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Yes, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson). I am sorry about that.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. I am glad Your Honour has the name of my riding correct, and I want to tell my hon. friend from the New Democratic Party that I am Mr. Henderson, not Mr. Baker. Anyway, the first name is correct.


Iain Francis Angus: George is such a great speaker.


George Roland Henderson: I do not want to ever insinuate that I am as great an orator as is my colleague, the Hon. Member for
June 17, 1986

Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker), although we share the
same first name.
I would like to briefly speak on Bill C-38. We will not prolong the Bill this evening. Changing the name of CN Marine to Marine Atlantic is not really a significant change. I would like to address the service itself. Ferry service should be made more efficient for the customers. The customers of whom I speak are people from my province, the great Province of Prince Edward Island and also those who visit from other parts of North America, who find themselves, on many occasions, waiting quite extended periods of time in order to get on the ferries. Increasingly, they also find it is becoming more and more expensive.
Almost every year, we see increases in the ferry rates, but we do not see a corresponding increase in efficiency to the travelling public. Not only are we paying more to use the service, but we seem to find, almost annually, fewer and fewer crossings. In my riding, in the last year and a half, I have heard many complaints from truckers. They are taking produce, mainly potatoes, but also some other perishables such as fish, and they must leave at certain times in order to catch the ferry. Some times of the year, certainly in July and August when the tourist traffic is heavy, we find that there are long line-ups. Sometimes they have to wait for two or three crossings before they can actually get their trucks on the ferry, because they are competing with the tourist industry. That delays them. When going to Montreal from Prince Edward Island with a load of fresh fish, three or four hours delay has a tremendous effect on the quality of the product and, if it is too long a delay, can reflect in the price paid back to the producer.
It is very important that the Government not only change the name of CN Marine to Marine Atlantic but that it also insist, in the mandate that is given to this Crown corporation, that it provide the proper kind of service to the travelling public. Of course, if one lives in Cape Tormentine, New Brunswick, where the Borden ferry reaches the mainland, one can get into one's car and drive to Vancouver, British Columbia, without paying any kind of a toll at all on the Trans-Canada Highway or other highways. Unfortunately, if one is from Newfoundland or Prince Edward Island and one leaves Summerside or Charlottetown or Tignish, one must pay the cost of using that ferry, going back and forth.
I have had in the past, and I will have in the future-unless some Government in the future does something about it-some sort of disagreement with that sort of concept. I believe that the residents of the Provinces of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland should have free access on the ferry in order to give everyone right across the country an equal opportunity. It should be the same as it is for those who live in Ontario or Manitoba, or in any other province, where one can drive on the highways without paying for the cost.
Some people have said: "What about Vancouver Island?" I believe it is a different situation on Vancouver Island. If one is
Marine Atlantic Inc.
a British Columbian and comes from Vancouver Island, then one is part of British Columbia. However, that area falls under provincial jurisdiction. All the different islands and areas are tied up making them one province. I make that remark because Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland are somewhat different. I would not say that there should actually be more than one free crossing. However, there should be at least one.
Those are my remarks. I hope that the Government of Canada and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) will not be content to say: "We have done something for CN Marine by changing its name". I hope that they will carry that just a little bit further and insist that this new Crown agency provide the kind of service that is necessary in order to give the people who are living on the two islands an equal opportunity and to make them equal partners with the rest of Canada.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I too wish to join in briefly in the debate on Bill C-88, an Act which will carve out Marine Atlantic Inc. from CNR. Before I start I would like to apologize to the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson) for having referred to him by the name of one of his colleagues. Perhaps I did it because to someone from central Canada, such as myself, all the folks in Atlantic Canada look the same. I suspect that the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) will begin to look the same as the Hon. Member for Egmont as he adds a few years to his age. I apologize to the Hon. Member.
I find it ironic that we are dealing with third reading of this Bill today. I realize that is not because of any plan-God knows there is no plan in this place these days. It is ironic that on the day that another decision has been announced by Canadian National Railways with respect to a change in services provided in Atlantic Canada, and when we recently saw a carve-out of another arm of CN, that we are today in effect finalizing the fragmentation of that great company known as the CNR. Today we are carving out the marine side, at least as it applies to the ferry service. Earlier today there was an announcement made with respect to the privatization of the Moncton shops, and whatever that may mean.


Dave Nickerson: It means we are going to save the jobs in Moncton.


Iain Francis Angus: The Hon. Member talks about perhaps saving the jobs in Moncton. Time will tell. Perhaps the answer to that question will be determined at the next election, especially in respect to what the people of Moncton think with regard to the decision that was made by CN and, ultimately, by the Government of Canada.
A decision was also made to privatize the CN trucking operation, CN Route. I find it ironic that today of all days we are in the process of finalizing what in theory is just a paper move. We are changing a name. We are changing the ownership from indirect ownership by the Government of Canada to a direct ownership. I am a bit worried about that. I am worried

June 17, 1986
Marine Atlantic Inc.
because I am not sure what the ultimate impact will be on the people of Atlantic Canada. I am not sure that there will be no change, as the Government suggests. The Government suggests that there will be no change in service and no change in the way in which Marine Atlantic Inc. operates vis-a-vis CN Marine.
We have been told that there will be no change in the rates, other than those that are normally applied through inflation. Time will tell. I hope that this move will not have a negative effect on the people of Atlantic Canada. I say that because of my belief in this nation. We would be quite happy if there were a negative change and if it were taken out on the Government of the day. That would help those of us on this side of the House. I do not say that in a partisan way. I strongly believe that what we should be doing is supporting the people of Canada.
The area upon which I would like to focus is an area which has caused the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) to have a gleam in his eye for the 20 years or more that he has been in this House. I refer to the extension of the Trans-Canada Highway-


J. Michael Forrestall: I agree with that.


Iain Francis Angus: -to include those vital links to our water-isolated provinces in Atlantic Canada. Someone who lives in northern Ontario can drive from Thunder Bay to Toronto, Montreal or Vancouver without having to pass through a toll booth and without having to pay a specific fee to use a surface transportation link. As a Canadian, that person finds it disgusting to know that the people in Atlantic Canada, who have no choice when it comes to communicating with other parts of this land, have to pay a fee to use that extension of the Trans-Canada Highway.
I moved an amendment in committee which would have ensured that Marine Atlantic Inc. would operate under the same fee structure as the Trans-Canada Highway. In other words, it would operate at no direct charge to the user. Had the Government the fortitude to accept my amendment, it would have united the country in a real way and not just a theoretical one.
In order not to mislead anyone, I want to make it clear that we taxpayers would share even more than we do today in the cost of providing those services. Through our federal tax dollars we would pay for the ease of access from Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland to the mainland to ensure that those Canadians, those residents of those waterbound provinces, would have the same access in the sense that it would not cost them any more than it costs you or I, Mr. Speaker, to reach another part of this great nation.
Obviously, the chance for us to make that change has been lost. Given this Government's fascination with cost recovery and user pay, it is doubtful that under this administration there will be a change for the better. I warn Hon. Members that there will be a change for the worse. As the Conservative
Government applies more and more user fees, the people of Prince Edward Island and Newfoundland will have less access to the same services to which we in the rest of Canada have access.
Last Friday I received some information regarding a cost-recovery Bill that was passed in the United States which gives that Government the power to charge for customs services. It gives it the power to charge every truck, every package of mail that goes through customs and every commercial vessel that enters into American waters a fee. This is directly related to the costs of Marine Atlantic and it will come home to roost with this Government.
Every time a ferry docks at Bar Harbour in Maine, it will have to pay $397. That does not seem like very much, but we must look at the frequency of visits to that community. That community in the United States is one which we service though we probably do not have to. However, we do so because it is appropriate and important for the people of the community of Yarmouth that we have that link.
We as Canadians will have to pay more. Marine Atlantic will have to come up with another $66,000 per year in fees that it will have to pay for the service. One of two groups will have to pay for that. It will either be the users through tolls charged by Marine Atlantic or an increase in the subsidies which are already at around 55 per cent. Those subsidies are paid by the taxpayers of Canada.
The Government will have a hard time fighting against the imposition of user fees in the United States because it believes in user fees. It believes that we should draw more and more money from the specific users of a service. It does not believe that we as a nation have a responsibility to provide the infrastructure and the transportation and communication links. The Government will be like a toothless tiger if it goes to Washington to complain about this new fee that will be charged as of July 7.
I know that Government Members from Atlantic Canada understand the negative impact of that kind of approach. I regret that this is the situation in which we find ourselves. I regret the impact that this will have on the users of Marine Atlantic and on the communities in Atlantic Canada.
Before I close, there are a few other things I wish to say. The Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) was present in the House tonight and perhaps he is watching us now on television. We know that the potato producers in Prince Edward Island do not have any alternatives. If they want to get their produce to market, they have to rely on marine services. Anything that the Government does that will have an impact on their costs will clearly have an impact on their ability not only to sell produce, but to actually receive a return for their labour. I would caution the Government to avoid excesses and to avoid this fantasy it has of getting more money out of the users of
June 17, 1986

these services. Ultimately, this will kill agricultural, commercial, small business and fisheries industries in Atlantic Canada.
We will support Bill C-88. We recognize that it only enacts something which actually happened over a year ago and we accept that. However, I will repeat what I said earlier and that is that we wish the Government had come to Parliament first to have the Bill debated before the carve-out actually occurred. Let us think about that. In the future, legislation should be debated and then things should happen, not the other way around.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: Questions or comments? Debate.


Mr. Russell MacLellan (Cape Breton-The Sydneys):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to say a few words on Bill C-88. As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont (Mr. Henderson), has said, a great deal more must be done than to merely change the name of this company from CN Marine to Marine Atlantic Inc.


J. Michael Forrestall: You had 30 years to do that, Russ, and you didn't.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: I would also like to comment on what the Parliamentary Secretary is mumbling about, and that is the CN system of companies which I feel have become a national disgrace. They have been allowed to get out of hand and to go their own way without any concern for the people of Canada. For instance, 1 look at what Petro-Canada has done to Canadians at the pumps through the exorbitant price it is charging for gasoline and the way it is ripping off the producers by charging a lower price than comparable producers receive in the United States-


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Without reflecting on the Chair, I wonder whether the Chair might want to give some direction to the Chamber with respect to relevancy. We are dealing with the change in the name of a Crown corporation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Redway):: Of course the Hon. Member should respect the rules and I am sure that he will keep his remarks relevant to the subject matter of the Bill in question.


Russell Gregoire MacLellan: Mr. Speaker, I certainly will keep my comments relevant. I go on to say that I can see that Petro-Canada will follow in the footsteps of the CN family of companies.
Nevertheless, I am very pleased to see that CN Marine has been spun away from CN. I hope that will make a difference. I hope that the influence of CN on CN Marine will be broken and that it will not be tied by an umbilical cord of nonsense, impropriety and services which run contrary to the benefit of the people of Canada.
CN Marine has had to bear a very difficult weight on its shoulders by being associated with CN. It has had to pay for
Marine Atlantic Inc.
marshalling services for which it really should not have had to pay, costs which should have been the responsibility of CN Rail. CN likes to say that it was not getting any funding from CN Marine or any of the subsidiaries or from the Government of Canada and that it was totally self-sufficient. It was bleeding enough from companies like CN Marine and VIA Rail to make up for any loss it would ever have had to make up. Of course, VIA Rail is not in question here tonight, but VIA Rail has been stymied even more than CN Marine.
As my colleague, the Hon. Member for Egmont, has said, the very fact that this name is being changed will not alter the activities of the new company unless the Government gives it proper direction. It will not change unless the Government listens to Canadians and considers the connection between North Sydney and Port aux Basques an extension of the Trans-Canada Highway. The great increases that have recently been put on should stop and the service should be run in the best interests of the people.
The Government recently spent a good deal of money for a new vessel, Caribou, which has good sleeping quarters and can be a very positive feature of the gulf crossing. However, what has CN Marine done? It has put the Caribou on during the day crossing and has put a ferry, which does not have any sleeping accommodations, on the evening runs. Therefore, there is no sleeping capacity in the evening and all sorts of sleeping capacity during the day.
What kind of service are people getting on the gulf crossing? They are waiting for hours. The new vessel, which was supposed to be able to turn around quickly, is leaving port in North Sydney two hours late because the loading ramp and vessel do not coincide. CN Marine originally located in Moncton, and rightfully so. Initially it was a spinoff of CN, and CN has its Atlantic quarters in Moncton. It was only right that it should be located there. However, in addition to having its headquarters in Moncton, this is a company which has a legal office in Halifax and a gulf headquarters in St. John's, Newfoundland. Neither city is served by CN Marine. They are there for political reasons. It is because the Members from those two locations, who are both Ministers of the Government, felt that the Crown corporation should have a presence in their constituencies.
Particularly in the case of St. John's, jobs were taken away from North Sydney and an area of Cape Breton Island with an unemployment rate of approximately 40 per cent. I do not begrudge St. John's, Newfoundland or any other community jobs. However, we should not take from one area of the country to give to another. We should not do so arbitrarily, at the expense of relocating people who have lived in communities all their working lives and of putting them in an area which does not have any relationship to the company through which they will be employed.

June 17, 1986
Marine Atlantic Inc.
Granted, the subsidy for CN Marine is extensive. It has been stated tonight that the subsidy is 55 per cent. Undoubtedly it is a weighty expense for the Government of Canada. However, it is also important to consider service to Canadians. Service to Canadians must be foremost. This is really what CN Marine and the new company, Marine Atlantic Inc., must be all about. In addition to the subsidy, the Government of Canada is paying to Atlantic Container Express, which ships directly from Montreal to St. John's, a subsidy of millions of dollars per year to compete against CN Marine. What will be the result of this? Because Atlantic Container Express is being subsidized to compete against CN Marine, CN Marine will lose more money and will have to be further subsidized. Therefore, the private sector and the public sector are both being subsidized by the Government of Canada. However, if we took the subsidy off the private sector, the subsidy to the public sector would be less and Canadians would save millions of dollars per year. This is the burden under which the new company will have to operate. This is the burden of complete inattention and unconcern on the part of the Government for a service on which people in Atlantic Canada must rely.
What is CN Marine doing with regard to public relations in the communities which it is serving? For example, in North Sydney, CN Marine will not do a thing to promote its downtown area. It will not erect a sign indicating where the downtown is located or how one gets there. In fact, it discourages people from leaving their cars and going to the downtown area of North Sydney, although it is only a few hundred feet away.
These people are waiting for hours in their cars to take the ferry to Newfoundland, and CN Marine and the Government of Canada have provided nothing for them to do while they are waiting. It is really a case of discouraging people from taking the ferry service. It is not that they could take an alternate service, but it has a direct bearing upon Newfoundland tourism. If people hear about long waits and overdue ferry departures, they will be discouraged from taking the service to Newfoundland. In effect, it is discouraging tourism in that province at the same time as the Province of Newfoundland is spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to promote it. The Government of Canada is working contrary to the Province of Newfoundland and acting against the interest of that province.
Also a little game is being played by the federal Government and the Province of Newfoundland. The federal Government, through CN, is discussing the possibility of closing completely the rail line in Newfoundland. The Province of Newfoundland is saying that it does not want that. One of the terms of union in 1949 was that the rail line would be maintained, and it cannot be closed unless the province gives its permission. Of course there is the question of what the Province of Newfoundland will take for its permission or how much it will accept. That is something we have yet to determine.
One can believe that a figure will be reached because CN is playing its old game of let the services deteriorate until they get so bad that no one will want to use them or they will not be
safe to use. Then a large amount of money will have to be put into this system in order to bring the services up to standard, and no one will be able to afford it. In that event, the province is faced with the likelihood that the service could be closed.
What would be the result of the railway service in Newfoundland being closed? It means that there would only be a short period of time before the next step is contemplated, that is, the closing and shutting down of the rail line between eastern Nova Scotia and Cape Breton Island. This is the secret agenda which CN likes to work over at the expense of people in Atlantic Canada. This is the secret agenda which it denies. This is the secret agenda which it works on and plans toward. Such was the situation in the shops in Moncton. There was no indication or statement with regard to those shops. CN was asked many times what it would do with them. It was announced today that they would be sold to the private sector and that there would be no loss of jobs for the people in Moncton. I should like to know how the federal Government will enforce that. Once the shops are sold, how will the federal Government prohibit the private sector company from reducing the workforce? Once it is sold, it is sold. There is no way unless we get special conditions from the purchaser beforehand, and I do not believe any of these conditions have been obtained.
In closing, I should like to say that the situation in Atlantic Canada in respect of transportation is a very bad one. This Act may or may not have a positive bearing. It remains to be seen. It is largely upon the back of the federal Government to give proper instructions to the new company to operate in the best interest of Atlantic Canadians and to ensure that subsidies are maintained, so that rates are not increased to such an extent that no one will be able to use them.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise to participate in the debate on Bill C-88. Hon. Members opposite were attempting to distract me from my duty and to prevent me from participating in this final opportunity to try to restore to the House of Commons some sense of sensitivity, understanding, and appreciation of the values which make Canada the kind of country it is. When Hon. Members opposite find the courage, integrity, and backbone to rise in their places to defend this measure, they would have us believe, as the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) attempted a few days ago, that Bill C-88 is a Bill about a change of name for a Crown corporation.
This bill would formalize in law, in legislation, the severing of the relationship between CN Marine and CN that has taken place over the last year. The Parliamentary Secretary and other Members opposite want us to believe that nothing more than a name change in Bill C-88 is what is on the agenda of the House of Commons tonight. Nothing could be further from the truth. Above and beyond simply changing the name
June 17, 1986

of CN Marine to Marine Atlantic Inc., the implications of the Bill are profound for the people of the Atlantic region.
The Government of Canada is asking Members during these dying days of Parliament, when it hopes the people of Canada and Members of this Parliament are not paying attention, to slip through this Draconian measure called Bill C-88 which will force upon the Atlantic region a user-pay philosophy. With one broad sweep of the sword, one foul vicious insensitive and cruel sweep of the sword, the Government of Canada is attempting not only to sever CN Marine from the main company, CN, but it is attempting to impose on the people of Atlantic Canada a user-pay concept that fails to recognize those things that make the Atlantic region of this country unique and different from the country as a whole.
It is interesting to note that Bill C-88 received first reading in the House of Commons in December, 1985. I want you to note that date, December 1985, Mr. Speaker. It was September, 1985 that the ministerial task force on program review, more colloquially and commonly known as the Nielsen task force, the task force of the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. Nielsen), submitted its report to the Cabinet of Canada. It was a task force established to assist the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) in setting within his Department a program of expenditure reduction.
In September, 1985, that task force looked at the Atlantic region of Canada and said it was possible for the Government of Canada, by walking away from some concepts we hold near and dear in this country, to save some dollars, to alter the bottom line of the ledger of the Government of Canada. That task force, which reported in September, 1985, a scant two months before this measure found its way on to the floor of the House of Commons for first reading said, and I am paraphrasing, that the cost of ensuring that the people of Atlantic Canada would feel, with respect to transportation systems, a sense of being first-class Canadians was a cost too high. The price was too high. The Nielsen task force report recommended that the Government of Canada could achieve substantial savings in the Atlantic region by lowering the level of service to Atlantic Canadians provided under CN Marine by lowering the quality of service and by increasing the rates.
The Government of Canada was so proud of that one year initiative undertaken under the direction of the Deputy Prime Minister that for the first time in the history of Parliament, the Government of Canada did not provide free copies of the report. The Government said to the people that if you want to know what the Deputy Prime Minister is suggesting in all regions, not just Atlantic Canada, for a mere $300 or $400 we will send you a copy of the 27 volumes.
What is the Government attempting? What is the Government doing to reduce the deficit? A Conservative Member said the Government is attempting to reduce the deficit. The Government said it would reduce the deficit by identifying a whole series of programs and government initiatives that represented fat and waste. We on this side of the House, who would endorse such an exercise of cutting fat and waste, have
Marine Atlantic Inc.
been waiting with bated breath for the Government to come forward with a long list of scurrilous and disgusting and wasteful programs.
We have waited in vain because there is no long list. Instead what we have seen is Bill C-96 which would cut $8 billion from [DOT] the national deficit by transferring that $8 billion on to the backs of the provincial Governments. Members and the Canadian public would say what is Bill C-96, what does that officious sounding name denote? It happens to be a Bill that would cut from the health and education programs some $8 billion by transfering that deficit on to the backs of provincial Governments.
In the same vein, with the same insensitive approach, the Government of Canada has produced Bill C-88, a Bill to sever CN Marine from CN, to set up a separate Crown corporation in order to identify the cost of providing that service to Atlantic Canadians and to be able to target better fare increases and system reductions in the Atlantic regions.
Atlantic Canadians being frugal people, and I am proud to say I am an Atlantic Canadian, do not mind any Government cutting the fat away from the system, but when the Government wields the long arm of the sword indiscriminately and slashes through the fat into the muscle and bites deep into the bone straight through to the marrow and bleeds that marrow out of the system-the marrow which is important in preserving the body-then the people of Atlantic Canada begin to wonder about this faithless, mindless approach-


Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I wonder what relevance the Hon. Member's comments have to Bill C-88 which is merely to change the name of CN Marine to CN Atlantic Inc. I see no relevance in his comments whatsoever. I hope you will ask him to make his comments relevant to the Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) would be wise to review the Bill. I have difficulty finding his comments relevant to the subject matter. Maybe he could further inform us.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Seeing how the Speaker has demonstrated a level of intelligence that would suggest the Speaker is open to being educated to the reality of Atlantic Canada-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Let me say to the Speaker, that the people of Atlantic Canada think indeed that a measure-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Come on, Brian.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, please. It seems the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) has provoked another point of order.

June 17, 1986
Marine Atlantic Inc.


Mr. Brisco:: Mr. Speaker, I seek the Chair's advice as to whether or not the comments of the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) are a challenge of the Chair. They are at the very least totally unwarranted and unjustified.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order. The Chair does not intend to pursue the matter. I listened very carefully-


John V. Nunziata: Tell them to stop interrupting a good speech.


Henry Perrin Beatty: If we hear one, we won't.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order, order. It is not good to interrupt the Speaker to ask him to stop interrupting other people. I remind the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) that, according to the Canadian Constitution, education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, it is because of the great respect I have for the Speaker that I agree with you. I am delighted to learn that education is a matter of provincial jurisdiction, as if I ever had any doubt on that matter. However, I would remind you that the Bill which I was referencing, Bill C-96, which expresses the same kind of governmental mentality as Bill C-88, would cut about $5 billion from the education system of the country. That Bill originates in this Parliament rather than in provincial legislatures. Being the fairminded and objective person that you are, Mr. Speaker, you will acknowledge that fact. It is only because of the warped mentality that gives rise to a disinvestment in our youth through a cut in the education system that I make reference to Bill C-88 which indicates a lack of confidence in the Atlantic region.
Members ask how my comments are relevant to Bill C-88, which is merely a name change for CN Marine. Because you are a fairly objective, honest, caring, sensitive and dedicated servant of the House, you would obviously want to know how Bill C-88 represents much more than a simple name change of CN Marine. Members opposite laugh their way through this session and into oblivion. Oblivion will one day catch up with them for this insensitive behaviour.
Members should know that in Atlantic Canada the level of service provided by CN Marine, or the new company, Marine Atlantic Inc. as designated by this Bill, is not the pleasant scenic route by the sea. We in Newfoundland do not take CN Marine ferries for the pleasant scenic route by the sea. We take them because, contrary to popular opinion, we do not have trucks which float on water, and neither do we occupy, despite common misconceptions, God boots which allow us to walk on water. The CN Marine ferry service is the only way in which we can move our people, goods and services around the Atlantic region on a practical day-to-day basis.
This Bill does substantially more than simply changing the name of the service. It takes out of the pockets of CN Marine, the company which exists in advance of the passage of this Bill, some $30 million in accumulated revenues which the company has built up to allow it to fulfil its capital program which is to provide three new ferries for the East Coast ferry system. Through the new financial arrangements provided for in this Bill, $30 million is taken out of the pockets of CN Marine.
Those Members who sit amidst the glitter of the chandeliers, who are blinded by the shine of the marble, who are caught up in the richness of the texture of the wood and have forgotten from where they come may not think that $30 million is a lot of money. To the people of Atlantic Canada who are riding a ferry service little better than a cattle car, that $30 million represents an investment in the hope that the system might become civilized. This Bill takes that $30 million of accumulated revenue, hits it like a neutron bomb and vapourizes it away from the CN Marine company, in due course vapourizing the hopes of Atlantic Canadians to be served by a ferry service which indicates that the Government has some confidence and faith in and appreciation for the people of Atlantic Canada.
That is how my comments are relevant. I know that you, Mr. Speaker, feel much more informed and have much more empathy for the people of Atlantic Canada, having heard those pearly words of wisdom which I uttered on their behalf.
Before I was so rudely interrupted by Members opposite expressing their insensitivity for the region, I started to say that Bill C-88 was another step along the course of user-pay. Members should ask themselves what user-pay is. What is this concept which says that the people of Atlantic Canada shall pay a price to live in Atlantic Canada?


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh, come on.


Brian Vincent Tobin: The Member had an opportunity to speak but he found neither his legs nor his backbone nor his integrity nor his courage nor his tongue to speak in this place. Suddenly he stands and mumbles unofficially from his seat utterances which make no sense and make a contribution to this place equivalent to that of an unguided missile. If he wants an opportunity to speak, I will gladly take my seat and allow him to speak because I would like to hear a defence of this Bill.


J. Michael Forrestall: You're boring.


Brian Vincent Tobin: As I was saying, Mr. Speaker, the user-pay concept which the Government of Canada intends to foist upon the people of Atlantic Canada would be equivalent to the Government of Canada saying to the grain farmers on the prairies that because their prices are the lowest in 60 years they, the grain farmers of the prairies who till the soil and preserve the breadbasket of Canada, should walk away from their fields. Is there a Member of Parliament who would suggest that to the grain farmers on the prairies?
June 17, 1986

Proposing this Bill and seeing it pass is equivalent to telling the dairy farmers of Ontario and Quebec, who receive a $300 million subsidy a year, that because their milk production is inefficient and uneconomic, they should slaughter their herds. Is there a Canadian who would tell the dairy farmers of Quebec who receive a $300 million subsidy for their herds every year that they ought to slaughter them? Not even the Newfoundlanders, who are the beneficiaries of a scant $25 million subsidy to provide a ferry service which the Government of Canada now wants to cut out, would say that to their fellow Canadians in the Provinces of Quebec and Ontario.
If Members opposite cannot find their legs and tongues, I at least beg them to find their courage and stand for a Canada which treats all its citizens as first-class citizens, regardless of where they live, and defeat this Draconian measure, Bill C-88, which is described as a mere name change.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, I would like to take this opportunity to congratulate my friend and colleague for a most informative and eloquent speech. I knew very little about this piece of legislation until I walked into the House and listened to my colleague. In the few short moments that my colleague has spoken, he has enlightened me tremendously with respect to this piece of legislation.
Being a Member from the urban riding of York South- Weston in the metropolis of Toronto, at times I am not as familiar as I should be with matters of concern to Atlantic Canadians. I would like to indicate to my constituents and all the residents of Metropolitian Toronto that we are well served when a Member such as the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) considers this piece of legislation and criticizes the Government because government Members are not standing up to speak out in favour of their constituents.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member a specific question regarding user-pay. I understand that a number of weeks back the House considered Bill C-75 in amendment to the Canada Shipping Act. That Bill, too, introduced a form of user-pay. During his submissions, my colleague indicated that the legislation was another step along the way toward user-pay, another step toward reducing the deficit by making the less fortunate pay for services which before now-


J. Michael Forrestall: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Nothing in the Bill before us in any way alters any charges or costs to the taxpayers whatsoever. Aggrandizement is one thing, and it is rather useful, but can we stay with the Bill?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: I was going to say that I take the point made by the Parliamentary Secretary as being a point concerning the rule of relevance which, from time to time, does merit some consideration in this House. I say for the benefit of all Members that we would do well to keep it in mind.
Marine Atlantic Inc.
I believe the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) was about to conclude.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague pointed out, that is precisely the point. Members opposite are so irrelevant they cannot find their tongues to speak.


J. Michael Forrestall: Oh, Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Order.


J. Michael Forrestall: I will not have the likes of that impugn my motives in this Chamber.


John V. Nunziata: Far be it for me to in any way impugn the motives of the hon. gentleman opposite. I will not in any way question his motives but I will question the motives of this Government. I would like to put my question to my colleague. Why is this Government introducing this legislation which it claims is a simple name change? I suspect that there is method to its madness. This is part of a scheme to take from Atlantic Canadians something which they have cherished for so many years. Why? What is the motive, my friend? Tell us.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, let me simply say that when the Government has succeeded in laying waste to the Atlantic Canada landscape, it will not really matter much whether that destruction has been wrought by accident or design. The result in the end will be the same. The Government of Canada, either because of insensitivity or, frankly, stupidity, will have altered the nature of the regions of this country by imposing a user-pay concept that strains and tears at the fabric of this country, which in turn defines for Canadians a sense of national identity and national unity. The Parliamentary Secretary could not be more wrong, and he generally tries to be somewhat relevant in his comments, nor more inadvertently, accidentally misleading when he says to Parliament that this Bill represents nothing more than a mere name change.
This Bill is an attempt to hive off the ferry services of Atlantic Canada which are essential in particular to the island province of my colleague from Egmont. They are essential to my own island Province of Newfoundland as a means of moving freight and people. The Government of Canada has lifted the gun to its shoulder, drawn the long bead with its eye, targeted the victim, Atlantic Canada, and this Bill is the bullet it intends to shoot into the heart of the economy of my region by attacking the most fundamental and necessary means of transportation in that region.
Members opposite may sit and huff and puff and twist and turn, but their silence is what Atlantic Canadians shall remember them for. They are only noticeable for and represented by the echo of their silence in this House, their inability to stand against the whip of party discipline and speak on behalf of the people who sent them here. They should oppose this legislation which would deny Atlantic Canada its unique and valued contribution to the Canadian mosaic. This Bill says to the people of Atlantic Canada that they shall pay a heavy price for where they chose to live in this country. The people of

June 17, 1986
Marine Atlantic Inc.
Atlantic Canada do not appreciate this Genghis Khan kind of consultation which will ride roughshod across their traditional rights and ignore the very nature of this country.
I will say this. The people of Atlantic Canada are tolerant. They are patient. However, they shall never forget that it was this Government, in its haste to balance the books, that decided the people of Atlantic Canada were expendable and the services they have come to depend upon can be wiped away at the slash of a pen.
I advise Members opposite from Atlantic Canada not to sleep soundly at night because the people of Atlantic Canada shall pass their judgment, as surely as I stand here, come the next election. I warn those Members that the people are weighing our words, watching us here, and they have not seen Members opposite find the courage to stand in their place and speak.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Questions or comments.


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, I must take this opportunity to try and bring some semblance of rationalization to this debate. What we are endeavouring to do here tonight is not to crush Atlantic Canadians. We are here trying to do service to a matter initiated by the Party, of which the Hon. Member who has seen fit to satisfy his ego on the floor here tonight as opposed to doing justice to the Bill, is a Member, the very Party he supports. We are here giving order and legitimacy to Marine Atlantic, not Marine Atlantica. We are simply doing that. We are changing absolutely nothing. If he has objections to CN Marine, then let him address his remarks and comments to his present and former leader, and former Ministers of Transport in his Party. Do not stand in this Chamber and lay upon me, Sir, any lack of concern about Atlantic Canada. You, Sir, are a puppy. You are a young man; grow up in your concern for Atlantic Canada and be honest when you are on your feet in this Chamber. You might just last around here a little while.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: The Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin), only a couple of seconds.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I hope you make it at least 15 or 20 seconds. Even Newfoundlanders have trouble in less than three seconds making an articulate comment.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Charest):: Well, there goes the time.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker-


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


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the hour is late. Members opposite are getting rather testy when Members on this side of the House are making worthwhile submissions that go to the very heart of this particular piece of legislation. I would have preferred to have my colleague, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe (Mr. Tobin) carry on with his submissions. I did not intend to speak to Bill C-88, but listening to the Parliamentary Secretary provoked me into making some submissions with regard to Bill C-88.
As I indicated earlier, I am a Member from an urban riding in Metropolitan Toronto, and Bill C-88 does not directly affect in any manner my constituents in York South-Weston. We have no ferry services in my particular riding. In fact, we have very limited ferry service on Lake Ontario.
The Parliamentary Secretary stands up and has the temerity, the unmitigated gall to criticize my colleague, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe for standing up for the people of Atlantic Canada. I have been in this House close to two years and day, after day, after day, my colleagues from Atlantic Canada stood up in this House of Commons and have spoken out for the people of Atlantic Canada. Not only have they stood in their place and spoken in this House of Commons, they have spoken at caucus and they have spoken across the country. They are doing a service not only to their constituents, but to all Atlantic Canadians.
What about the Atlantic Canadian Members across the way? They are quite content to sit on their hands and to hurl cheap insults across the way. They have the temerity to criticize Members of the Opposition who dare speak up for Atlantic Canada.
I suggest if you take a poll in Atlantic Canada and ask the people who live there who was speaking out for their best interests, they will name Liberal Member after Liberal Member. They will say these are the politicians in Ottawa who are speaking out for Atlantic Canada, not Members like the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Forrestall) who is content to simply sit on his hands while this particular piece of legislation is debated.
I challenge Members opposite to stand up for a change. We can respect Members in this House who stand up and express an opinion with regard to a piece of legislation. We may disagree on this side of the House with the submissions made on that side of the House, but at least we will know that Parliament is being served, democracy is being served. What we are doing is debating, the cut and thrust of debate, requiring different points of view.
What we have found day after day in this House is that the Liberal Members are standing to speak, the odd New Democratic Member is standing to speak, and there is a wall of silence across the way. I note that the Government House Leader is in the House today. Rare is the time, rare is the occasion when the Government House Leader will stand in his
June 17, 1986

place to speak out for the people of his riding, the people of his region in Canada.
We are dealing here with what we consider to be an extremely important piece of legislation. My colleague, the Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe went on at some length as to the concerns he had with respect to this particular piece of legislation. I must commend my colleague for his submissions with regard to this Bill.
The Parliamentary Secretary and other Conservative Members in the House say it is only a Bill to change the name, an Act to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc., and to provide for other matters in relation thereto.
If you read through the legislation as I have, there are four pages to the legislation with a schedule. It would appear at first glance that that is the intent of the legislation, to simply change the name, or to authorize the acquisition of Marine Atlantic Inc. I would like to know from Conservative Members of Parliament why they have brought forward Bill C-88. We do not know. Is it part of a master plan with respect to transportation in Atlantic Canada? Is it because the Conservative Government is paranoid with regard to the deficit and this is part of the cost-cutting plan of this Conservative Government? We do not know because Members opposite do not have the courage to stand up, to explain to the people of Canada what this particular piece of legislation is all about.
We on this side of the House are left in a position where we must speculate as to what the Government is doing. We know, and I am sure you will agree with me, that it is difficult most of the time to understand what this Government is doing because it is obvious, given the legislative agenda that has been presented to the House over the last 20 months, that this Government has no direction, it has no vision for Canada, it simply does not know where it is going. It is like a ship adrift in the high seas without a captain.
Speaking of captains, we had the pleasure last night of watching the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) explain his position on free trade. Mr. Speaker, you are shaking your head, and you might ask what the relevance is of the Prime Minister's performance last night on national television to Bill C-88.


An Hon. Member:: What is the relevance of free trade?


John V. Nunziata: The Conservative Member way down in the corner says, "What is the relevance of free trade?"


An Hon. Member:: The Prime Minister was good last night.


John V. Nunziata: The Member says the Prime Minister was good last night. I am not sure what he was referring to.
If I may continue, the Government, through the Prime Minister, last night tried to explain to the people of Canada what it is doing with regard to free trade. One of the reasons why the Prime Minister found it necessary to go on national
Marine Atlantic Inc.
television, the first time in the short mandate of this Government, is because he realized that the people of Canada did not understand what the Government was doing with regard to free trade. There was mass confusion from the Conservative benches. If the Members opposite would stand up and try to explain themselves, then it would not be necessary for the Prime Minister of Canada to go on national television to try to explain himself with regard to free trade.
Likewise, with regard to Bill C-88. The Members opposite should stand up to indicate why it is necessary for the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) to be authorized to require all the common shares of Marine Atlantic Inc. held by the national company. The national company is defined in the legislation as the Canadian National Railway Company, CN in other words.
This Bill, pursuant to clause 4, authorizes the Minister to acquire all the common shares of Marine Atlantic Inc. which are held by the national company. The Bill goes on to state that shares acquired by the Minister pursuant to clause 4(1) shall be held by the Minister in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada.
Members opposite have not indicated why it is necessary to allow the Minister of Transport to acquire all the shares of Marine Atlantic Inc. and to hold those shares in trust for Her Majesty in right of Canada. The Bill authorizes CN, the national company, on the direction of the Minister, to transfer to the Minister all the common shares of Marine Atlantic Inc. held by the national company.
Again, there appears to be some redundancy with regard to the legislation. I know that some Members opposite may want to speak. If there is some indication that they want to do so, I would be pleased to resume my seat. However, since no Member opposite is standing to speak to this legislation, I am pleased to continue.
The Minister of Transport is a man of integrity. In the two years that I have been in the House of Commons, I have found that he is one of the finer Ministers in the Government.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John V. Nunziata: I have absolutely no hesitation in saying so. The Minister has been honest and forthright in my dealings with him throughout the course of this Parliament. He and his staff have attempted to assist in every way possible in dealing with concerns relating to his Department. When questions are put to the Minister in the House, he honestly tries to answer with the least amount of partisanship, unlike many of his colleagues in the Cabinet who believe that Question Period is meant as an opportunity for them to take cheap partisan shots at the Opposition.
Since the Minister has displayed integrity and honesty, and has attempted to give explanations, I hope the Minister's Parliamentary Secretary will share some of the Minister's

June 17, 1986
Adjournment Debate
qualities and offer some explanation as to the intent and purpose of this legislation.
We know that this legislation will indeed be referred to the committee where we will have an opportunity to further consider it and hear from the various interest groups.


Iain Francis Angus: It's third reading.


John V. Nunziata: I am advised that the debate on this legislation is drawing to an end, thank goodness. It has been a very long day, Mr. Speaker.
The Government would like to pass this Bill and move on to Bill C-75, which is another piece of legislation of extreme importance to Atlantic Canada. It affects Atlantic Canadians very directly, especially with regard to clause 4 which was met with almost universal objection.
I will conclude my remarks because my friend and colleague from Newfoundland, the Hon. Member for Humber-Port au Port-St. Barbe has returned to the House. I know he will have several questions to ask me and will perhaps comment on the submissions I have made on his behalf.


Iain Francis Angus: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to prolong this, but is the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) aware of the impact that Bill C-88 will have on the Toronto Island ferry? Will he comment as to the ramifications for his constituency?


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the fact that the Hon. Member from the New Democratic Party should ask that question obviously illustrates the ignorance he has with regard to CN Marine. Of course, it has no impact at all. The mere fact that the New Democratic Member should ask such a silly question would indicate the depth of his knowledge with regard to Bill C-88 and the impact of this legislation on Lake Ontario.


Brian Vincent Tobin: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make a comment. First, I want to say that I am pleased that my colleague from the great City of Toronto has found the time and was disposed to stand tonight and speak to Bill C-88. I think it speaks volumes about his vision of Canada, that he would decide, contrary to the comments of my learned friend, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. Angus), who usually makes much more sense than he did with his question tonight, that notwithstanding the fact that this Bill has no impact on his constituents or on Toronto, that he would stand and speak on behalf of Canadians. He has decided, as a Member of the Parliament of Canada, that it is his responsibility and indeed part of the privileges he enjoys as a Member, to stand and speak on behalf of his fellow Canadians, no matter where they live in this country.
One of the prevailing problems in this Parliament during the course of debate is that Members who come from farming constituencies profess to be experts on farmers and the only ones who have any empathy for the farming constituency. Members who come from the urban centres consider themselves the experts about urban centres and the only ones who
can profess to have any empathy for urban constituencies. There are Members from Atlantic Canada, some of whom profess to be the only experts on Atlantic Canada and the only ones who can have any empathy for Atlantic Canada.
There are those who believe that all of us own a piece of Atlantic Canada and believe that every Member of Parliament should be able to call the smallest bay home. Unfortunately, they discover that when it comes time to stand up in defence of the poorest regions of this country, those Members who do not come from the poorest regions say to themselves that it is not their home turf and none of their business. They say: "It is their problem, let them sink or swim with it."
Therefore, I find it refreshing and encouraging that a Member of Parliament from the great City of Toronto would stand in his place today and expand upon his vision of this country by ensuring that the voice of Atlantic Canada, small as it may be, because Members opposite have decided not to speak, will be heard. When Conservative Members have exercised their option to imprint their derrieres upon the cushions that grace the chairs of this House, it is refreshing that a Member from Toronto would stand and expand upon the problems, the frustrations and the aspirations of the people of Atlantic Canada.
I want to say to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) that the people of Newfoundland say a collective thank you. It is the Hon. Member's type who makes this country a better place. It is his type which shall ensure that even as the Government tears at the fabric that holds this country together, and even as the stress and strains grow, we know that ultimately the country shall survive because there are those who can see beyond their own backyards.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Barry Turner (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in the adjournment debate tonight as a follow-up to the question I put on May 2 to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Hnatyshyn) concerning pensions for public servants, the military and the RCMP. It is now 10:03 p.m. and it has been a long day. I am sure you will agree, Mr. Speaker, that your day started about 15 hours ago, as did mine.
However, the day started many years ago for our federal pensioners, whether they were in the RCMP, the Armed Forces or the Public Service. I want to see that they get a fair
June 17, 1986

shake for their paid-for pensions. I feel that the Government is coming very close to making some type of an announcement on the pension issue. I hope to hear that good news before Parliament recesses for the summer. I wish to give credit to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret) and his staff who I know have been working for many months to ensure that an equitable solution is realized. They have certainly worked hard and long on this matter since we came to Government.
1 have asked questions in the House numerous times on this issue. The answers have been consistently the same; that is, the Government will keep the promises it made during the election campaign to maintain indexed pensions for those who paid for them. My role is to question the Government, when appropriate, and to defend the interests and concerns of my constituents in Ottawa-Carleton and, on occasion, those from other parts of Canada.
As Hon. Members know, in the National Capital Region, and in the riding of Ottawa-Carleton which I represent, there are many military people, many RCMP people and many public servants who are on pensions already. There are many more who will be on them very shortly. I feel it imperative to speak on their behalf, not to question policy directions which the Government might be taking but to question the issue of input into the decision-making process as far as their indexed pensions are concerned.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), referred to this same issue on June 12. In the Adjournment Debate he asked whether pensioners had been involved in the negotiations and, if so, at what level. He went on to say that he had asked numerous questions in the last year or so concerning the issue, as others and I have done in this Chamber.
The Public Service Alliance of Canada has been very effectively representing the concerns of public servants on their pension issues and those who will be receiving pensions shortly. The PSAC has been very vocal on their behalf at the bargaining table. The Federal Superannuates National Association has been doing all it can as well to represent superannuates. It has become slightly frustrated at the lack of full representation on the Minister's advisory council.
The FSNA has observer status on the council, but it does not have full membership. The council is composed of six members from management and six members from the union. The association would like to have more representation. The Minister has indicated that he is willing to expand the council to ensure that the association has direct participation. I suggest that there might be one elected person and one appointed person, which would give a stronger voice in an advisory capacity. I think that the RCMP should also have a representative on the council, either as an elected representative or as an appointed one. That representative could be a person who is on active duty in the RCMP or possibly one who has retired, again to give the RCMP a better voice in pension decisions.
Adjournment Debate
The Canadian Armed Forces Pension Association, represented by its duly elected President, Ed Halayko from London, and his colleagues, met with the President of the Treasury Board on February 5 of this year for the first time and had some input into the process. At that time, they expressed some of their concerns. As I am sure you can imagine, Mr. Speaker, these are very proud people. They are ex-servicemen and women and indeed we are very proud of the efforts they made to make Canada a safer place to live. I feel that they too should have more say and should have representation on the advisory council, possibly through an elected person or an appointed one. That would give them more input into decisions made on their pensions, but that has not happened yet either.
There is some confusion over responsibility for the management of the Canadian Forces Superannuation Act and the RCMP Superannuation Act. The Canadian Armed Forces Pensioners Association, which speaks for about 75,000 retirees, though it has a very limited number of paid memberships, is concerned about the $13 billion it has put into the fund.
I would like to emphasize that it is important that a decision is made very shortly. I am disappointed that there was not more input into the process from retirees of the RCMP and the Armed Forces. I suspect we will hear very soon that the Government will keep its campaign promise to index pensions, and I hope that we will hear this before the end of the session so that we may take the good news back to our constituencies across the country. I hope we may be able to tell our constituents that a positive decision has been taken concerning pensions for all of those who paid for them and are very deserving of them.
Unfortunately, these people have not had as much input as they would have liked into the process, with the exception of PSAC through the bargaining table. However, in the months and years ahead, we hope the Government will see fit to include more of them on its advisory council so that the Government may listen to their good counsel and benefit from their many years of experience.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, regardless of the hour, it is clear that the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Turner) will continue to make his clear and very well meant representations on behalf of the many people who are affected by the pension policy that will be forthcoming from the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. de Cotret).
In trying to address some of the issues the Hon. Member has raised, the first point I would like to touch on very quickly is the response to the question of June 12, 1986. Basically that response dealt with the complexity of the issue and the real concern over the Government dealing piecemeal with a decision that has not been adequately considered or consulted on. In fact, a good measure of the length of time it has taken to produce the final result has been used to make sure that all of

June 17, 1986
Adjournment Debate
the important and complex issues have been addressed as adequately as possible.
The anxiety of the pensioners, as has been adequately reflected by the words of the Hon. Member for Ottawa- Carleton is very clear to the Government and the President of the Treasury Board. It has formed the background of the concern of the Government for making sure we provide the fullest possible consideration for members of the Canadian Armed Forces, the RCMP and the Public Service who are all affected by the ultimate decision.
The Minister has regularly reported to the House on the progress of all considerations, and in the fall he reported that actuarial studies were being conducted and that he would propose no changes without full consultation. As time went on, he advised that discussions were under way and that the documents were before Cabinet. Finally, last week the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister indicated again that the Minister's advisory committee on PSSA had been reviewing matters.
Throughout all of these reports, the Minister has said that the reforms would be made with due respect to equity and justice for all concerned and with due regard for the commitments of the Government made during the election campaign and in the interim. Since in fact a package of reforms is under discussion, it seems necessary to wait for an over-all agreement rather than release it a piece at a time. That would open up the entire agreement to public discussion.
I should like to make a special point concerning the fact that there was no real representation from the group being affected. In fact the advisory group was making decisions, and it was on the President's advice that the First Vice-President of the Federal Superannuates National Association, which represents some 35,000 federal pensioners, was appointed to one of the six chosen positions. Prior to this appointment, there was no representation from the affected groups. We have made a step in that regard. Perhaps there is more to do. That matter will receive consideration by the Government.
In conclusion, I have been personally assured-and the Government wants to assure those interested people who will be affected-that the education process which is under way is completed. Ensuing consultations have been virtually completed, and we anticipate further information from the President in a very short time.


EXTERNAL AID-ETHIOPIA-CANADIAN DEVELOPMENT POLICIES
Reginald Francis Stackhouse: Mr. Speaker, I draw to the attention of the House the connection between government policies and human suffering in Africa, particularly in Ethiopia. Much of that suffering has been due to natural causes, but there is reason to believe that much of it has been due to the tragic excuse for leadership forced upon many of the countries concerned, especially Ethiopia.
For example, as was reported in the May 30, 1986 edition of The Globe and Mail, an assistant professor of economics at Bloomsburg University and a native of Ghana wrote that more than two million Africans perished from famine last year and that millions were still in danger. He continued by indicating that the basic causes of the agricultural decline in Africa could be found in Government policies of exploitation and oppression of peasant farmers.
To that I add the testimony of Dawit Wolde Giorgis, the defected head of Ethiopia's Relief and Rehabilitation Commission who is now in the United States, having turned his back on the Marxist Government of which he was once a part. He left it because of the contradiction he found between the support from the West which was needed by Ethiopia and the Soviet alliance to which his Government was committed. In an interview in The New York Times, he called it a drought problem but said that it was more of a policy problem. He went on to say that drought complicated the problem and that if there were no change in their policies, there would always be millions of hungry people in Ethiopia. Since then he has been interviewed by both the BBC and the CBC. In the course of those interviews he said:
The leadership in Ethiopia lives in a fantasy world created by its own policies and imagination.
It is evident that these policies of fantasy and imagination have contributed to the suffering of the people over which the regime presides through extravagant spending on military purposes. Almost half the national budget goes to the armed forces. Some $8 billion worth of Soviet military equipment is being imported by a country dependent upon the West to help feed its people and to help provide necesssary medical care.
To that we could add a tragic and indefensible human rights record of such magnitude that, according to the Economist's World Human Rights Guide, Ethiopia has the worst record of any country in the world. For example, there are an estimated 10,000 political prisoners at least. Some of them, like the family of the late Emperor, have been incarcerated for over 10 years without even a charge being brought against them. It is not only people of that standard. Only last week an Ethiopian man visited my office who had been released from a political prison in that country after being incarcerated for seven years simply on suspicion. He was allowed to go free finally when the police informed him that he was no longer suspect. He has never been charged, let alone found guilty of any offence against the country.
With that kind of Government in charge in Ethiopia, not only there but in similar Governments in charge in other countries of Africa, we have to be concerned as a Parliament with the way in which Canadian food aid, development aid, is being used. Is it being used to shore up radical, oppressive, militaristic regimes or can our Government use the leverage which is surely within its grasp to exert a moral influence on immoral regimes that can persuade them if not to turn to
June 17, 1986

justice, at least to moderate injustice? I am sure that great, great numbers of people in various African countries would cry out with gratitude to any democratic Government that would use the power within its grasp to act on behalf of those who cannot act for themselves. This is not to say we should not be as active in aid causes as we have been. Quite the opposite. But it is to say that we should not be active as an aiding and developing country without using the influence and the opportunities that are before us so that we can thereby lift the level of the lives of people for whom we have some responsibility and where we have some opportunity.


Gary Michael Gurbin: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Scarborough West (Mr. Stackhouse) has raised a critical issue. The Government of Canada clearly shares his concern over the possible diversion of necessary funds to accommodate needs within an individual country, particularly when the issue in the case of those who are drought stricken in Africa has been brought so well before us and is so well known to us, whether through press reports or through the specific efforts the Government has taken to determine for itself the needs and causes.
It would be unrealistic, however, for us from the Canadian Government's point of view to restrict our efforts in assisting those who are in dire need, dying of starvation and facing constant pressures, to that point where we were not assisting them where we could. We have made special efforts through special envoys and considerations to make sure that any aid we have provided finds its way to the necessary areas and to those people needing it. Those efforts are continuing.
It would be also unrealistic, in direct response to the question of the official who has resigned, to expect that with any Government, with any set of policies, with any bureaucracy, there would not be individuals or problems that would not compound certain situations. That could be said of any country anywhere in the world today. It would also be unfair to say that in this situation in Ethiopia or in other African countries similarly afflicted that policies themselves were the sole cause of the problem.
I could refer the hon. gentleman to the United Nations General Assembly debates several weeks ago, which Assembly was dealing with this issue. 1 am not sure if there was an emergency debate, but there was a full debate much in keeping with efforts made by other UN initiatives, such as the Bruntland Commission looking at environment and development. All of these issues overlap, and they are being considered.
Canada most of all from from public statements that have been made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is very cognizant of the special pressures that exist in Africa and has responded with special economic measures to try to help in a general way not only Ethiopia but other African countries to ensure that human rights are respected in so far as possible, whether in Africa or in other countries throughout the world.
Adjournment Debate
Our record is well established and we continue to try to improve it. We continue to try, where we can, to ameliorate and improve the condition of the people directly affected.


WOMEN-INQUIRY IF GROUPS SUBSIDIZED LAST YEAR WILL RECEIVE SAME AID THIS YEAR. (B) SIZE OF FUNDING
Lynn McDonald: Mr. Speaker, on May 30 I raised an extremely important question with regard to funding for women's organizations in Canada. The Minister replied, suggesting that the Department was not anticipating radical cuts but he would not be at all specific and certainly would not say that the women's organizations would not be getting adequate funding or even the same level of funding they received in the past. His reply covered up the fact that the Department itself does not seem to know how much money will go into the budget for women's programs. In fact, organizations have been given 40 per cent of the funding they received last year and they have no idea how much they will get for the full year. They are, therefore, not able to plan, and some organizations have experienced real difficulties.
The National Action Committee has reported that there have been delays for many organizations across the country. These have been reported to me and other members of our caucus by Quebec and British Columbia women's organizations which have had the same problem. The North Bay Women's Centre had to close down for four months due to delays in funding. The Regina Status of Women had its application turned down although they thought they had met the requirements. It took nearly a year to process the application of the Alberta Status of Women.
Media Watch has heard rumours that there will be cuts of between 5 per cent and 40 per cent. They have only been able to maintain their overhead and regular operations. They have had to put staff on lay-off notice twice this spring. A staff member had to leave because she could not live with the financial insecurity. The National Association of Women and the Law has had to lay off staff. On account of the Canadian Day Care Advocacy Association, the Parliamentary Task Force on Child Care has been extremely stretched and does not have funds to carry on the work it should be able to do.
The 1986-87 Estimates do not even list an amount for the women's department. There is only a global amount for something called citizenship development. That is a cut from previous years. We know that the 2 per cent cuts in discretionary spending will hurt the Secretary of State and women's programs especially because they are in a discretionary area.
Women's organizations have expected increases because they had been promised them in the past. There was a large increase in 1984, albeit perhaps for the wrong reasons. There was an election in 1984. The right thing was done, whether or not for crass reasons of political opportunism. Women's organizations were promised subsequent increases for the next five years and have not been getting them.

June 17, 1986
Adjournment Debate
Women's organizations play a vital role in Canadian society. They need and deserve stable funding. I do not think the Government understands that Canadian women's organizations are different from women's organizations in other countries. They are not the same as the organizations in the United States or Europe. They do extremely important work. They help to develop Canada. They unite urban and rural women, union and non-union women, women working full time in the home and women in the labour force, women from visible minorities, native women and disabled women. All kinds of women come together. This is a unifying force.
The women's movement has enormous support in Canada from women and men. It is a positive experience for people. It is social change which people see as beneficial. A few very small groups are trying to promote the idea that the women's movement somehow represents far-out groups which do not represent the vast mass of Canadian women. This is totally unsubstantiated. These groups are doing important work for Canada, which work is recognized by Canadians.
A better way to fund the work would be through the tax system. I would like to have a tax credit system instituted. In filling out their income tax forms and child tax credit forms, people would have the opportunity to allocate a certain amount of money to women's organizations. The same could be done for other voluntary organizations in culture, the environment and other areas which contribute to Canadian society. It is somewhat incongruous that the Canadian Government funds its own lobbyists. I think it would be far healthier if Canadian women and men could themselves decide which organizations to support.
In this kind of new way of allocating funds, the Government would be a bookkeeper on the basis of instructions in effect from taxpayers. I think that would be highly desirable. It could be a basis for stable funding and, of course, we want to see more funding for this extremely vital sector which does so very much for Canada. What we have instead, I am sorry to say, is a Government which does not give adequate recognition. We now have a crisis on our hands. In fact, it is only tomorrow that the Secretary of State (Mr. Bouchard) will be meeting representatives from some 60 women's organizations. They are being flown to Ottawa to discuss a crisis which need never have occurred at a substantial cost, more than $70,000, which is more money than some organizations get in their regular funding.
To conclude, I call on the Government to see that we have a stable, adequate system of funding for women's organizations that do so much for Canada.
[ Translation]


Mrs. Gabrielle Bertrand (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member for Broadview-Greenwood (Ms. McDonald) is anxious to know whether women's groups who received
funding under the women's program last year will receive the same support again this year.
Several factors must be considered by the Department of the Secretary of State in determining which groups will receive Government assistance, and for which objectives and at what levels.
A number of factors must be considered.

The existing track record of groups is important. To what extent have they fulfilled their objectives over the past year? What are their priorities for the coming year and how do these accord with the priorities of the women's program? The number of requests received in the various areas for which funding is provided is obviously another variable. Equally important is the amount of money available for grant purposes.

As Hon. Members are aware, all departments have been asked to help reduce the deficit by proceeding with certain budget cuts.

The Secretary of State was most anxious that the women's program of his Department not experience heavy cuts in view of the program's absolutely essential role in promoting the advancement of women. It is not only an essential role, it is a catalytic role, one which cannot be easily replicated.

The Minister is very broadly committed to ensuring that there will be no severe cutbacks in the women's program, and the result is there will be only a 5 per cent cut, which is certainly reasonable if we consider that reducing the deficit, like advancing the status of women, is one of the Government's priorities.
On June 26, the Secretary of State will be meeting with representatives of 58 women's groups to discuss ways of minimizing the effects of this cutback. Our Government's commitment to promoting the status of women is important. The women's program is an excellent vehicle for disseminating subjects of interest to women, promoting their autonomy and improving the economic conditions they have to face.

Now that the program's budget level is known, decisions will be going ahead on the many worthy applications received. I understand that last year the women's program funded over 700 organizations. The funding covered diverse issues such as violence toward women, economic independence, the Charter of Rights, legal, health, cultural and educational matters.

Mr. Speaker, as I said before, it is clear that the Secretary of State intends to continue his vigorous support of women's organizations in Canada.
June 17, 1986

Adjournment Debate


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


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, June 18, 1986