1987-09-15

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106(8), I have the honour to table, in both official languages, the Government's response to the 15 petitions bearing Nos. 332-3000 to 332-3012 inclusive, 332-3024 and 332-3025.



INTERPARLIAMENTARY DELEGATION


Mr. Bob Hicks (Scarborough East):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 101, I have the honour to present to the House, in both official languages, the twenty-third and twenty-fourth reports of the Canadian NATO Parliamentary Association.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



COMMITTEES OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the twenty-eighth report of the Striking Committee.



BILL C-55-REPORT OF LEGISLATIVE COMMITTEE

Mr. Ken James (Sarnia-Lambton):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Legislative Committee on Bill C-55, an Act to amend the Immigration Act, 1976 and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, I have the honour to present the Bill to the House with amendments.
I would like to tell the House that the committee sat for fifty-five and a half hours and heard over 30 witnesses. I would like to thank all the members of the committee for their diligent work on the study of this Bill. It must be especially noted that the co-operation and compromise between all Parties made the study of this piece of legislation more fruitful. In particular, I want to thank the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap) and the Hon. Member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), for imparting their long-standing and extensive knowledge of immigration matters to our deliberations.
[Editor's Note: See today's Votes and Proceedings]



PUBLIC ACCOUNTS-AUTHORIZATION TO TRAVEL

Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, there have been discussions among the Parties. I have two motions that I would like to put to the House at this time. I think you will find there is consent to put the motions and that they will pass unanimously.
The first motion is:
That the Standing Committee on Public Accounts be authorized to travel to Stockholm, Sweden; The Hague, The Netherlands; and Bonn, Federal Republic of Germany, from November 6 to 18, 1987 inclusive, to meet with its counterpart committees and the Auditors General of those countries, and that the necessary staff do accompany the committee.


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

['Agreed.']
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, the second motion is as follows:
That the Standing Committee on National Defence be authorized to travel to West Germany, Belgium and Switzerland between October 15 and 23,

September 15, 1987
Petitions
1987, inclusive in relation to its consideration of the White Paper on National
Defence pursuant to Standing Order 96(2), and that the necessary staff do
accompany the committee,


Mr. Speaker:: Does the Hon. Minister of State have the unanimous consent of the House to move the motion?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.

Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased today to table, pursuant to Standing Order 106, a petition which is certified correct. It is from residents throughout the Northwest Territories on behalf of Mr. Fred Turner.
The petitioners hold the opinion that the Government of Canada has inflicted a severe injustice to one of its citizens by wrongfully depriving Fred Turner of his right to earn a living through the operation of his family business.
Since the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) agreed to examine the situation but has chosen instead to avoid the issue and to hide behind the courts, the petitioners call upon the House to take whatever actions possible to find an equitable settlement to assist Fred Turner and his family after this unfair and perhaps illegal loss.


Mr. Rob Nicholson (Niagara Falls):: Mr. Speaker, it is my duty and honour to present a petition signed by over 100 individuals who attended the Fourth International Youth ProLife Congress held at Niagara Falls, Ontario. They call upon the Members of the House to support and to initiate reforms of the Constitution Act, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Criminal Code in order to protect the rights and dignity of unborn human persons in Canada. With those sentiments, I completely agree.


Mr. Len Hopkins (Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 106, it is my honour to present a petition on behalf of the residents of Wilno, Ontario, and indeed of the Canadian-Polish community of Canada at
large. Canada Post is attempting to reduce the service if not close down the post office at Wilno, Ontario, in the County of Renfrew. Wilno is the oldest community of Polish origin in Canada. The national campgrounds of the Canadian Polish community are just six miles away from the general store in Wilno where this post office is located.
The petitioners have asked me to present this petition to the Parliament of Canada asking, for heritage and historical reasons, and indeed for community service reasons, that this post office remain open and that the rural route remain as it is now and that the postmaster remain on salary so that he can handle the post office. It is very important to all these people in Canada because they come to Wilno to visit every year from all major parts of Canada.


Mrs. Therese Killens (Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present a petition signed by residents of my Montreal riding, Saint-Michel-Ahuntsic, who are opposed to the Government's housing policy. This being International Year of the Homeless, they believe that this Government's definition of essential needs prevents hundreds of thousands of Canadians living below the threshold of poverty from getting housing assistance from the Government.
For all these reasons the petitioners humbly call upon Parliament to authorize an immediate increase in funds for cooperative housing programs.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, I join my colleague from the Ottawa Valley, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), in presenting a petition pursuant to Standing Order 106 which meets the requirements.
Canada Post Corporation has already started reducing services in certain rural areas and intends to continue systematically closing an important number of post offices in small municipalities including Wilno. The population is firmly opposed to any reduction in postal personnel and the normal services to which rural citizens are entitled. The population does not accept at any time that small communities be penalized by the planned reductions.
For those reasons, the petitioners ask Parliament to give an immediate answer to the request regarding the fact that rural communities will not have to suffer any form of discrimination to the quality of their postal services and ask that Parliament agree that the rural municipalities will not be penalized by the closing of the post offices, and finally ask Parliament that the rural communities which have already been badly affected by
September 15, 1987

reductions will recover complete postal services to which they are accustomed, and the petition is humbly submitted.


Mr. Dave Dingwall (Cape Breton-East Richmond):: Mr. Speaker, I join with my colleague from the Ottawa Valley in protesting the recent decision by Canada Post concerning the residents of Wilno, Ontario, which is also the oldest community of Polish origin in Canada.
At this time the post office is in the general store and there is a rural route running out of it. Canada Post wants to remove the rural route starting point to another community. The community in that area wants to retain the post office as it now is. The National Polish Congress also wants it retained. On behalf of the petitioners, I duly pray that the Government come to its senses and rectify this obvious error on its part.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Mr. Speaker, I would ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Shall all questions be allowed to stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada) moved: that Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, at the outset of my remarks dealing with this third important justice initiative we have considered, 1 would like to draw to the attention of the House the fact that I do appreciate very much the co-operation of the House in dealing with these matters. While they are different pieces of legislation, they are all important in their own right and deal with some tangible realities we face in today's society.
Legal Assistance
It has long been recognized that no nation can exist in isolation. Indeed, states have always regarded international cooperation as being essential to their good relations. In criminal matters, such co-operation has traditionally taken the following forms: extradition, commissioned, evidence, service of documents issued by a foreign court and informal co-operation between police forces.
These types of assistance, although still useful and necessary, were developed at a time when crimes were not normally committed beyond the boundaries of any one country. Because of the spectacular increase in means of communication and transportation, criminals are no longer inhibited by territorial boundaries. Quite the contrary, criminals take advantage of the traditional notion of territorial jurisdiction to escape detection and prosecution.
Crime is no longer a local or national affair. It is now transnational. A transnational crime can be described as a crime whose planning or execution has taken place in two or more countries. Obvious examples of such crimes would include drug trafficking, crimes associated with terrorism, tax evasion, money laundering, fraud and organized crime.
Transnational crime has become an international problem which requires a solution at an international level. Hence, the purpose of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters.
You will recall that an important treaty was signed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and President Reagan on March 18, 1985, in Quebec City. The Bill we are dealing with today sets out the appropriate legal framework necessary to implement in Canada the provisions of the Canada-U.S. treaty on mutual legal assistance and those of any other treaty to which Canada may become a party. The Bill is not itself a code of mutual legal assistance but enables implementation of treaties.
Let me now describe what mutual legal assistance is. Simply put, it is an arrangement whereby a country, the requested state, at the request of another country, the requesting state, agrees to gather in its own territory evidence of a crime which is largely or entirely committed in the requesting state. As the words themselves imply, it must be stressed that mutual legal assistance is not a one-way street. It benefits, on a reciprocal basis, all those involved. This means Canada will obtain the same kind of assistance for Canadian investigations as we are able to provide for foreign investigations.
The new scheme encompasses every possible means of legal assistance. By way of illustration, let me read Article 2, paragraph 2 of the Canada-U.S. treaty:
Assistance shall include:
(a)	examining objects and sights;
(b)	exchanging information and objects;
(c)	locating or identifying persons;
(d)	serving documents;

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
(e)	taking evidence of persons;
(f)	providing documents and records;
(g)	transferring persons in custody;
(h)	executing requests for searches and seizures.
1 wish to assure all Canadians that the Bill does not open up Canadian borders to foreign police forces. Important safeguards have been developed to that effect. Foreign requests for assistance may be denied by the Minister of Justice if he or she is of the view that they are contrary to Canadian public interest. Where a foreign request for assistance is accepted, it will be executed by Canadian police officers and supervised, in the case of compulsory measures of assistance, by Canadian courts pursuant to Canadian standards and Canadian laws.
We must recognize mutual legal assistance as a tool which is both modern and essential to the fight against transnational or international crime.
Canada has chosen to base its system of mutual legal assistance on a network of bilateral treaties which will specify for each treaty partner those measures of assistance, compulsory or not, that Canada has agreed to make available, and the offences for which Canada will provide assistance. The Government is of the view that this procedure is the most appropriate because it is flexible enough to produce treaties that are tailor-made, so to speak, to the particular needs of both Canada and its treaty partner.
The Bill provides for the listing in a schedule of foreign states which have signed a mutual legal assistance treaty with Canada and the publication of such treaties in The Canada Gazette for the courts to take judicial note of. In essence, mutual legal assistance is of benefit to our own country and to the country with whom we enter into the treaty.

However the signature of a treaty does not mean that existing co-operation agreements between Canadian and foreign police forces will no longer be honoured. Quite the contrary, Mr. Speaker, the Bill expressly acknowledges that informal mutual legal assistance will be maintained; the treaty will complement it on a more official basis, but without replacing it.

It should also be noted that the treaty approach chosen by Canada will not prevent the Government from providing assistance to non-treaty countries when assistance is warranted in the international context. Indeed, where there is no treaty between Canada and another country, the Bill recognizes that the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark), with agreement of the Minister of Justice, may enter into an administrative arrangement with that foreign country. Such an arrangement will be executed like a treaty and will be valid for a specific purpose and a limited period of time, not exceeding six months. This will provide Canada with the flexibility to
respond, on a case-by-case basis, to unforeseen situations of a serious nature, such as terrorist acts for which a foreign state may require Canadian assistance in uncovering evidence located in our territory. Moreover, in exceptional circumstances, administrative arrangements will also be available to treaty countries for non-listed offences when the treaty so provides.
Let me review the main provisions of the Bill. Under the Bill the responsibility for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters has been assigned to the Minister of Justice. He has been designated as the central authority for Canada. Upon receipt of the request, the Department of Justice of the requested state as central authority, if it accepts the request, is obliged to carry it out. This is done by transmittal of the request to appropriate competent authorities, that is police agencies or prosecutors, for execution according to the laws of the requested state.
As I indicated earlier, mutual legal assistance encompasses both non-compulsory and compulsory means of assistance. The Bill will only apply to compulsory assistance. There are four categories of so-called compulsory measures of assistance: search warrants, summoning of witnesses, temporary transfer of persons in custody, and the lending of Canadian exhibits to a foreign state.
The Bill sets out the procedure applicable to each of these categories of compulsory measures of assistance. These measures, however, will not be made available, as a matter of course, to every country in the world. Indeed, before a compulsory measure of assistance is made available to a foreign country several conditions will have to be met. The requesting state must be a party to a treaty with Canada. Such treaty must provide for the measure of assistance sought. The measure of assistance must be requested for an offence covered by the treaty. The request for assistance must be in conformity with provisions of the applicable treaty. The request for assistance must not be contrary to Canadian public interest as determined by the Minister of Justice. Finally, the safeguards contained in the Bill, including an order from a Canadian judge, must have been respected.
Let me now describe briefly the procedure made applicable in the Bill to the four general categories of compulsory measures of assistance, firstly with respect to the matter of the search warrant.

The Bill provides the possibility of securing in Canada a search warrant to gather information or evidence for a foreign investigation. The relevant procedure set forth in the Bill is in keeping with the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and our legal principles, and it provides strong guarantees because the search is conducted within the scope of a foreign investigation.
September 15, 1987

These safeguards are as follows. First, the application must be made to a Canadian Superior Court judge. Second, the judge must be satisfied that no other less intrusive means would be appropriate to gather the evidence sought. Third, the judge must be satisfied that an offence within the treaty was committed in the requesting state and that evidence of that offence can be found in Canada.
If the judge is satisfied that these conditions are met and issues a search warrant, it must be executed by a Canadian peace officer named in the warrant. The person who has been the object of the search may make representations to the judge who issued the warrant either to have it set aside or to request that before the things seized are sent abroad conditions be imposed in respect of the rights of owners or third parties and with respect to the preservation and return of these things to Canada.
In that regard, because the Canadian judge has no jurisdiction over the foreign country, the Bill also provides that no object or thing will be sent abroad until the Minister of Justice is satisfied that the foreign state will respect the conditions imposed by the Canadian judge.
Dealing with the evidence-gathering order provisions of the Bill, the purpose of this judicial order is to compel a person to testify or to produce a record, document or other article. Again, provision is made for terms and conditions to be imposed by the judge, including the manner in which a refusal by the witness to answer questions is to be dealt with where such refusal is based on a law in force in Canada or in the requesting state.
In a nutshell, Mr. Speaker, where the objection is based on a law in force in Canada it will be decided by the judge. However, if the objection relates to a possible breach of a privilege recognized by a law in force in the requesting state, or to a possible breach of a criminal provision in force in the foreign state, the objection will be taken down in writing and will be sent to the requesting state for decision. If the objection is overruled, the witness will be obliged to answer. If he still persists in his refusal he could then, of course, be guilty of contempt of court.
It is worth mentioning at this point that both the search warrant and the evidence-gathering order will also be available to gather information which may reveal the whereabouts of a person who is suspected of having committed an offence covered by the treaty.
Dealing with the provisions concerning transfer of persons in custody, the Bill would allow the temporary transfer of a detained person from a Canadian jail to a foreign country for the purpose of testifying or helping in an investigation. Such a transfer will only take place with the express consent of the detained person. It should also be mentioned that young
Legal Assistance
persons within the meaning of the Young Offenders Act will not be subject to transfer even if they consent.
Measures are provided to ensure that the detention of the Canadian inmate in a foreign country does not imperil his or her rights with respect to any remission which would have accrued to him or her had it not been for the transfer to a foreign country. Conversely, when a foreign prisoner is transferred to Canada pursuant to a Canadian request for assistance, provisions have been made for his or her entry into Canada, his or her continued detention, and his or her return to the requested country.
Moving to the provisions with respect to the lending of exhibits, exhibits that have been admitted in evidence in a criminal proceeding in Canada would be lent to a foreign state if the court which has possession of the exhibits so orders. If a loan order is made it would be subjected to several conditions in respect of a test to be performed on the exhibits, its preservation and its return to Canada. Again, since the court has no jurisdiction over the foreign state, no loan order will be made until the court is satisfied that the foreign state has agreed to the conditions.
Besides setting out the procedures applicable to the compulsory measures of assistance, the Bill allows foreign states to apply to Canadian courts to enforce payment of fines imposed in criminal matters in those countries. It contains provisions to protect foreign records sent to Canada pursuant to a Canadian request by creating a privilege for those records until such records are made public or are admitted in evidence in compliance with the conditions on which they were sent to Canada.
The Bill also contains a consequential amendment which would authorize Canadian police officers to disclose to a foreign police force or prosecutor private communications which have been intercepted in Canada if such disclosure is intended to be in the best interests of the administration of justice.
I must underline why I have described the provisions with respect to the operation within Canada. That is for the purpose of understanding the provisions of the Bill because they are reciprocal. Accordingly, the same measures of assistance which are made available to a foreign state in the execution of search warrants, evidence gathering, lending of exhibits, and the transfer of detained persons will also be made available to Canadian authorities by the foreign state as a recognition of its treaty obligations toward Canada.

Finally, Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is necessary to lay more emphasis on the importance of the legislative measures I am tabling today. They will provide Canada with a legal framework whose scope will enable us to respond efficiently to the ever present and growing threats of terrorism and international drug trafficking, while at the same time giving us

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
sufficient leeway to be in a position to implement the provisions of the Canada/United States treaty and any other similar treaty which Canada might negotiate in the future with a common law or civil right country,

I am confident that this Bill, in conjunction with mutual legal assistance treaties, will enhance the existing co-operation between Canada and other nations and is a major step forward in Canada's efforts to deal effectively with international crime.
This Bill provides the framework for important advances in law enforcement in our country. As I said at the outset, international and transnational crime is, regrettably, very much in existence. 1 believe this legislation is a responsible approach to questions of mutual legal assistance. We are now moving toward a legislative framework which will be available for the protection of Canadian citizens and will allow for procedures to be put in place and the scrutiny of our own courts in the case of applications by those foreign states with which we have treaties.
On the other hand, Canadians will be the beneficiaries because we know that in order to prosecute successfully serious crimes under our criminal code it becomes more and more necessary in today's society for us to acquire foreign evidence. This Bill will provide us with the framework for that inasmuch as we will not have to rely on the goodwill of foreign law enforcement agencies. Under the provisions of this Bill and the treaties which accompany it we will have the ability to obtain evidence in other countries to assist our prosecutors to prosecute successfully crimes which were committed within our territory, therefore serving the interests of justice in our country.
1 have always been a great believer in having these matters spelled out in the law of the land. In that way parliamentarians can ensure that safeguards for our citizens are included. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, to Members of the House and to Canadians in general that we must take these steps nowadays in order to ensure that we in Canada have the tools available to us to attack successfully the international trafficking of drugs and organized crime which knows no boundaries but operates transnationally. We have to take these steps in order to enhance our ability to serve the Canadian public through our law enforcement agencies, by providing them with the best tools available in order to prosecute illicit and illegal activity in our country.
1 ask that Members of the House give this legislation favourable consideration so that we can move forward to the committee stage and examine the provisions of the Bill, and in the final analysis be able to serve our fellow citizens by bringing forward legislation that will best serve the interest of proper law enforcement in Canada.


Hon. Bob Kaplan (York Centre):: Mr. Speaker, the Minister made compassioned concluding remarks with a perfectly
straight face. I will open in the same vein and take him out of his suspense and agony by indicating that Her Majesty's Official Opposition intends to support this Bill in principle.
We support the Bill in principle, although I refer to the Minister's straight face because I think it has to be acknowledged that this legislation is largely a public relations exercise by the Government. It results from an agreement at the Shamrock Summit to the effect that mutual assistance in police matters and criminal investigations would be undertaken between Canada and the United States.
While the treaty was signed in Quebec City, perhaps the Minister could correct me now if my understanding is wrong that the treaty has not been ratified by the American Congress and is not yet in effect in the United States. However, here we are, not only with a treaty which is in effect, because it is binding in Canada without ratification, but with legislation that is brought forward by the Government to give effect to the important measures that will improve Canada's ability to assist other countries in the war against crime.
The Minister also ought to recognize that virtually all of the measures which this Bill provides for by way of legislation are already part of the practice in our country- primarily established by judicial orders-and well known in the common law and in the civil law in every province. This Bill legislates things that are already provided for in Canadian law, although not until now provided for in Canadian statute law.
On behalf of the Official Opposition I want to indicate that we are in favour of this legislative advance in principle. We hope that the United States takes this treaty as seriously as the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and ratifies the treaty as well and proceeds to introduce similar legislation. It seems that this is another one of those cases where the Americans do not take those things agreed to as seriously-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The Hon. Member asked me to correct him if he was wrong in his assumption. The American process is somewhat different than ours. We are in fact dealing with this matter by legislation. They do not require the same legislative route in order to ratify the treaty. Before we are in a position to properly bring about the effect of this treaty, we require legislation to be presented in the House. The Americans have indicated that they are prepared, through their own procedures, to ratify it as soon as we are in a position to move forward with the passage of legislation.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Since that has been clarified, we can carry on with the Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan).


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Recently the President of the United States set out his vision for his remaining term of office. I noted his remarks with interest, and the ratification of this treaty and the bringing in of legislation to give effect to it was not mentioned, nor was the Conservative Government free trade
September 15, 1987

initiative. My point is that we are taking this matter seriously even if the Americans do not. Let me indicate that we approve of that.
The Minister indicated that legislation is necessary to implement the treaty. While that is true, certainly no legislation is needed to give effect to any of the types of procedures that are now going to be provided for by legislation. As the Minister knows, we already have extradition procedures and a well developed common law system by which the four types of assistance that are provided for in this legislation are already available.
I want to express my concerns, which I will enlarge upon when the measure goes to committee. I hope at that time we will be able to get satisfactory answers.
One must begin with the principle that any measures that will assist in law enforcement and in the war against crime, international crime or organized crime, are welcome and ought to be supported. Certainly we will do so. We can begin by providing for this assistance between Canada and the United States because there are no two stronger allies than Canada and the United States. However, I would remind the House that even in our relations with the United States there are crimes to which they take a different attitude than do we.
I am glad to say that the law reserves the discretion on the Canadian side to decide how far we want to go in helping the United States achieve their law enforcement objectives. We do not have the same criminal laws as the United States. We do not have the same foreign policy in every respect as they do. Our law must take account of that and therefore it does not provide for automatic assistance.
An example of this is the draft dodger situation that arises between Canada and the United States every few decades, hopefully less often in the future than in the past. At the beginning of World War II, Canadians went to the United States and were immune from being extradited back to Canada to be punished for not fighting in our war. Similarly, during the Vietnam war when Americans came to Canada to escape the draft in that country, whether or not we welcomed them, we certainly provided a haven for them from prosecution in the United States provided they met our immigration standards.
In our opinion, even the American justice system, as fine and admirable as it is, sometimes goes astray. That happened in the Peltier case, where a Canadian Indian is in the United States being punished for a crime, when in our opinion false evidence had admittedly been used to obtain his conviction. We have a different view of the situation than the Americans. We want to be certain that signing a treaty and passing a statute does not simply mean we will be delivering people to the United States to fit in with their foreign policy priorities and their criminal law system, as much as we admire them.
I think also of the FLQ incidents in which the United States is currently seeking extradition of airplane hijackers whom we
Legal Assistance
know as the FLQ, 18 years after the fact. It is important in such a situation that it be our system of justice that makes a Canadian decision about whether and how far we propose to co-operate with the United States.
Finally, when considering our relations with the United States I think the issue of the death penalty must bear on the considerations of the Government about extradition to the United States. We recently decided in this Chamber that the death penalty is not an acceptable punishment for even the most serious crimes. In the United States literally hundreds of people are convicted and are awaiting execution. If requests come to us from the United States for candidates for eventual execution under the criminal justice system of the United States-and I am not saying we should automatically oppose it because I do not feel we should-I believe in those circumstances a Canadian decision will have to be made and this treaty and legislation should not be taken as a waiver of the Canadian interest in cases like that.
I examined some other circumstances involving Canada and third countries, because this legislation, while it relates to the Shamrock Summit agreement, has a wider scope. It will permit Canada to sign mutual assistance treaties with other countries in the world and provide assistance to them in law enforcement objectives. I would like to say that there are many countries with which we would have a law enforcement interest, and I am thinking about drugs, evasion of family responsibilities, escaping with children, a marriage to a person from a third country-there are many reasons why it is in the interests of Canada to have treaties with other countries. However, we must at the same time remember that in respect of many of the countries with which we would want to cooperate on police matters, in some cases, there are very good reasons to be extremely guarded.
Recently, for example, there was a request from Argentina to extradite a florist living in Canada for the murder of his wife which occurred 11 years ago. I would urge that in a case like that, where we would want a murderer to be returned to face the music for what he did, we should bear in mind that there could be a political dimension to the demand. He may well have a defence that he would not be allowed to make, or could not freely make, even in a democracy like Argentina, or in Chile, or in other countries with which we have a police interest, in many ways, but where there is such a fundamental differences in values to those in our system of government and in our definition of dissent and protest.
While we might sign a treaty, we would only do so if we could be very certain that a Canadian standard of respect for fundamental human rights and values would be part of the consideration of the government. That would have to be a consideration with respect to how far we wanted to play ball with these countries in achieving what they would characterize as a straightforward law enforcement or anti-criminal objective.

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
We would want to be certain, in connection with all of these treaty countries, that confidential information would not be made public and not be transferred to countries except in very circumscribed and controlled situations. When we think about it, the Government of Canada has access in its records, and in related records, by computers and so on, to the most intimate details of the private life of every person in this country; if they have had an abortion, if they have been bankrupt or failed to pay ordinary private debts, if they have had mental problems or complaints against them by neighbours, justified or unjustified. All of this information is becoming easily accessible in relation to every individual within our borders.
That pool of information, which is not even available, or should not be available, to other Canadians or other Canadian agencies, should certainly not now suddenly become available to foreign governments which might want to abuse it or which might not have the same kind of safeguards we have to ensure that the information is not used to violate the privacy of an individual for no good purpose at all.

In conclusion, although I may have sounded rather negative I should like to emphasize that the Official Opposition will support the Bill under consideration. Still I express our concern over the fact that the measure relates to a field of individual privacy, that it affects the property of probably just about anybody in this country; we want to make sure that the Government is very much aware of these values, that the treaty or the legislation will give us free reign to restrict the access of foreigners to our citizenship and to individuals in this country.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, again I offer our support and express our interest in seeing this piece of legislation adopted in due time. We endorse this measure.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Mr. Speaker, as already explained by the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), this Bill stems from the March 1985 treaty signed in Quebec City by Ronald Reagan and our Prime Minister at the so-called Shamrock Summit. We in the New Democratic Party know very well that a number of agreements signed and advocated during that summit are not in the interest of Canadians. For this reason, of course, we are acutely aware of our responsibility to scrutinize the treaty which has just been signed concerning the exchange of information between the United States and Canada, not only between the United States and Canada but also, as indicated in this measure, with other as yet unnamed countries. As the Hon. Member for York Centre pointed out, we want to know exactly which other countries we are talking about because, on the strength of Clause 4 of the Bill, for instance, it will be left to the Government or the Governor in Council, meaning Cabinet, to add other countries covered under this Bill. As we see it, such a decision might indeed have an impact on the civil liberties of Canadians and it must be made by Parliament, not only by the Government or Cabinet.

Recognizing that this legislation flows from the treaty which was signed in March of 1985 by Ronald Reagan, the President of the United States, and the Canadian Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), and recognizing as well the extent to which the Canadian Prime Minister, the head of the Conservative Government, has been prepared to cede fundamental aspects of Canadian sovereignty, we naturally are concerned; we are concerned about the implications of legislation which flows from that Shamrock Summit.
There is a broader question here. The Liberal justice critic has said we have some concerns about this Bill, but we like it and will support it in principle. However, when we start to examine carefully, not only the legislation itself but more importantly the history of the Government's negotiations with the United States, its failure to stand up for the interests of Canadians, then surely we must recognize the potential for serious abuse of the civil liberties, rights and privacy of Canadians which exists with respect to this legislation.
I would like to say a few words about the Government's failure to negotiate on behalf of Canadians, its failure to take effective action in dealing with the United States to protect Canadians from the laws and policies of the United States which are manifestly unjust and work to the detriment of our people here in Canada. Let me give two examples and ask why the Government of Canada and its Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) are prepared to give significant new powers to United States law enforcement officers without insisting, on behalf of Canadians, on action in other areas?
One of those areas is the provision of American legislation in the area of immigration. I refer here to the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act. This is a United States law which was basically passed at the height of the cold war in the 1950s. It is a law which has been used to bar Canadian citizens from visiting the United States.
Who are these dangerous, subversive citizens who have been denied entry to the United States, denied even the right to pass through the United States as a result of this piece of legislation that is so reprehensible and constitutes such a denial of the civil liberties, not only of Canadians but of all others who would seek to visit the United States?
One of those dangerous subversives is a Canadian author named Farley Mowat. Under the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act, this United States law which is still on the books today, Farley Mowat was told that he could not enter the United States to promote a book he had written. He wanted to board a Los Angeles-bound flight in Toronto in 1985. At that time the American authorities told him that the door was closed to him.
Why was the door closed to Farley Mowat? In 1968, in a jocular and offhand manner, Farley Mowat threatened to shoot down U.S. aircraft flying through Canadian air space.
September 15, 1987

As a result of that joke, which clearly is all it was, he was denied the right to enter the United States. In fact, this American law, and the discretionary powers under it, have been used to stifle debate by denying entry to foreigners, including Canadians, whose views do not necessarily coincide with the views of the American Government.
There was also another person, a person from Saskatchewan, who was denied entry to the United States as well under the provisions of the McCarran-Walter Act. I refer to a professor from the University of Regina School of Human Justice, a professor named Jim Harding, a good friend of the Hon. Member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He is obviously a dangerous radical and a subversive. He was denied the right to even pass through the United States en route to a United Nations conference in Costa Rica.
Why was that? Why was Professor Jim Harding turned away by U.S. immigration officials in Calgary when he wanted to board a flight for Mexico via Los Angeles? He was told that he was on a list of Canadians who were not admissible to the United States. He asked the Americans for an explanation. He asked why it was that he could not even pass through the United States en route to a conference. He was told that apparently the American authorities considered him to be a communist because in 1961 he had attended a conference on disarmament in the Soviet Union with a number of other Canadian students.
I remind Hon. Members that this incident of being refused entry to the United States occurred at the beginning of this year. Also attending that conference were people such as Lord Bertrand Russell and Jean-Paul Sartre. Because of that law which still exists in the United States Professor Jim Harding, who has a long and distinguished involvement in the peace movement, was refused the right even to pass through the United States in transit to Central America.
What did the Canadian Department of External Affairs do to stand up for the rights of this Canadian? It did not do anything at all. It said that it regretted the incident but it respects the sovereign right of the United States to decide who can come and go in that country. That type of kowtowing to legislation which is reprehensible and which denies Canadians the right to visit the United States, or even to pass through it, that type of knuckling under is clearly not acceptable to those of us in this Party. Our Government should be saying to Ronald Reagan, look, Ronnie, if you want new powers under the mutual legal assistance legislation you are going to have to do something about a law which has been on the books of your country since 1950, a law which has denied access to your country to Farley Mowat, to Professor Jim Harding, and to many other Canadians, a law which is being used and has been used to stifle political debate, a law which poses a threat to international scholarship.
We say that if the Government wants to extend new powers to the United States to engage in investigative activity in
Legal Assistance
Canada then let it do some tough-minded and serious negotiation, let it tell the Americans that we do not accept this outdated and dangerous law. Let the Government tell the Americans that they owe an apology to the Canadians who have been excluded from the United States as a result of this law and that we are not prepared to co-operate with them in the manner in which they are now seeking unless they take steps to deal with this matter.
There is an opportunity for the Government to act. United States Congressman Barney Frank from Massachusetts has a Bill before the American Congress that would in fact repeal the most repugnant provisions of this legislation.
I suggest that the Government and the Prime Minister go back to the bargaining table to suggest to the President of the United States that if he wants our co-operation in this area then how about some co-operation in supporting the legislation that is before the United States Congress today to get rid of it? That is the first point. Let us have some serious negotiations here instead of just giving in to the Americans, as the Government has done on so many issues in the past, and as it is continuing to do, we fear, in the free trade negotiations.
One other example of actions which could and should have been taken by the Government in the context of negotiation of this treaty is looking at the question of one of the most serious abuses of the rights of Canadians citizens by American authorities. I am talking here about the psychic brainwashing experiments that were carried out by the CIA in the late 1950s and early 1960s. These were experiments that used Canadians as human guinea pigs, experiments in mind control that were carried out by Dr. Ewen Cameron at the Allan Memorial Institute in Montreal. We know the tragic history of this particular series of events. Cameron, in researching brainwashing techniques, took advantage of men and women, primarily women. Three-quarters of his victims were women. He took advantage of people who came to him as a doctor, people who were depressed and in need of psychiatric help. Instead of helping those people he used them in his grisly mind control experiments without informing them that that is what he was doing.
This research was dreamed up at the height of the cold war in the United States. The CIA was funding this research. One of the victims of these terrible experiments was the wife of the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), one of the best known victims. She was subjected to the following treatment by Dr. Ewen Cameron. She was subjected to a taped message being repeated over and over and over again which told her, "You are a bad mother. You are a bad wife". To this day, of course, she feels the effects of that type of experimentation. The coalition that has been attempting to seek justice and compensation for these people alleges that some others were not as lucky. They have committed suicide. Most cannot work. One of the victims has died. Many others are permanently scarred by these terrible experiments.

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
What is the Government of Canada doing to stand up on behalf of these Canadians who were the victims of these terrible experiments? The Conservative Government appointed a former Conservative Member of Parliament from Nova Scotia to conduct a study into the implications of this particular matter. But that study was nothing less than a complete whitewash. He came to the conclusion that there was no proof that anyone was damaged by the experiments. In fact, in arriving at his conclusion he did not even speak to a single victim of the experiments. He said that the Canadian Government had no responsibility toward these victims. We fundamentally disagree.
We believe that the Government of Canada should release all the information it possesses to the victims of those experiments to assist them in their lawsuit against the CIA in the United States. We are also insisting that Canada should financially assist the victims of these brainwashing experiments. For some time we have been waiting for the Government to live up to the promise it made, that at the very least it would help these people pay for their legal expenses in bringing action against the CIA.
It is thanks to the tremendous dedication, courage, and unflagging commitment of their United States attorney, Joseph Rauh, that this action is still alive before the United States courts. But the Canadians who are pursuing this action are still waiting for the Government to live up to its promise to assist them financially in pursuing their lawsuit.
I put a question to the Minister of Justice in June, and the Minister stated that he was in the process of consulting, looking at this matter, and that he hoped to be able to come forward with some concrete results in the very near future. That was four months ago, and still no action has been taken on the part of the Government.
I wish to link this to the Bill before the House at this time, and to ask the Government, whether the Prime Minister of Canada said to his good friend, Ronald Reagan, look, Ronnie, we are going to give you some new powers under the Mutual Legal Assistance Act, but your Government, and your intelligence agency, the CIA, is still refusing to recognize its responsibility to compensate the victims of experiments by the CIA in Canada during the late 1950s? Did our Prime Minister stand up for these Canadians? Did he say that if the United States wanted these new powers, it was not going to receive them unless the Americans accepted their moral, ethical, and legal responsibility to compensate these victims?
We do not know what happened at the Shamrock conference. We do know that the victims of these experiments have so far received absolutely no assistance whatsoever from the Government of Canada. Until the Government comes to grips with this serious question and recognizes its responsibility to our citizens who are the victims of these brainwashing experiments by the CIA without their consent, why should we
co-operate in granting new powers to the Government of the United States?
Let us say to the American authorities, the Attorney General of the United States, and the President of the United States, if you wish these new powers it is about time that you took action to assist us. That is the type of hard-headed, tough negotiating that we believe should have been undertaken, and that we believe was not undertaken before this Act was brought forward.
It may well be that this is another little bone that is being tossed to the American Government as part of the price that we pay for free trade in Canada, together with the legislation on generic drugs, and the Minister of Communications knuckling under on the Broadcasting Act. I could go on with a litany of areas in which the Government has caved in to the Americans. We are afraid that perhaps this Bill is part of that pattern of knuckling under to United States pressure. We do not believe we should be giving in to that pressure. We certainly believe that Canada should be standing up for Canadians.
There are a number of other areas of concern with respect to this legislation. First, I wish to point out that the Liberal spokesperson indicated that the Liberal Party intends to support this Bill in principle. Once again the Liberals and the Conservatives are in bed together on a matter that fundamentally affects the rights and sovereignty of Canadians. The Liberal justice critic said that this Bill is simply implementing what is presently being done informally. Quite obviously the Liberal justice critic has not read the Bill, if that is the position that he has taken. There are at least two significant elements of this Bill which do extend the powers of the United States investigative authorities.
The new Canada-United States treaty which would come into effect as a result of this Bill would allow the collection of evidence in Canada by United States police at a far earlier stage than is presently permitted. Presently under Canadian law the United States enforcement agencies are only permitted to seek Canadian co-operation in the gathering of evidence after charges have been laid, or after a trial has begun in the United States. The Prime Minister is now saying, come on in even before charges have been laid. We will allow you to investigate, and to use all of the powers in this new Act under this new treaty at the investigation stage. That is a significant change. It is not just putting into effect something which is informally taking place now, because if it is informally taking place now Canadian laws are being broken.
Another element in which this changes the law, and not just putting into effect a law which is already utilized in practice, as the Liberal justice critic has suggested, is the extent to which currently Canadian legislation denies American police access to search warrants for wholly foreign offences which are committed in the United States. This law would also change that.
September 15, 1987

What are the types of offences we are talking about here? We do not have to go back too far to find instances of Americans being guilty of offences in the United States who came to Canada and when, fortunately, we said that we were not prepared to turn our backs on those Americans, but rather we welcomed them. They were Americans who did not want to participate in fighting an immoral war in Vietnam. They came to Canada in large numbers. In doing so, they were breaking American laws.
Under the provisions of this treaty, and particularly this legislation, the Canadian Government would be involved. The Canadian police forces and the RCMP would be involved in helping authorities in the United States bring those people before American courts. I do not believe we should be involved in that type of thing. I do not believe we should be involved in a situation in which Americans who are seeking to assist refugees fleeing from Central America should be subject to investigation by Canadian authorities working hand in hand with the FBI. I do not believe that Americans who are seeking to peacefully protest American policy in Central America, and who subsequently may come to Canada, should be subject to investigation by Canadian authorities at the instance of the American police.
Last week in a hospital in Walnut Creek, California, I visited a very courageous and dedicated young man named Brian Willson. He is a veteran of the war in Vietnam. He realizes the immorality of that war, and has dedicated his life to doing what he can to ensure that the United States does not participate in other immoral, unjust military actions. Along with a number of other American men and women, Brian Willson peacefully demonstrated outside the Concord naval weapons base, in Concord, California. They gave notice to the naval authorities that they intended to peacefully erect a banner and stand by that banner on the train tracks which were transporting weapons to Central America, which ultimately may very well have been used by the Contras in their murderous attacks on civilians in Nicaragua.
Brian Willson was run down by a naval train carrying weapons as he peacefully demonstrated. He lost both legs and fractured his skull. In engaging in that act of peaceful civil disobedience he did break American law.
I do not want Canada to be helping the United States authorities prosecute the Brian Willsons of the United States should they come to Canada. I do not want to see Canada assisting the FBI in ferreting out refugees who are fleeing from Central America and who seek sanctuary in Canada. 1 do not believe that Canadian law should be used in a manner that would subvert all of the finest traditions and principles of Canadian justice. I do not believe that Canadian law should be used to assist in the gathering of evidence in a manner that may indeed involve serious invasions of the privacy of Canadians.
Legal Assistance
Under this law there will be access to a wide-ranging array of information. A most important point is that this legislation does not just deal with the United States, but would allow the Canadian Government to enter into similar treaties or agreements with any other country in the world. The Government does not even have to come back to Parliament to do so. Once the Cabinet decides it wants to enter into such an agreement, it merely passes an Order in Council, and that is it.
What if this Government of Canada or a future Government decided it wanted to pass a similar agreement with say a brutal military junta similar to the one governing Chile today? Such an agreement could facilitate the very serious abuse of the rights of Chileans who have sought refuge in Canada from that bloody dictatorship. We know already that Canada's CSIS is co-operating in a shameful way with the Chilean intelligence agency, the CNI.
I do not want to be responsible for the passage of a piece of legislation that ultimately could lead to Canada co-operating with military regimes in Chile or elsewhere, co-operating with police forces against citizens who have sought refuge in this country. Fifteen Chilean are possibly subject to the death penalty as a result of certain allegations. Those trials have taken place under a system of military justice which denies all of the basic rights accorded under any sensible and decent system of justice. If one of those people were to show up in Canada, I would hope that Canada would not co-operate in the manner envisaged by this legislation in sending these people back.
This Bill is wrong in principle because of the possible dangers it poses, not just to Canadians but to people from other countries who may seek refuge in Canada and who may have committed acts recognized as offences in those jurisdictions, but by no means offences that we may want to involve ourselves with in Canada.
Obviously when we are talking about co-operation respecting offences involving organized crime, that is another question and Canada should extend its fullest possible co-operation in those areas. But this legislation, Mr. Speaker, is dangerous because it has the potential to go far, far beyond that.
Because of the reasons I have outlined, because of the failure of the Government to stand up for Canadians-and before adopting this legislation we should insist upon the Americans taking their obligations seriously concerning the victims of the CIA brainwashing experiments and the McCar-ran-Walter Act-and because of serious concerns about the substance of this legislation and the potential of very grave abuse of civil liberties in Canada, we in the New Democratic Party are strongly opposed to this Bill and will be opposing it in principle. The Government should go back to the drawing-board, go back to the Americans and insist on justice.


Mr. Skelly:: Are there any questions or comments, Mr. Speaker?

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Not for the first three speakers.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to participate in the debate.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Therefore, the Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) has the floor on debate. Before we proceed-after the conversation is finished-perhaps I could direct the Hon. Member to Standing Order 55(2). The Hon. Member will now have 20 minutes plus 10 minutes for questions and comments. If there are any further conversations, I wish Hon. Members would have them in the lobbies. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I will speak to my colleagues about this massive breach of etiquette in the House of Commons. One of our colleagues from the other side of the House seems to want to speak. Undoubtedly she will speak on this Bill; we will listen breathless and spellbound to her contributions.
1 would like to offer congratulations to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson), who expressed some very serious concerns in a number of areas about the legislation before the House today. First, is Canada negotiating effectively with the United States in the development of the number of treaties and arrangements that we have seen come through the House? He gave examples to show that the answer is no.
In the minds of most Members of this House on all sides, the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) of Canada has involved himself in a massive giveaway. To the Americans, without question and without an attempt to negotiate, have gone such things as the salmon interception treaty on the West Coast and the present legislation before us today. In the minds of most Canadians the Conservative Government and the Prime Minister are involved in a massive giveaway in an attempt to secure a free trade agreement. It is time that we as Canadians dug in and began to negotiate effectively.
This Parliament should not pass this Bill without changes. The Prime Minister should be digging in his heels with the Americans on the question of the salmon interception treaty on the West Coast. We have no effective authority over our resources in the Yukon River. That was an omission. The problem was known but we heard that it might offend the Americans and the President if we began to ask for things that belonged to us and which might jeopardize the free trade agreement.
There were the summit meetings between the Prime Minister and the United States President. Instead of dealing effectively with Canadian resources in the transboundary rivers that cross southeast Alaska flowing into the Province of British Columbia, which rivers contain large fish stock originating in Canadian waters, the Prime Minister gave those away without a thought. In addition, we have a very poor interception agreement with the United States.
At the present time Canadians are losers in this massive giveaway in the attempt to obtain a free trade agreement with the United States. The legislation presently before the House is another example of failure to negotiate effectively. We are involved in other serious matters of negotiations with the United States, and we could use this Bill and the arrangements as leverage. 1 am speaking of what is called the A-B line, the boundary between Canada and the United States, between southeast Alaska and British Columbia. There have been numerous provocations in that disputed area by the U.S. Coast Guard. The U.S. Coast Guard has arrested Canadian fishermen, seized their catches and hauled them into court in Ketchikan, Alaska, in a completely unjust manner. Canadian fishermen who had been fishing in areas designated on Canadian maps as being Canadian territory have been arrested by the U.S. Coast Guard, hauled into Ketchikan, Alaska, and had their catches seized. There have been a great many threats of violence against them.
If the Prime Minister of Canada were fulfilling his obligations to Canadians, he would be raising these matters with the American President and suggesting that proper processes be used by the Americans in disputes. We would be prepared to co-operate with the Americans in many areas of legitimate negotiations if in fact their behaviour in certain areas was acceptable.
As well, the Americans gave petroleum leases across the AB line in absolute rejection of anything that would seem reasonable. Yet it seems we did not raise any kind of concern about that at the Shamrock Summit. No, indeed, the Prime Minister of Canada is quite prepared to give away points on the salmon interception treaty and quite prepared to fail to observe the kinds of infractions that are going on in the northwest corner of British Columbia over the A-B line.
We do not negotiate with the United States. The Conservative Government and the Prime Minister and, indeed, the past Liberal Government have virtually given away Canadian rights and Canadian sovereignty without raising substantial efforts at negotiation. This is the record, and I think it was shown effectively by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, when he spoke today. He pointed out that this is a result of a treaty which is a give-away and that we as Canadians under the present Conservative Government are being badly served in our negotiations with the United States.
The legislation before the House assists in law enforcement matters. It was pointed out that this legislation is too far reaching and allows the involvement of law-enforcement procedures from a foreign country in Canada too early. The Hon. Member pointed out the problems involved with having demands for investigative action taking place in Canada before charges are laid, a new item over which there is concern.
September 15, 1987

As well, he pointed out that under the present legislation certain regimes will probably come forward since the legislation envisions a wider view of which countries can obtain these benefits in Canada. He pointed to the cases of Chile and Argentina. The Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) as well pointed out that these regimes could approach Canada and ask for law-enforcement activity within Canada targeted against individuals whose activities would not be considered criminal in Canada.
For example, there are a great many Canadians of Chilean origin, many of whom were judged to have committed crimes in that country which are not crimes in this country. They fear that regime and have been subjected to severe repression. Ultimately, the thought of our law-enforcement agencies cooperating in any way with that regime is absolutely intolerable.
As far as my colleagues and I are concerned, when this legislation goes to committee it will be given very serious scrutiny. We will look to tightening the legislation so that it is targeted at specific areas of concern. We will be very careful with any rights it allows foreign law-enforcement agencies in Canada.
There is a positive side to this legislation that I am surprised has not been discussed or has not been envisioned by the Government. Some Canadians have asked Canadian law enforcement agencies to become more involved with American law enforcement agencies in the search for missing persons, family members who have disappeared. In this case, there seems to be a great reluctance on the part of the Americans to participate effectively with Canadian authorities. It has become a matter of concern for individuals in my constituency where there is not good co-operation with American authorities in assisting in attempts to reunite family members.
In the search for missing children, law-enforcement agencies are the effective agencies. I believe this Bill could be used to encourage the United States by indicating we would certainly be prepared to assist here if we could see a much larger initiative in assistance from them.
As well, there are people who have gone to the United States to avoid family obligations imposed by Canadian courts. Assistance in solving that problem could definitely be improved by this legislation. Given the concerns in respect of those issues which exist on all sides of the House and certainly on both sides of the border, that should be looked into.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, mentioned a matter of serious concern on which the Canadian Government should take the initiative with the American Government. The Canadian Government should suggest that the list of excluded Canadians under the McCarran-Walter Act should be reexamined. Indeed, some of the absolutely frivolous reasons for excluding Canadians from the United States should be removed. Those Canadians should have the right to go back and forth across the boundary. Many people who live in Canada have family, contacts and friends in the United States. It becomes a very serious matter when a family member is
Legal Assistance
excluded. At least half of my own family are citizens of the United States.
During the Vietnam war, many people who lived in the United States were severely tested by the war and were under pressure of the draft and their absolute abhorrence of that war. Many were likely candidates to avoid the draft by coming to Canada. Those who did are now unable to visit immediate members of their families in the United States.
This legislation is of particular concern to me. I personally would like to see it made much tighter. Although it does not apply in my particular case, I can understand the concerns of other people over the McCarran-Walter Act. They are unable to visit family members or travel in the United States for the most absolutely frivolous reasons. It is a time both Governments approached this from a reasonable point of view and eliminated that list.
We as Members of the House of Commons know of a very tragic example of the failure of the Canadian Government to pressure, through the negotiation process, a quid pro quo approach to the question of the LSD experiments. We should indicate to the United States that we will move on areas that are of interest and concern to Americans if they will address the things that concern us as Canadians. This must be done.
The LSD experiments are an example of something that was intolerable. Great damage was done and compensation must be addressed. That issue should have been raised by the Prime Minister. There should have been a clear-cut agreement that that matter will be resolved and put to rest.
I believe we should pursue these issues as we consider the legislation through committee and report stages and on to third reading. Quite honestly, I think American officials should be invited to appear before the committee to tell us why these other items have not been addressed if we are expected to pass this legislation.
The timing of the legislation has been mentioned as an issue. The United States has not passed reciprocal legislation. In the case of the salmon interception agreement we had to make amendments to our legislation before the Americans would consider passing theirs. We do not know what they will do with their legislation. They may amend it or reject it outright. It would be better to have agreements which are worked out between Canada and the U.S. considered and ratified simultaneously and avoid this problem.
The matter before us today is of very serious concern. The Liberal Party appears prepared to move ahead quickly on this legislation. I know it was probably a slip of the tongue, but the Hon. Member for York Centre said he could see some problems when the Government was faced with requests for law enforcement assistance in Canada from democracies like Argentina and Chile. I was quite shocked when I heard that. It would be a simple matter for the Hon. Member to check and

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
correct the "blues" to make sure that the word "democracy" is not assdciated with Chile. Perhaps we might not have heard that if the previous Liberal Government had not been so cooperative with Chile.
The failure of the previous Liberal Government to negotiate effectively with the U.S. is clearly evident when we have matters such as this before us. My colleague from Burnaby indicated that in this situation the Liberals and Conservatives were largely in Bed together on their failure to negotiate effectively with the U.S. Yet it is to the credit of the previous Government that we did not see a sell-out on such a massive scale as we see with the present Government in its effort to obtain a free trade agreement. Canadians are not prepared to see that continue. If you look at the polls you can see that the record of the Government is very dismal in the eyes of Canadians. It is time to turn things around, and this legislation could be an example.
We are certainly prepared to pass acceptable legislation. That acceptability can be worked out in committee. However, there are certain irritants and even severe problems in our relationship with the U.S. which, as I said, could be dealt with in order to reach an understanding. I think that concludes my remarks, Mr. Speaker.


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


Mr. Epp (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, it was interesting to hear the observations of my friend from Comox-Powell River on various aspects of this Bill. He has outlined the dangers on the side of political pursuits and I would ask him to expand on that. He also was concerned about the possibility of mutual legal assistance in family matters. These of course are two different problems. I suppose the latter is not, strictly speaking, a matter of criminal law but it could have potential value in the pursuit of mutual legal assistance.
I wonder whether he could tell us something about the British Columbia experience with general criminal matters. I have a vague memory and a more recent memory of specific cases in that province where co-operation between Canada and U.S. enforcement authorities occurred. Since he has referred to some of the dangers inherent in this legislation as well as its unrealized potential, I wonder if he could offer some observations on the extent to which operations over the last few years have reassured him or otherwise about the way in which the authorities actually do operate and how they might operate under this new legislation?


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, the difficulties in family matters and the cases involving disappeared children is a matter of record. One parent takes the children to the U.S. and the other parent begins a search. As has been demonstrated in a number of cases, it is extremely difficult to obtain what I would call serious effort by American law enforcement agencies in the search for those individuals. I know the task at hand is very large, but so are the law enforcement agency resources, and I
think the agreement between the President and the Prime Minister could have explored that particular issue much more.
How can we become more effective in recovering missing children on both sides of the border? How can we apply the strength of our law enforcement agencies and bring in other resources in support of them? When this legislation goes to committee those are items I would like to see raised. I intend to pursue the matter vigorously through our critic, or directly if I participate on the committee. It is a logical place to do it and I would hope other Members with the same experience will pursue it as well.
Another aspect of that same problem is the situation where a parent has obligations imposed by the courts for maintenance of the family and then moves to the U.S. For all intents and purposes that could be defined as criminal activity, because that person is failing to live up to an obligation imposed by the court. I think arrangements to deal with that problem should be pursued. Probably every Member of this House has had experience at one time or another with that kind of situation. It is almost futile to pursue it unless the individual involved has a large amount of money. This particular legislative mechanism would be appropriate in dealing with that problem as well. That is an item which I would like to flag for attention in committee in order that the legislation can be expanded or made more precise to include this matter.
I am not certain which incidents in British Columbia the Member speaks about, but a number come to mind in which law enforcement co-operation between the two countries has been a little too informal and may need some legislative action. The FBI in Seattle has phoned the RCMP in Vancouver asking them to pick up and drop off in Blaine one of their "nasties" who was living in Vancouver, this without benefit of a court appearance. We have experienced that a number of times. That is certainly not acceptable under our system of justice. People have a right to a day in court. The RCMP has participated in such completely unacceptable activity.
With regard to the political situation, I do not think there are many Members of this House who have not been confronted with the problem of assisting refugees from regimes such as those in El Salvador and Chile. These people often have difficulties dealing with immigration. The immigration people say that if they have a criminal record or criminal charges pending in their country of origin they cannot enter this country. It would be very difficult to check with a regime such as that in Chile to determine whether a refugee has a criminal record.
It is dead wrong to allow the Cabinet of Canada to expand the list of countries which could enjoy the powers of this legislation without reference to Parliament. We should work at every stage of this Bill to stop that. Conceivably the Soviet
September 15, 1987

Union could request law enforcement action in Canada. That is not what Parliament has in mind with this legislation.
The Government has gone too far in the drafting of this Bill. If this Bill is passed at second reading, I would hope that an agreement could be made to drop that particular aspect.
Certain regimes consider activities to be criminal which bear no relation to criminal activity in Canada. These include free speech, protest and demonstration, and active involvement in trade union activities. These are rights which are worthy of guaranteeing constitutionally in a democratic country but are prohibited in regimes such as those in South Africa and Chile.
Under this legislation their law enforcement agencies could come to Canada and suggest that because an individual has committed that nature of a crime in their country they wish to enjoy the benefits of this legislation and have Canadian enforcement officials gather evidence against them and move to extradite them. This is the kind of thing that could result from the wide open, loose and sloppy drafting of this legislation.
We would have much more confidence in this legislation and the Government's application of it if we did not know that the Government is already involved with those regimes and very reluctant to criticize their most heinous and obscene actions. The Liberal Government opened trade with the regime in Chile which almost encourages its continuance. The Conservative Government has certainly done nothing to indicate that we should not expect the Chilean police forces to operate in Canada.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to speak on Bill C-58 with regard to mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between Canada and other countries. The "other countries" aspect will be the focus of my comments. My friends from Burnaby and Comox-Powell River have addressed, in particular, concerns involving Canada's relationship with the United States. That is understandable and always acceptable or forgivable depending upon one's perspective because we share the continent of North America with our powerful friends in the United States. Being a much smaller country in terms of population, we are always concerned about how Canadian interests will be defended by our Government vis-a-vis the United States.
I hardly need expand on the concerns that many Canadians have felt over the last three years as they have watched the present Government, and particularly the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney), dealing with the U.S. President. They have wondered whether Canada's interests were not being sold out in those various contexts. I will not spend any more time on that this afternoon.
We are dealing with general legislation which raises concerns, which I want to explore, involving other countries. If there is any doubt about the validity of these observations I note that in the interpretation section of the Bill, where definitions are provided, "foreign state" is defined as "a state
that is a party to a treaty". Clearly that could be any state at all. Treaty means "a treaty, convention Or other international agreement that is in force and to which Gdnada is a party, the primary purpose of which is to provide for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters". In those two definitions in the interpretation section we have obvious evidence that this Bill could be applied to any country at all.
The provisions of this Bill, if it becomes law, will be quite far-reaching. I note in the next section the following statement in the first clause:
In the event of any inconsistency between the provisions of this Act and the provisions of another Act of Parliament, other than the provisions of an Act prohibiting the disclosure of information or prohibiting its disclosure except under certain conditions, the provisions of this Act prevail to the extent of the inconsistency.
I recognize, of course, that disclosure of information is a large part of criminal investigation, but there are in fact many other areas upon which it could touch. In all of those other areas this is the Act that will govern.
In lboking at Clause 6 of the Bill, within which are provisions for administrative arrangements, we will appreciate exactly how far-reaching this Bill is. We are told in of Clause 6(1):
Where there is no treaty between Canada and another state, the Secretary of State for External Affairs may, with the agreement of the Minister, enter into an administrative arrangement with that other state providing for legal assistance with respect to an investigatidh specified therein relating to an act that, if committed in Canada, would be an indictable offence.
In Clause 6(1) we have provision for the development of special arrangements in instances of countries that do not already have a treaty negotiated with Canada. The Bill, of course, does not have attached to it in a schedule a list of countries with which Canada has a treaty. Once passed, and if proclaimed, that would obviously be appended to it for Useful reference.
In Clause 6(1) authorization is being requested which would allow Canada to make arrangements with any country at all. That, of course, provides a basis for asking what the ramifications of this Bill might be, how far-reaching its powers might be, and what its consequences might be.
Shall I call it one o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Before I call it one o'clock, the Hon. Member will have 15 minutes left for debate after three o'clock, plus the 10-minute question and comment period.
It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this day.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[Stage Direction]
September 15, 1987


Ms. Sheila Copps (Hamilton East):: Mr. Speaker, Hamilton is a lucky town. It is lucky for Liberal politicians and also lucky for hockey players, as Wayne Gretzky and Mario Lemieux found out only two days ago. I can say that they will do it again tonight and will blow the Russians out of the water.
At the same time that the Canadian team is trouncing the Russians at the Copps Coliseum, I ask the Government to look also at saving jobs for 1,300 workers in the same city of Hamilton. Firestone has received an offer from Cooper Tire Company in the United States. It is clear that it is a valid, bona fide offer.
The Minister should show some leadership in this area, as the Canadian hockey team has shown leadership, and go to Akron, convince Firestone to sell, and save 1,300 jobs for Hamilton workers who deserve them. Our hockey players deserve our support, so do our Firestone workers.



MARINE SAFETY


Mrs. Mary Collins (Capilano):: Mr. Speaker, the Canadian Coast Guard is currently examining the possibility of automating some of British Columbia's lighthouses. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) has received a report recommending that ten of the 41 lighthouses in British Columbia be considered for unmanning.
I recognize the expertise of Doctor Paul Leblond who authored the report, and I realize that technological developments have lessened the need for permanent lighthouse keepers in some areas. Nevertheless, I have some very serious concerns about any proposals to automate lighthouse light stations on the West Coast.
Apart from their duties to maintain the light, its power supply and fog horn, light keepers perform a multitude of duties, including marine weather monitoring, and participation in search and rescue operations.
I am proud to say that a lighthouse keeper at Port Atkinson in my riding, Mr. Don Graham, has authored several major books documenting the role of light keepers on the West Coast.
Of equal importance to the duties performed by light keepers is the feeling of confidence that they inspire. Mariners know that behind the beacon of light there lies a capable and
courageous individual who will render assistance if need be, something which no machine can do.
I therefore urge the Minister of Transport, in considering whether or not to automate light stations, to examine not only the technological factors but the very important historical and human contributions made by British Columbia's keepers of the light.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise to protest violation of the human rights of a Canadian Sikh being held by the Indian police. The interrogation of Daljit Singh Sekhon by Indian anti-terrorist forces spotlights the excesses to which even sister nations of the Commonwealth sink when they fight terrorism.
The 1985 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preventive) Act gives police sweeping powers to detain people without charging them or bringing them to trial. Indian human rights groups have protested this Act which allows persons to be held without being charged for a year in India generally and for up to two years in the Punjab.
These groups have protested the way police interrogate persons under severe threats or worse, without any possibility of assistance from legal counsel.
I call on the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) to intensify his efforts to protect the human rights of Mr. Sekkon. India's 1985 Terrorist and Disruptive Activities (Preventive) Act is clearly tyrannical. It is as unfair to Indian citizens as it is to Canadian citizens. Defence of the rights of Canadians will enable the Canadian Government to seek repeal of this Draconian measure by the Government of India.



RAILWAYS


Mr. Don Ravis (Saskatoon East):: Mr. Speaker, I want to express my deep concern over the death of a fellow Saskatoni-an which occurred as a result of a railway-vehicle collision at the Sutherland crossing at Saskatoon last week.
It is my understanding that the Canadian Transport Commission has already identified this crossing as a location for upgrading, with the federal Government sharing 80 per cent of the cost and the remainder being shared by the City of Saskatoon and the railway.
September 15, 1987

I intend to raise this issue with the Minister of Transport (Mr. Crosbie) and the Canadian Transport Commission, to ensure the immediate installation of a traffic barrier for this crossing. Although we recognize that the ultimate solution lies in the construction of a grade separation, which I fully support, the implementation of traffic barriers would prohibit similar fatalities from occurring in the future.
Considering that across Canada there were 525 related accidents in 1986, I strongly believe safety procedures should be given top priority by the Canadian Transport Commission.
On a more personal note, I wish to take this opportunity to extend my deepest sympathy to the Carriere family.



HOUSING


Mr. Gilles Grondin (Saint-Maurice):: Mr. Speaker, a survey on homeless youths in Montreal done between January and June 1985 gives us a clear picture of the problems faced by these young people aged 18 to 30. Half of them have lived in foster homes or in institutions. Generally speaking, 80.3 per cent of these homeless youths have broken all ties with their family, and they have to cope with two major problems: alcoholism and/or drug abuse, and mental illness.
As a matter of fact, 23 per cent of cases studied have already undergone psychiatric treatment. Suicide attempts are common. Under such conditions, these young people find it hard to hang on to steady jobs.
The Governor of the State of Massachusetts stated recently: "Not only do homeless youths fall victim to violence and family problems, alcohol and drug abuse, and mental illness, but they also suffer from an economy which fails to provide economic benefits for everybody."
What is the Conservative Government waiting for before helping homeless youths during International Year of the Homeless?



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Mr. Speaker, further to a story in yesterday's Ottawa Citizen, it has become apparent that a study from the National Parole Board shows that earlyleave prisoners have been responsible for 130 murders in Canada in the past 12 years. The most disturbing aspect of the report is the fact that it had been completed since early this year but had not been released to Members of Parliament, nor to the public, at a time when a national debate on the whole issue of capital punishment was before this House of Commons.
Why were we as parliamentarians denied facts so important to the recent debate? I believe that Members of Parliament should have been aware of facts which detail the reality that murderers are being released to do it again.
This is in addition to a Corrections Canada study which shows an average of one murder every 50 days in prison populations of 1,000 men or less. Some murderers do not wait for parole. They repeat this heinous crime right inside the various institutions which are supposed to be reforming them.
Why did the Government release statistics showing a drop in the Canadian murder rate and fail to give equal exposure to the high rate of repeat murderers?



SOCIAL AFFAIRS


Right Hon. John N. Turner (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, on January 22, 1987, the Canadian Council on Social Development's survey of social agencies indicated 757 homeless people in Manitoba, 728 of whom were found in Winnipeg.
There are many tragedies in the phenomena of the homeless. I want to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, three of them. First, the homeless are becoming younger and younger. A survey of the clientele of the Main Street Project Hostel in Winnipeg indicated that half the people using the hostel were between 18 and 33 years of age. Second, 57 per cent of those who sought refuge at the hostel are native Canadians. The third tragedy concerns women. The average age of homeless women is less than 35 years of age.
What does this say about Canada? Let us take the opportunity that the International Year for the Shelter of the Homeless provides in order to take a good look at our social policies, to take a good look at ourselves as a nation, and to adjust our policies to the needs of those Canadians who are in dire need of our help.

September 15, 1987



S. O. 21 TRADE CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-CONDITIONS FOR ACCEPTANCE OF TREATY

Mr. John Rejmer (Kitchener):: Mr. Speaker, the Canada-United States trade negotiations are now at a very crucial stage. Elowever, Premier Peterson and Premier Pawley notwithstanding, Canadians need not fear that "the store" is about to be given away. It is worth reiterating the exact terms of the March 16 motion tabled by the Mulroney Government, namely:
That this House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as part of the Government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our political sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
Thesp are the very explicit conditions under which an agreement would be acceptable to the federal Government. It is self-evident that the conditions outlined by Premier Peterson have already been addressed by the federal Government and I would, therefore, encourage him to get fully on board and support the Government's efforts toward improved trade and, thereby, greater economic growth.
To conclude, let it be emphasized that these negotiations are within federal jurisdiction and are being undertaken with this nation's best interests in view. Anything less than that will simply not be acceptable.



HUMAN RIGHTS


Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, today Parliament celebrates the presence in our city of Mr. Natan Shcharansky whose current freedom is a tribute to Mr. Shcharansky's enormous personal courage and determination, and a sign to all who cherish human rights that persistent international pressure such as this Parliament helped to generate in the case of Mr. Shcharansky can and does have an effect.
Mr. Shcharansky's message to Canadians, as I understand it, is that though we should be encouraged by glasnost in the Soviet Union we should not grow becalmed, that the notoriety of his release and that of others should nof cause us to forget or diminish our efforts on behalf of the many others who have yet to be released, who have yet to receive the freedom that is theirs by virtue of being human, whether it be Jews who want to go to Israel, or Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, or others who want more political freedom. I am sure that I speak for all parliamentarians when I call on the Soviet Union to redress this moral flaw in the life of their country and heed the prophetic message of old to "set the captives free".




Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, as Chairman of the Canadian Parliamentary Group for Soviet Jewry, I would like to welcome officially Natan, or as we know him Anatoly, Shcharansky to the nation's capital and to the House of Commons.
Mr. Shcharansky, a leading activist in the Soviet Union, was arrested in 1977 and convicted of treason, espionage and antiSoviet activities, and sentenced to 13 years in prison. From the start his wife Avital began a lonely world-wide vigil to tell the true story of the injustice which had been committed by the U.S.S.R. Canada was the first country in the world to recognize the plight of Anatoly Shcharansky and to speak out against the Soviet Union for its human rights violations.
The release of Shcharansky on February 11, 1986, marked the end of a nine-year, world-wide campaign to secure his release. None of us can imagine the pain, anguish and loneliness which Anatoly endured during his incarceration. Two lengthy hunger strikes may have compromised his longterm health. But Shcharansky, who had become a symbol of the fight for human rights, never gave up hope. Mr. Shcharansky's journey to freedom continues to give hope to the many thousands of refuseniks and prisoners of conscience who are still being denied their basic human rights.
I believe we should withhold any premature widespread condemnation or applause for Gorbachev's new policy of openness, or glasnost, even though we welcome the recent release of several prominent refuseniks.
I want to advise Mr. Shcharansky that he can count on Canadian parliamentarians, together with Canadians throughout the country, to continue the battle for human rights in the Soviet Union.



FARM CREDIT CORPORATION


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) raised the long-term lending rate for Farm Credit Corporation loans for the second time this summer to 12.25 per cent. At a time when the inflation rate in our country is only 4 per cent this means that the real rate of interest for farm loans is over 8 per cent, one of the highest rates in history.
Last week a confidential report of the Farm Credit Corporation revealed that over 11,500 farm mortgages, involving $1.5 billion, are in serious financial difficulty, cash flow problems, or subject to foreclosure.
September 15, 1987

The move to raise FCC interest rates at a time when thousands of farm families are facing the loss of their farms is a cruel and mean-minded act by the Minister of Agriculture. I call on the Government to take action and to put the Farm Credit Corporation on a sound financial footing so that it can help farm families stay on the land.



NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD


Mr. Jim Jepson (London East):: Mr. Speaker, more than 100 killings over the past 12 years were committed by inmates released from prisons on parole or mandatory supervision, a National Parole Board study has found. Between 1975 and 1976 there were 473 releases on parole of convicted murderers. There were 457 actual murderers paroled but, believe it or not, 15 were released twice or three times.
In the same 12 years, 130 inmates released on mandatory supervision or parole were returned to prison before the end of their supervision for killing again-90 for murder and 40 for manslaughter. It is hard to believe that we could be so lax in carrying out justice in our country for those taking another person's life.
It is high time that a life sentence of 25 years meant just that, not 10 or 15 years if a person qualifies with good behaviour for parole. Again I say that it is time to focus on the protection and rights of the public at large rather than the rights of those who would indiscriminately take an innocent person's life.



WESTERN DIVERSIFICATION FUND


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, I wish to address my comments to the Government concerning the Western Diversification Fund, and the desperate need of single-industry communities in western Canada, particularly in British Columbia, to receive fair consideration under this program, and not only the major cities.
The Western Diversification Fund managers should not only use the budget of $1.2 billion to enhance programs in western Canada, but they must also use their influence with other federal Departments to have them pay greater attention to western Canada and to single-industry communities. They must encourage those Departments to remove discriminatory and harmful criteria such as cost recovery to the federal Government, in considering major projects. Many of those
communities may not be able to pay the cost recovery but they need federal infrastructure to draw down additional business in the diversification process.
I would point to communities such as Tahsis, which needs a road to offset the negative effects of a sawmill shut-down; Port Hardy which needs a federal wharf to offset the massive impact of the closure of a mine; Bella Bella, a native community, which needs a roll-off, roll-on ferry loading facility to cut an enormous cost of living in that community.
This fund, and the influence of the managers, can do a great service to western Canada, and to single-industry communities. Hopefully the Minister and the Government will recognize that and act.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Ross Belsher (Fraser Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, yesterday in Vancouver the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. Siddon) announced a three-party, out-of-court settlement to the protracted legal dispute over Alcan Aluminum Limited's use of water flows from the Nechako River in north central British Columbia.
It is gratifying to note that the Minister, the Province of British Columbia and Alcan, were able to reach this agreement which is an intelligent and environmentally responsive solution to a long-standing, counter-productive legal dispute. This settlement will result in the conservation and protection of the fish stocks of the Nechako water systems, while ensuring that Alcan will be able to proceed with the hydroelectric development.
The adjacent Nanika-Morice river systems which feed the Skeena River will be saved in perpetuity from future damming and diversion by Alcan.
Once again this shows that when both senior levels of government and industry together with our fishery scientists put their heads together to work through a problem, we do not have to subject ourselves to a long legal struggle and court battles.
My congratulations to all of the parties involved.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, we all know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney)

September 15, 1987
Oral Questions
is a close friend of the United States President, Ronald Reagan, and other Republicans in high places.
Today I have a copy of a newspaper article in hand from The Press Democrat Empire News-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member may wish to refer to some words in an article, but I ask that he not wave the newspaper around.


Don Boudria: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I wish to read an article from the newspaper which is very embarrassing to the Tories who are grunting across the way. The article is entitled, "Sen. Wilson lambastes Canada", and in part it states:
Wilson, the author of legislation attacking what he sees as overseas trade barriers, said "the next market we've really got to crack is the Canadians'. They are turning from being good neighbours to being absolute bastards."
On behalf of all Canadians I demand an apology from that United States Senator. I think that the Prime Minister should issue a letter of protest to President Reagan, and demand an apology on behalf of all Canadians for that insult to every single Canadian citizen.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, for the past two and a half years when we in the House have directed questions to the Prime Minister or members of his Government asking whether the Auto Pact was on the table in the free trade negotiations with the United States, we have been improperly accused by the Prime Minister and his Ministers, and I use some of the words, of "cheap shots, insults, sniping, scare tactics, fear mongering, continual harping, and scurrilous comments".


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Napier Turner: Time and again the Government has said, Mr. Speaker, and 1 quote from Hansard: "The Auto Pact is not on the table".


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


John Napier Turner: "The Auto Pact is not on the table".


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


John Napier Turner: "The Auto Pact is not on the table".


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


John Napier Turner: "The Auto Pact is not on the table".


Some Hon. Members:: Right.


John Napier Turner: Now we learn, Mr. Speaker, no thanks to the Prime Minister, that the Auto Pact is on the table.


Some Hon. Members:: Shame!


John Napier Turner: When will the Prime Minister tell Canadians why it is that he has been misleading this House and Canadians for the last two and a half years, or has he been incredibly naive throughout these negotiations?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to make it very clear to this House that the Auto Pact is not on the table. I can also assure the House that we have seen no proposals from the Americans.
I can only repeat what we have said many, many times in this House. The latest example would be June 22 when I told the House that Canada does not intend to put the Auto Pact on the table. We believe, as I have told the House, that it is working well. If the Americans wish to make any proposals, which they have not yet done, to increase employment, increase production and increase investment in Canada, we will look at them. That was the position then, and that is the position today.


REQUEST THAT CANADA WITHDRAW FROM NEGOTIATIONS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, a Canadian Press story confirms-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: Confirms?


John Napier Turner: -"U.S. negotiators have given official notice that they intend to discuss automotive issues in the free trade talks with the United States, a federal official confirmed today". That was confirmed by several of the Premiers last night and again this morning on television.
Let me say to the Prime Minister that the Americans have outnegotiated us during the course of these negotiations, on almost everything. We have given away an energy policy; we have given away a foreign investment review policy; we have given away book publishing, we have given away drug prices-


Mr. Mazankowski:: What about the National Energy Program?


John Napier Turner: -we have given away softwood lumber, we have given away potash-


Donald Frank Mazankowski: And what about the NEP?
September 15, 1987


John Napier Turner: -and now we are going to give away the Auto Pact. In return the Prime Minister and his Minister haven't got a single thing for Canada throughout the course of these negotiations.
Will the Prime Minister tell Canadians that he is prepared to walk away from these negotiations if the United States refuses to take the Auto Pact off the table and refuses to take it away as a matter of discussion in these free trade negotiations?


Right Hon. Brian Mulroney (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, my right hon. friend began by saying that the Auto Pact was on the table. Then he issued as a justification for his statement a CP story which said that "automotive issues" will be discussed.


John Napier Turner: Well?


Martin Brian Mulroney: My right hon. friend says "Well". There is a world of difference between the two. The fact of the matter is that my right hon. friend has just contradicted his first question. The Americans indicated on Friday night that they intended to submit for our considerations views on automotive issues.


An Hon. Member:: Such as?


Martin Brian Mulroney: As the Minister has indicated, if those issues result in advantages to Canada, if they result in greater employment in Canada, greater opportunities for Canada, we will take a look at them. That is the objective of the exercise. There is nothing at all that has been said or done at the table that is inconsistent with the views expressed by the Minister or myself on behalf of the Government.
A comprehensive trade agreement is one that we are seeking in the national interests of Canada. If it creates jobs, brings greater employment to our regions, a greater sense of fairness, new prosperity, as an instrument then we will bring it forward for consideration. If it does not, as I have said from the beginning, there will be no deal. We believe that we should pursue, seek to pursue and continue to pursue an instrument that possibly, possibly, could bring greater prosperity to Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S STATEMENT-FUTURE OF AUTO WORKERS
John Napier Turner: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister neglected to use the opportunity given to him in the House to deny that the Auto Pact was on the table. Several of the Premiers have indicated quite strongly that that was the communication they received during their meeting with the Prime Minister yesterday.

Although on June 23 the Minister of International Trade stated, to quote her own terms: "The Auto Pact is not on the
Oral Questions
table", today the Government is vague-to put it mildly-on that matter. Does that mean that the workers employed in the automobile industry should have to face the same situation as those employed in the lumber industry or in the potash industry?
Does that mean that our automobile workers will have the same fate awaiting them as the lumber workers and fishermen had, and as those in the potash industry have already endured?

Is the Prime Minister so desperately bent on reaching an agreement with the United States that he will trade off anything to reach that goal?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, this is difficult reasoning to follow when the OECD has just announced that Canada has the strongest, most powerful growing economy in the western industrialized world.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Martin Brian Mulroney: It is even stranger when one considers that in excess of 900,000 new jobs have been created in the less than three years since this Government was sworn in and that 417,000 of them have been created in Ontario, largely as a part of this Government's strong support for the Auto Pact and our defence of the automotive industry.
In terms of employment prospects, my right hon. friend may want to give me some information if he has some. I can only refer to the objective data that are available. For example, if a free trade arrangement is secured and if it is brought forward, the Economic Council of Canada says that it could mean in excess of 350,000 new jobs in Canada, and many of those tens of thousands of jobs will be in regions such as Newfoundland, the interior of British Columbia, the Prairies and northern Quebec, where jobs are desperately required. Unemployment is now down to 5.8 per cent in Ontario and we hope that that kind of prosperity can be shared across the country.


DISCUSSION OF AUTOMOTIVE ISSUES
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister. A Canadian Press dispatch reports as follows:
U.S. negotiators have given official notice they intend to discuss automotive
issues in free trade talks with Canada, a federal official confirmed today.
Tim Ralfe, spokesman for Trade Minister Pat Carney, said the U.S.
negotiating team raised the issue Friday night as two days of talks with
Canadian officials ended in Washington.
How can the United States discuss automotive issues with Canada without at the same time discussing, directly or indirectly, the Canada-U.S. Auto Pact? Surely there is no way to discuss auto issues between our two countries without the

September 15, 1987
Oral Questions
Auto Pact coming up. Why does the Prime Minister not admit this and say now that he will insist that the Auto Pact not come onto the table, directly or indirectly? Why does the Prime Minister not take a stand now for Canada and Canadian workers?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has just confirmed the contradictions and the confusion in his own Party. I can simply repeat what we have said before. There are no proposals on the table. We do not know what the Americans are proposing to put on the table. We have said repeatedly that we are not prepared to put any proposals on the table. If the Americans do put proposals on the table, we will look at them and, if they are in the national interest and are good for Canada, we will consider them.
The Hon. Member should be the one person in this House who knows that according to the Auto Pact, "at any time at the request of either Government, the two Governments shall consult"-and I am reading from the text-"with respect to any matter relating to this agreement". They are free to bring this forward at any time.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, has the Minister not just admitted that what the Americans did Friday night was to give notice they want to discuss the Auto Pact? Does she not stand condemned out of her own mouth-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -in saying that the Americans are ready to discuss the Auto Pact and the Government is ready to sit down with them for that purpose?
I want to ask the Minister specifically why it was necessary for the Americans to give notice Friday night that they wanted to discuss automotive issues if this was simply part of an ongoing discussion. Let the Minister now admit that there is a new and disastrous turn to the discussions-


Charles Joseph Clark: You are a joke, Herb.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: -and if the Government is not going to take a stand against that turn, it will be irreparably harmful to the Canadian economy and Canadian workers.


Pat Carney: No,
Mr. Speaker.


POSITION OF UNITED STATES NEGOTIATORS
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, someone noticed, and probably Bill Jarvis will remark, that I have taken a significant step to the left, but I-


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question is directed to the Prime Minister. I want to say at the outset-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Why not move down a few more seats?


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say-


Thomas Scott Fennell: Lloyd is not here today.


John Edward Broadbent: -that he has observed the Ontario economy has been doing well. The reason is we have had in place since 1965-


Some Hon. Members:: Free trade!


John Edward Broadbent: -an automotive agreement. It is not a free trade agreement. It required investment in Canada and we do not want to put an end to it.


Charles Joseph Clark: You were against it then.


John Edward Broadbent: It seems pretty clear that most of the Premiers came out of the meeting yesterday concerned that the Government was heading for a desperate deal rather than a good deal with the U.S.


Charles Joseph Clark: Name one.


John Edward Broadbent: The Americans are boasting-


Mr. McDermid:: Who said that, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: -that they have four concessions from the Canadians so far, including-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Americans are boasting they got four major concessions, including slashing Canadian tariffs, opening new sectors of the Canadian economy to U.S. investment, changes in our drug patent legislation, and changes in investment as it affects services, during the discussions on a free trade initiative with Canada. They have made all these significant gains in the discussions. Could the Prime Minister assure Canadians that he is not heading for a desperate deal by giving us a similar list of gains Canada made in those discussions?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the significant gains will be submitted to the House at the conclusion of the negotiations. If the transaction, a very important commercial transaction, is deemed to be in the national interest by the Government of Canada, it will be brought forward for consideration, as it should be.
Oftentimes opinions change. For example, when the federal Government went in 22 years ago to unilaterally, without consultation with the Province of Ontario, negotiate the Auto Pact, that was denounced by many members of the NDP as being inimical to the interests of Ontario. It turned out to be
September 15, 1987

the greatest bonanza Ontario and Canada have ever seen. The Hon. Member may want to wait to see the final text because a few years from now he will probably be saluting me as one of the finest Prime Ministers negotiating-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nystrom:: Even Maz is laughing.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, all I would say to the Prime Minister is: Sir, don't hold your breath.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Even Joe laughed.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Joe wants him to hold his breath.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: You did better in the other seat, Ed.


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it is appropriate for the Chair to note that some of the Members who have not been recognized but who insist on exchanging views with others are on lists I have here to ask questions later on.


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
[Translation\


CONCESSIONS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister himself stated yesterday that the Americans had not addressed Canadian concerns. Can he explain to the people of Canada why the Canadian Government has made all the concessions, while the Americans have not made any?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Of course, Mr. Speaker, that is a totally erroneous statement by the New Democratic Leader. In fact, we will be in a position to make a value judgement on the contents of the documents only after the negotiations are completed. I already made a formal commitment that if the document were to be consistent with our national interest, the Government of course would submit it to the Canadian Parliament. Three weeks before the deadline is not the time to state whether it is good or not. While referring to the First Ministers, the New Democratic Leader said-

-that they were desperate coming out of the meeting. That is very far removed from the truth. We had very good and careful discussions with the First Ministers.
On something of compelling national interest, the conduct of this Government in negotiating a complex free trade deal with the U.S., trying to create jobs and bring greater prosperity to Canada, and doing it in consultation with the provinces, is a far cry from some years ago when a predecessor Government went in and unilaterally imposed that kind of decision without
Oral Questions
so much as a by-your-leave from the Government and people of Ontario.


Mr. Tobin:: You just said it was a good deal.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Indeed, it was a good deal. It is the philosophy of free trade in automotive products that we are trying to spread across the country to engender wealth throughout the regions of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, our notion of trade certainly does not include the notion that Canada is up for sale. That is the deal the Prime Minister is making.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Government has already made concessions in pulp and paper, tubular steel, pharmaceutical products, publishing and, in the last 48 hours, in agricultural programs and the Auto Pact. The Prime Minister cannot name a single concession the Americans have made. Therefore, can he explain to the people of Canada why we should accept his word that he is winning these negotiations with the Americans?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, I would just remind my hon. friend that on behalf of the Government the Minister for International Trade offered to take the Leader of the NDP into her full confidence regarding the details of the trade negotiations.


John Horton McDermid: After it was requested.


Martin Brian Mulroney: After a request by a member of his own Party. We thought that was a mature and sensible way to proceed.


John Edward Broadbent: To shut us up.


Martin Brian Mulroney: No, so you would have all the information on a confidential basis in support of the Canadian negotiators.
My hon. friend throws off quite easily scare tactics and shibboleths, for example: "Canada is not for sale", the implication being, of course, that Canada is opposed to foreign investment. The Hon. Member is opposed to foreign investment in Canada unless it is in Oshawa, in which case he is very much in favour of it.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF ANATOLY SHCHARANSKY
Mr. Speaker:: I would like to remind Hon. Members that on March 26, 1982, and again on November 4, 1982, the

September 15, 1987
Oral Questions
Canadian House of Commons resolved unanimously to call on the Soviet Union to immediately grant the release from detention of Anatoly Shcharansky pursuant to the terms of the Helsinki Accord.
It is therefore my pleasure to draw all Hon. Members' attention to the presence in the Speaker's Gallery of Mr. Anatoly Shcharansky.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Mr. John Nunziata (York South-Weston):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and concerns the conduct of the Solicitor General. He knows that Canadians are fast losing confidence in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service and it is all because of the negligence of the Solicitor General. Yesterday in the House the Solicitor General said that there are some minor problems in the Security Service and that they are being dealt with.
The Solicitor General made those comments in light of the departure last week of Ted Finn, the Director, in light of the departure of four of the five directors, in light of false affidavits, in light of jurisdictional battles between the Security Service and the RCMP, in light of low morale, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.
Will the Prime Minister not immediately seek the resignation of the Solicitor General for conduct unbecoming a Solicitor General of Canada and for his gross negligence in the handling of the Air India investigation?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, there appears to be an allegation of some negligence in the handling of the Air India investigation. I am not aware of such negligence. If he has some evidence to support that rather startling statement I wish he would supply it to me and I will undertake an immediate investigation in that regard.


PREPARATION OF FALSE AFFIDAVIT
John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, the Solicitor General knows that the Liberal Party has asked for a Royal commission inquiry on seven separate occasions over the last 12 months because of some very serious allegations regarding the conduct of the Security Intelligence Service. He knows that the Review Committee has also expressed serious concerns about intelligence gathering with regard to that particular investigation.
We now know that the Security Intelligence Service-


Mr. Speaker:: I ask the Hon. Member to put his question.


John V. Nunziata: Mr. Speaker, can the Minister indicate to the House why a false affidavit was sworn by Mr. Archie Barr and why the Minister's predecessor, the present Minister of National Revenue, endorsed a particular application for a search warrant? Can he indicate whether the previous Solicitor General was aware that the affidavit was false?


Charles Joseph Clark: Wiggle and slide.


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, it is a little difficult to know what question to answer. The Member began by asking about the Air India investigation. The Member talks about serious allegations. If he has such allegations I ask him to please make them in this House. I would also like to hear him make them outside the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

[ Translation]


FREE TRADE-AGRICULTURE-STABILIZATION PROGRAMS- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Steven W. Langdon (Essex-Windsor):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Premier Devine has indicated that the United States had requested that in the area of agriculture, a free trade agreement should abolish the stabilization programs that are so important to our farmers. I would like a specific answer from the Prime Minister. Can he promise that those programs will not be included in that agreement, despite the requests by the Americans?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind the House that if we are successful in concluding this agreement with the U.S. it will be the largest trade agreement in history. It will be of major significance. In assessing that agreement the Prime Minister has regularly told the House, as have I and other Ministers, that if it is not in the interests of Canada, if it is not good for the country, there will be no deal.
The scare tactics which the NDP is engaged in will be seen by Canadians for what they are, attempts to scuttle a deal which is good for Canada by an Opposition which is flatly against it.


PRIME MINISTER'S POSITION
Steven W. Langdon: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister is not a humble man.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Not like the rest of us.
September 15, 1987


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps the Hon. Member, having made that assertion, could put his question very succinctly.


Steven W. Langdon: I agree, Mr. Speaker, that it might be argumentative.
In view of this, would the Prime Minister be prepared to look at the list of concessions which we have lost in these negotiations and take this opportunity to boast a little to the Canadian people and tell us of one concession which the Canadian people have managed to get from the Americans through this negotiation process?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, may I say in all humility-


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Martin Brian Mulroney: -and that is difficult-to my hon. friend that, as he knows and as the Minister for International Trade has indicated, we are trying to negotiate a complex and challenging document which could have very beneficial effects for Canadians.
As my hon. friend knows, one of the serious problems in Canada is a tremendous concentration of prosperity in some of the central provinces with that degree of prosperity not being equally shared in the regions from Newfoundland to British Columbia. One of the ways to diminish this disparity and provide for greater prosperity in the regions is to provide for greater trade in and to attract greater investment to the regions.
All of the studies so far have indicated that there would be a tremendously beneficial effect upon employment across Canada if we were able to conclude this kind of an agreement. Surely my hon. friend will not reproach the Government of Canada for having the vision and courage to engage in an important international negotiation which may very well bring much needed prosperity, growth, opportunity and equality to the regions of Canada.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. The Solicitor General is responsible for two agencies which share responsibility for national security. If the Minister wants allegations, I allege that the relationship has failed. The RCMP is withholding police information, files, and CPIC access from the security agency and the security agency has been withholding intelligence about a major security matter from the RCMP.
Oral Questions
In light of this failed relationship which is responsible for a total deterioration of national security, how can he not do the honourable thing and resign?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I am not aware of what is behind the allegations the Hon. Member has made. If he would be good enough to provide that to me I would be more than happy to look into it.
With regard to the relationship between the RCMP and CSIS, I can advise the Hon. Member that one of the first things I attended to upon becoming Solicitor General was to call both parties in and discuss the problem of their relationship. We installed new programs and procedures. We have liaison officers appointed now in each service. We have a major liaison committee which oversees their activities. I am happy to advise him that today there is a good and complete sharing of information between the two agencies.


MINISTER'S ANSWER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Prime Minister. This is the first occasion of a Minister in trouble where the Prime Minister has not rushed to his feet to defend the Minister. I invite him to do so in this case. Is he satisfied with the answer that the Minister has just given, that there are no problems in the relationship between the RCMP and the security service?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister has complete confidence in me to be able to answer such a scurrilous question.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Etobicoke North.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Bob Pennock (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Today I gave the Minister notice of questions I intend to place on the Order Paper related to the possible conflict of interest at the senior management level of the CBC.
In light of the delays which might result in obtaining answers, and the very serious nature of this, will the Minister take action now to initiate an immediate investigation?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, I notice that the Hon. Member has said he is submitting questions for the Order Paper. I want to assure him and you, Mr. Speaker, that I will look at those questions as soon as I receive them and provide whatever answers are possible.

September 15, 1987
Oral Questions


Robert Pennock: Supplementary.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member for Burnaby.


CANADIAN SECURITY INTELLIGENCE SERVICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. He will know that, according to the Security Intelligence Review Committee, it is the Solicitor General's personal responsibility to ensure the accuracy of information contained in affidavits which are used for warrants.
In view of the obvious failure of his predecessor to exercise his responsibilities to review these assertions carefully, will he undertake to the House and the people of Canada that he will review all of the warrants which were issued under the tenure of his predecessor, to ensure that they were not similarly the subject of lies, of reliance on unreliable informants? Will he not accept that there is a very serious risk that the civil liberties of Canadians have been violated because of the derogation of responsibility by his predecessor?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the premise of the Hon. Member's question that there was any derogation on the part of the former Solicitor General in question, or indeed any Solicitor General.
The Hon. Member knows full well that the Solicitor General's role under the Act is to ensure that the request for a warrant meets the test of Section 12 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and is strictly necessary for the security of Canada. I am quite satisfied from my investigation that all former Solicitors General indeed met that test of their responsibility.
However, with respect to the veracity of the facts contained in the affidavit, as I advised the Hon. Member in this House the other day, I have ordered a complete audit of all warrants to ensure that no other inaccuracies exist.


ALLEGED INFILTRATION OF CNTU BY DOUBLE AGENT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Mr. Speaker, it is quite clear that the Canadian Security Intelligence Service is facing a crisis and that this Minister is incompetent and should resign.
Last Friday, the Crown Attorney in the Marc Boivin case openly confirmed that Mr. Boivin was a double agent infiltrated into the CNTU and paid by the CSIS.
My question is this: How can this Minister explain that infiltration of the Quebec labour movement by the CSIS, an
infiltration that recalls the worst days of RCMP abuse in Quebec in the past? How can he justify that infiltration?


James Francis Kelleher: Mr. Speaker, I have answered similar questions from the Hon. Member on other occasions. All I can do is repeat what I said on previous occasions. Mr. Boivin himself has admitted that he was a source. He was never an agent of CSIS. We do not have the authority under the CSIS Act to target a labour union. We never have and we never will. If he has evidence to that effect, I would ask him to please put forward the facts on which that allegation is made.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Raymond Garneau (Laval-Des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion and the Minister of State for Science and Technology, I shall address my question to the Prime Minister.
My question concerns regional development in the Gaspe Peninsula and the North Shore region. The Journal de Montreal had an article some time ago saying that the federal Government was dragging its feet about the Matane project. There was also an article quoting the comments of the Conservative Member for Matane who had reportedly stated that this issue had become essentially political. He invited his Government to respect the commitments made to the population of Matapedia-Matane.
I therefore ask the Prime Minister whether he intends to keep this commitment, as requested by the Conservative Member of Parliament for this constituency, and when his Government will make an announcement about providing assistance for a paper mill in the Matane region, which would create 300 jobs.


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, the Matane project is now being considered. It is an important project as it involves job creation in a region which greatly needs more jobs. I presume that there will be an announcement in due time by both Governments and by the private sector.
In view of the situation in Quebec, the important thing would be for the Quebec leader of the Liberal Party to tell us exactly his position on Bill C-22, which would create 1,300 new jobs in the Montreal region. At this very moment, the non-elected Liberal sernators are strangling economic development in Greater Montreal, and I invite the Hon. Member to take a position for the Quebec population and to say no to the Liberal Senate.
September 15, 1987


MINERAL EXPLORATION IN SCHEFFERVILLE AND SEPT-ILES REGIONS-FLOW-THROUGH SHARES-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Raymond Garneau: Mr. Speaker, as my colleague is pointing out, this is not of much help to the Matane workers who are trying to find a job. My question is not about pharmaceutical products. If the Prime Minister wants to know my position on that issue, he just has to read Hansard as I have already spoken about it.
Mr. Speaker, the Matane project is important, but unemployment has reached 25 percent in Sept-Iles. I was there a few days ago. Houses are boarded up and unemployment is over 25 percent. This is what I want to ask the Prime Minister. Could he sit down with his Minister of Finance to consider giving the North Shore region, as in the case of the Abitibi, the possibility of using flow-through shares to promote mining development in the Schefferville and Sept-Iles regions and to stimulate the economy of a region whose unemployment rate is totally unacceptable even though the population has gone down from 40,000 to 25,000?


Martin Brian Mulroney: Mr. Speaker, am I to understand that the Hon. Member, who is Leader of the Liberal Party for Quebec, is now saying that he would like the Liberal Senate to give approval to this legislation so that we may create 1,300 jobs in the Montreal region?


Mr. Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the Right Hon. Prime Minister, but both the question and, as a consequence perhaps, the answer, are getting very argumentative.


NATURAL RESOURCES
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. While opposing in principle the private ownership and control of rivers anywhere in Canada, I, as many others, would like to congratulate the Minister for saving in perpetuity the Nanika-Morice river systems in their natural state.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Ross Fulton: In the face of the profound historic sensitivity and interest in the effects of the Alcan hydroelectric project on the Nechako and Fraser systems, why has the Minister chosen not to involve or appoint even one northern or native representative to participate directly in the flow management of the Nechako?
Oral Questions


Hon. Thomas Siddon (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to extend to my colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena, my thanks for the compliment he has paid in having reached what I think is a landmark settlement of a difficult problem which will permit development to proceed in northwestern British Columbia while at the same time ensuring that the fish stocks are conserved, maintained and enhanced in the future. I thank him for that.
I also want to compliment the Hon. Member in his new capacity as spokesman for the energy industry on behalf of the New Democratic Party. It is going to make for some pretty interesting debates in the House.
In the process of consultation, which led up to the conclusion of this agreement yesterday in Vancouver, we have had many hours of discussion with affected groups in northern British Columbia, in the Hon. Member's own constituency, and that dialogue will continue, as it is continuing today as my colleague, the Minister of State for Science and Technology, travels to meet many of these groups to ensure that they know of our invitation to become fully involved in the plan to implement measures to preserve and enhance fish values. That involvement will continue unobstructed into the long term future.


HYDROELECTRIC DEVELOPMENT BENEFITS
James Ross Fulton: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same Minister. Since Alcan did not deliver on the vague promises it made some 37 years ago in 1950, I would like to ask the Minister why he failed to include in the agreement any terms of reference for Alcan's new hydro project to ensure that the substantial benefits of the development accrue to those northern communities and groups which are affected by this development.


Mr. St. Germain:: They will. Come on, Jim, you know they will.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Mr. Speaker, I think the question has been answered from the rear here.
As the Vice-President of Alcan for British Columbia conceded yesterday, much has changed in 37 years. I am convinced of the commitment of Alcan and the Government of British Columbia, and all parties to this agreement, and of their willingness to live up to the spirit of our fish habitat policy in the agreement they signed yesterday to ensure that benefits flow to the native communities and to all the communities in that important part of British Columbia.


Mr. Speaker:: This is the last question of Question Period. The Hon. Member for Algoma.

September 15, 1987
8958______________________________________
Point of Order-Mr. Riis TRADE


CANADA-UNITED STATES NEGOTIATIONS-DOMESTIC PRICE OF WHEAT
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. Last night the provincial Premiers indicated a great deal of pessimism about progress in the free trade talks with the United States concerning agricultural programs and indicated that different formulas are being considered to get an agreement. What assurance can the Minister give that the Canadian Wheat Board and Canada's right to set the domestic price of wheat will not be bartered away in the free trade negotiations?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, these negotiations are in their most critical and sensitive stage. The negotiators are meeting all the time and Cabinet is meeting all the time on this issue. It would not be in the national interest to give specific positions at any given time on any given issue. That would hurt and harm the national interest in the negotiations.
I can only assure the Hon. Member by repeating what the Prime Minister has said on many occasions. It has to be a good deal for all of Canada. It has got to benefit all of Canada. It has got to meet our objectives. I am sure the Hon. Member can be reassured by that viewpoint.


Mr. Speaker:: The final question.


CANADIAN POSITION
Maurice Brydon Foster: Mr. Speaker, since these various scenarios are being considered by the Government, I wonder what it might trade off to get a deal, since that is being proposed by the Government? Can the Minister make it clear that agricultural programs, our supply management system, marketing boards and support programs will not be bartered away in the final hours of the negotiations a couple of weeks from this Sunday evening, or whenever that occurs?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, there are no such scenarios. There are no such tradeoffs.


Maurice Brydon Foster: Premier Bourassa says there are.


Pat Carney: There is no agreement until there is an agreement. So the suggestion that there are trade-offs is simply not true. We have been explicit in this House on our position on these issues of marketing boards. Once again I refer the Hon. Member to the debate which took place in this House on March 16 and the motion we introduced which states:
That this House supports the negotiation of a bilateral trading arrangement with the United States, as part of the Government's multilateral trade policy, while protecting our policy sovereignty, social programs, agricultural marketing systems, the auto industry, and our unique cultural identity.
Those are the goals of the free trade agreement. Those are the goals we must achieve if there is to be a free trade agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Before proceeding with the ruling which it is my obligation to bring to the House, I want to indicate to the Hon. Member for St. John's East (Mr. Harris) that occasionally a Speaker perhaps does depart from the list. I know the Hon. Member will understand that. I am sure that tomorrow or at another time, I will endeavour-in fact, I will make a commitment-he will be recognized. I know he will understand.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Speaker:: On September 1, 1987, the Hon. Member for Kamploops-Shuswap (Mr. Riis) raised a point of order relating to the circumstances surrounding the taking of a deferred division at six o'clock p.m. on August 31, specifically his concern that the bells had rung for longer than the 15 minute period provided for under the terms of Standing Order 13(5) under which the division was being taken. He spoke of the disruption to "orderly business" when Members expecting a division at a given time were made to wait beyond the appointed hour.
The Chair welcomes the Hon. Member's timely intervention on this important matter and wishes to thank other Hon. Members who offered their views on the same point.

The Hon. Member for Saint-Jacques referred to the provisions of the Standing Order which specifically states that the bells must be rung for 15 minutes at the most. He also mentioned the time-honoured tradition of the Whips' simultaneous entrance into the House to indicate that Hon. Members are ready to vote.

The Hon. Minister of State for the Treasury Board (Mr. Lewis) pointed out that "this is one of the rules of the House which works both ways at various times", and that this flexibility was not, in his view, being abused by the Opposition Parties, or by the Government.

The Hon. Member for Bourassa (Mr. Rossi) referred to the informal agreement which governs the Whips' entrance.

The Hon. Member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie) reminded the House of the extensive scrutiny which the special committee on reform of the House had given to division bells.
September 15, 1987



The Chair thanks all Elon. Members for their contribution to this question.

The concept of divisions lies at the very heart of the work of any deliberative assembly. Here in this place, the process whereby the House decides the questions before it has, at various times, been the focus of considerable attention by Hon. Members. Our procedure is, of course, laid down in the Standing Orders, but this codification is mitigated by the practice which has grown up over time. Thus, there is the time-honoured convention whereby the entrance of the Government and Opposition Whips to the Chamber signals to the Chair they are ready for the division to be taken.
This convention is nowhere codified, but it is regularly invoked, and its judicious use provides a practical mechanism for taking into account unexpected circumstances affecting one side or another and for allowing ad hoc arrangements to be made by the Whips in coping with these exigencies. The sort of accommodation this tradition permits represents the best traditions of this place in extending courtesies from one Party to another. There is always, however, the danger that in so doing we stray too far beyond the parameters of the rules. This is clearly what happened on August 31 where a 15-minute bell rang for 30 minutes before the Whips entered and the division was called.
A review of the recorded divisions in the second session of this Parliament provides a revealing and, I believe, reassuring glimpse of our current practice. Of 148 designated division bells-that is, bells to be rung for no more than 15 or 30 minutes in accordance with the Standing Orders-60 per cent were rung precisely for the designated time, while the time ran over in some 40 per cent of the cases. It is important to note, however, that in the great majority of these overruns-52 out of 59 instances-the extra time taken was less than five minutes and, in the seven worst cases, the longest overrun was 11 minutes on a 30-minute bell. These figures offer compelling evidence of the good faith of Hon. Members and testify to the even-handedness that has guided the Parties and their Whips in responsibly exercising the flexibility afforded them by convention.
The division on August 31 represents, in the light of these figures, an egregious example. The Chair realizes that, even in this instance, the Whips' decision to delay their entrance was made in a spirit of generosity and courtesy and that there was no intention to thwart the spirit of the Standing Orders. But even if the August 31 incident is an anomaly, and the evidence suggests that it is, the Chair shares with Hon. Members profound misgivings about the direction that such an incident might eventually portend. Since the circumstances of this particular instance are devoid of controversy, it is perhaps an
Point of Order-Mr. Riis
opportune time to step back and examine the larger dilemma that the Chair faces with regard to division bells.

While reviewing precedents in this respect, the Chair examined a similar case which occurred on November 2, 1982 when the 15-minute bell actually lasted for 33 minutes. Responding to a point of order, the Chair referred to the agreement between Whips and stated that it felt bound by it and would act accordingly.

By contrast, the McGrath Committee's third report, in discussing the stringent time limitations that electronic voting would impose, took the opposite view, stating:
Some may feel that this limiting of time for voting removes flexibility from
the House. Your committee is of the opinion that the House of Commons can
no longer enjoy the luxury of waiting for a few Members to arrive for a vote.
These conflicting approaches neatly summarize two options: rigid adherence to the letter of the Standing Orders versus unflagging support for the Whips' convention. In the opinion of the Chair, under current circumstances and with prevailing attitudes, either option is extreme and each carries with it its own perils.
On the one hand, strict adherence to the terms of the Standing Orders constrains the Whips from exercising their judgment and accommodating circumstances on a case-by-case basis. On the other hand, the surrender of the matter entirely to the Whips' convention potentially leaves the House thrall to the political climate of the moment, and to the possibility of questions not being decided expeditiously.
The Chair accepts the responsibility for ensuring the orderly conduct of House business, but would be reluctant independently to invoke the letter of the Standing Orders when it appears that the House, in its wisdom, has chosen to give itself some leeway. At the same time, as I said on September 1, I deeply regret the incident on August 31. It does seem to me that we cannot permit ourselves to stray so far beyond the bounds of the Standing Orders without incurring grave risks. If the House should choose to direct the Chair to enforce strict adherence to the designated times for division bells, then we would proceed accordingly. But the Chair is reluctant to intervene unilaterally to set aside the Whips' convention which, on balance, has served Hon. Members well. With the continued co-operation of all Parties, and the continued vigilance of all Hon. Members, the Chair is convinced that the House can maintain the delicate balance which fully respects the spirit of the Standing Orders with regard to designated times for division bells without doing violence to the Whips' traditional role.
Having said that, I think that the intervention led by the Hon. Member for Kamloops-Shuswap was a serious one and, under the circumstances, was very much warranted. The Chair will be diligent to ensure that no Hon. Member will feel the necessity to raise the matter again. I thank all Hon. Members.
Legal Assistance



GOVERNMENT ORDERS

[Stage Direction]
September 15, 1987

[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Hnatyshyn that Bill C-58, an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Speaker:: When the House rose at 1 p.m. the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Epp) had the floor.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to pursue the subject matter of Bill C-58 which we all recognize deals with the possibility of mutual legal assistance in criminal matters between Canada and any other country of the world with which Canada has a treaty or, as Clause 6 of the Bill allows, with any other country with which an agreement is made. I suggested that this deserved some exploration in order to clarify the reasons for concern that my colleagues and I in the New Democratic caucus feel about this Bill, and that will lead us later this afternoon, I expect, to oppose it when the question of a vote actually arises.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) in introducing this Bill this morning observed that it was not or did not provide a code of mutual legal assistance. That particular phrase from his speech caught my ear. Because of the dangers involved in relations between countries with different legal systems and different standards of procedure in the areas of policing and the judiciary, Canada may find itself caught up in abuses of the legal process, something which 1 want to pursue this afternoon.
With the knowledge of Canadians over the last several years there is reason to ask some of the following questions. I was reminded in thinking of this matter of the concern that arose when the royal commission to investigate the alleged presence in Canada of war criminals, the Deschenes Commission, came to the question of whether or not it should consider evidence in its deliberations which was located within the Soviet Union or countries of eastern Europe in which the Soviet Union has a great deal of influence. The reason for that concern was of course easy enough to understand.
The royal commission was empowered to look for Nazi war criminals. It was clear that in the profound ideological divisions that prevailed in Europe in the 1930s and the 1940s there were people in various countries who made alliances with Nazi Germany for their own political purposes without necessarily becoming guilty of crimes against humanity or laying themselves open by their actions to charges of being war criminals. Of course, there was the very real possibility that
these nationalistic or right-wing activities which were so repugnant to the Soviet Government, or to the communist party in various countries, might open these persons, if they were resident now in Canada, to the possibility of a hunt by the Soviet authorities or by the Soviet secret police to try to get at them. Of course, the concern was that evidence might be fabricated and put forward for consideration by the Deschenes Commission or, conceivably, by the Canadian Department of Justice for use against these persons.
This was a concern which arose in the deliberations of the royal commission. Given that this was a royal commission headed by a notable jurist of the Province of Quebec, Mr. Justice Jules Deschenes, this was a concern with which the Justice dealt in a most impressive way. Having considered the matter carefully, he put forward a number of points which evidence, testimony or documents, whatever it might be, being put forward out of the Soviet context would have to pass before it would be considered by his commission. One could presumably construct that that is what should be applied before it was considered by the Department of Justice, which is now considering these matters.
I know particularly that the commission required that it be allowed to examine the original documents which were to be the basis for charges against persons of having taken part in war crimes. There was a requirement that witnesses be examined under Canadian rules of evidence. That was a matter of attempting to impose on the proceedings in the Soviet Union or other countries, in addition to countries in western Europe where we may expect the rules of evidence to be more compatible, the rules of evidence that prevail in Canadian courts. Canadian judicial procedure needed to operate there, if there was to be an appropriate and proper gathering of evidence.
Third, there was a requirement that the Soviet judicial authorities allow the video-taping of all the proceedings that may occur in this context.
There were a number of other conditions, but 1 note these first three particularly as evidence of concern which Mr. Justice Deschenes recognized as requiring response from his commission in order to ensure that any proceedings for the investigation of charges against persons in Canada, or any potential laying of charges against such persons, would be sure to be proper and based on genuine evidence and not based on fabrication.
I expanded on this a little, because here we have a clear case of concern expressed by Canadians in such a manner that most of us, if not all of us, can understand their political concern. It found response from a noted jurist who was operating in the public spotlight, although much of his deliberations were in confidence when it came to individuals. The response by Mr. Justice Deschenes deserves recognition in the House of Commons as we look at the potential operation of Bill C-58.
September 15, 1987

1 wish to turn from this particular instance to generalize the concern that I am expressing by looking at a different situation, or I will let Members judge how different it is. It is the matter of the disputes into which Sikhs have long been drawn, and the proceedings against Sikhs in Canada and in India during the last few days. After all, the activities of our Canadian Security Intelligence Service have been intensely controversial for several days. Those activities have led to an admission by the Crown that untrue statements were used as a basis for obtaining a wiretap order in Canada.
In another situation altogether, a Sikh who is a Canadian citizen from the Toronto area and who was travelling in the subcontinent was arrested and subjected to interrogation, how severe we do not know. He made a confession after five days of intense interrogation. One shudders to think what that may have involved. His family has stated he was preoccupied with his work and too busy to be involved in politics.
When one thinks of those two cases, one where a person may spend two years in detention without any charge being laid- and who knows when he may have legal counsel in those circumstances if it were not for the intervention of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark)-surely it is reasonable to consider very seriously what the possibilities of Bill C-58 may be.
I wish to bring into this discussion some concerns which 1 raised earlier this year with the Secretary of State for External Affairs. At the time that the Canadian Government arrived at an extradition treaty with the Indian Government I wrote a letter to the Secretary of State in which I expressed some concern. In part I stated:
I share the concern of many Canadians that this treaty could lead to abuse of the civil and human rights of Canadian citizens.
1 have heard that Canadian immigration officers processing applications in India sometimes have to deal with rather skillful forgeries. One trusts that they spot all the forgeries, although their failure to do so would only "condemn" a person to the desirable fate of a new life in Canada.
I began with that complex of things. I then suggested to the Secretary of State:
The presentation of fabricated documentation to support an application for extradition of a Canadian citizen or resident could have far more tragic consequences.
I asked the Secretary of State for External Affairs:
What resources does the Government of Canada possess to unmask forgeries? Will the Government ensure that persons will only be extradited when the charges against them are well-authenticated?
In my concluding paragraph I recognized the sensitivity of these matters, given that I was inquiring about a government of a sister nation of the Commonwealth, and where one would not wish to think that anything of this type could happen. As I said a few moments ago, events in the last days in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and in the Indian context, it appears, leave one more leeway to pursue these matters.
Legal Assistance
Several weeks later the Secretary of State for External Affairs responded. At first I was impressed by his statement. He said:
You are indeed correct in your suggestion that Canadian immigration officers are sometimes faced with forged documents, not only in India, but in many other countries as well. Our officers receive specialized training designed to help them identify the fraudulent documentation.
The Secretary of State then addressed my particular question and stated:
In terms of your question about the possibility of forgeries being an aspect in extradition requests, 1 can assure you that such a situation would be highly unlikely. Extradition treaties are a fundamental and valued element in international relations and I would doubt that any country would seek to misuse such arrangements through fraudulent documentation. The treaty with India is reflective of the changes in Canadian law of the past five years, specifically, the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, and, as such, incorporates greater safeguards for the individual than any of our previous treaties.
I noted those assurances to me. I also obtained from the research branch of the Library of Parliament an assessment of the extradition treaty with India which came into force on February 10, 1987, in order to determine what special features this particular treaty may have. Of course, I was concerned in the context of Canada wishing to increase its trade with India, which is a concern expressed to me by Canadian citizens, particularly those of Indian origin, and the Indian Government for its part wishing to put an end to or suppress the Sikh dissidents that exist in the Republic of India. Much of the treaty is similar to other treaties, but the extradition treaty with India does have a number of novel and unusual features. I wish to note a few of those.
The treaty is silent on the question of whether nationals can be extradited. This is not the only treaty in which that is the case. The treaties with Israel and the United States are similar. The treaties with Denmark and Sweden which the researcher used for comparison do not include that.
There is then the possibility that a Canadian national could be extradited to India. Of course, that opens the possibility that a Canadian of Indian origin may be so extradited. That is one area of potential danger.
There is a further and unusual provision in that all the other Canadian treaties have a specified list of extradition crimes. However, the Canada-India treaty simply states that an offence "punishable by the laws of both contracting states by a term of imprisonment for a period of more than one year", is one under which extradition may take place. There is a very broad sweep here. There is a provision allowing for the extradition of persons for offences relating to taxation or revenue, or an offence of a purely fiscal character.
These two provisions are not unprecedented in terms of the development of extradition treaties these days, including those in Europe, but they are additional novel features in the treaty that the Canadian Government arrived at with the Indian Government and which came into force in February. Incidentally, on the monetary side this treaty is matched in Canada's

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
other treaties only by one with Finland. In respect of the provisions for bail pending trial, the researcher notes, the limitation here is for six months. She trusts that anyone who would be held longer than that would obtain freedom thanks to Indian press coverage of violations. We have a nice example of an area in which there probably will not be that type of action. Considering the comments of the researcher on the political offences that the treaty covers-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. The Hon. Member is aware that he should not pass between the Speaker and the Member speaking. I would appreciate very much if I could see the debater, the Hon. Member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon.


Abram Ernest Epp: Mr. Speaker, when we come to the section of the treaty that deals with political offences, we have a clause which is so drawn, recognizing the way in which terrorism is treated these days, that there are next to no protections.
In summing up, I want to point out that a careful comparison of the extradition treaty with India and with other treaties Canada has leaves cause for concern. Recognizing that the treaty was arrived at by the Government with the Government of India and that there is a possibility of other treaties being added to the list provided by Section 4 of the Act, I am worried about the way in which Bill C-58 might operate. I want to indicate that my colleagues and I are opposing the Bill. Assuming it receives second reading here, thanks to the action of others, we want to give it the most vigorous possible consideration in committee in order to ensure that the fewest possible dangers arise under the operation of it.


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a few observations about the Bill and express my concern about the way in which friendly relationship between our country and our neighbours to the south has been misused in the past and may be even more misused in the future as a result of the passage of Bill C-58. We are friends of the United States and we want to continue to be friends. After all, there is no other example of a border between two countries of more than 3,000 miles which is undefended, and we want that to continue.
We know, as the Americans know, that there is no country with whom we have greater and more important trade relations than we have with the United States and they have with us. We try to maintain good a relationship with the Americans, but it becomes obvious when we look at the record that our friendship is misused and mistreated. We want that friendship to continue, but not at the price which we have in the past and may again in the future have to pay, and I do not think we can continue to be friends with the Americans if we have to crawl on our bellies to please them.
When I look at some of the actions which the Americans have taken by using and misusing information obtained from
Canadians, particularly from the Canadian security services, I am very dubious about what is proposed in Bill C-58 and what will be permitted under the terms of it. I will not repeat in any detail the information put on the record earlier today by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). He referred to the decision by the American Government to forbid Farley Mowat, a very well known and highly respected author who is a Canadian, travelling to the United States because of some comments he made about the foreign affairs approach of the American Government. Similarly, the Saskatchewan professor, Jim Harding, is not permitted to go to the United States because, according to the Americans, he attended a conference in the Soviet Union.
I want however, to speak about a much more serious blot on the record, namely, the tragedy which occurred in the life of a very distinguished Canadian diplomat, one of the best known and ablest that we ever had, namely, Mr. Herbert Norman. He was a very close friend of former Prime Minister Pearson. Mr. Norman worked with Mr. Pearson for many years in our External Affairs Department. He was harassed and maligned in the U.S.A. His reputation was dragged through the dirt in American congressional committees. He was accused of being a communist and of being a spy. Those accusations came from Congressmen and Senators in the United States who would consider anybody to the left of Genghis Khan a communist. On what did they base their claims? They based them on the allegation that when Mr. Norman was young and studying at Oxford he had been a member of a communist cell. They were talking about something Mr. Norman may or may not have done some 30 or more years before the time when these charges were laid.
From where did these Congressmen and Senators get this information? There were only two ways, Mr. Speaker. First, the Americans could have obtained the information if they had had security service agents working in Canada. As far as I know, there has never been any evidence that Americans have agents working in Canada except, I suppose, a few the CIA agents who are here in Ottawa in the American Embassy. Second, the Americans get information, which they get about many Canadians and other citizens of other countries, by the exchange of information between the security service in Canada, previously the RCMP and now the Canadian Security Intelligence Service, and agents and representatives of agencies of the United States, either the FBI or the CIA.
One expects security agencies operating in countries which are friendly with each other to exchange information. One also expects that that information is kept within the walls and files of the respective security agencies, particularly when so much of the so-called information contained in the files is there on the basis of unsubstantiated, unproven, often completely false information given to security agencies. As far as I know, and I have been interested in the subject for a number of years, no information which the Canadian security agencies have on Canadians or anybody else has been leaked or made public in any other way to the media, the radio, TV or newspapers.
September 15, 1987

However, that is not what happened for so many years in the United States. In the 40 or more years that Herbert Hoover was the Director of the FBI, because of his concept of what constituted communism and whom he believed to be communist, all kinds of information, not just about American citizens but about citizens of many other countries, was leaked by the FBI and perhaps by the CIA when it suited its purposes to media people, Congressmen and Senators.
I do not intend to go through the entire record, but Mr. Norman became a victim of U.S. McCarthyism. His loyalties were questioned. He was accused not only of having been a communist but of having continued to be a communist. In fact, he was accused of being a spy. That allegation made publicly in the United States at meetings of congressional and senatorial committees was of course looked into by Canadian authorities.
I am certain that when Mr. Pearson was our Secretary of State for External Affairs and when he was the Prime Minister, he had the opportunity, the right and the ability to look at the files, and I am certain he exercised that ability. I am certain as well that if Mr. Pearson had any reason to believe that Mr. Norman was all or any of these things of which he was being accused, Mr. Pearson would have taken decisive action. Of course, no action was taken by the Canadian Government because no action was required.
However, these allegations, false accusations and innuendoes were spread so widely that they adversely affected the ability of Mr. Norman to do his work. They affected so adversely his whole life that eventually he committed suicide while serving his country as our representative in Egypt.
That is what happened in the past. I am not saying that I am certain it will happen in the future. However, it can happen and I believe that the provisions of this Bill give our security agencies and the Government a power which could be misused, either wittingly or unwittingly.
I want to take a moment to thank my colleague from Vancouver for his very kind words and for his very detailed and moving description of the mistreatment of nine Canadians, of whom my wife is one, by experiments conducted in Montreal at the Allan Memorial Institute, experiments which went a long way toward destroying or certainly making difficult the lives of the more than 50 people who were involved in those experiments. That is just one illustration of what a security agency acting without supervision and without any real principles can do.
I worry a great deal about what can happen in the future based on the experience we have had in the past with our American friends. My colleague from Thunder Bay discussed possible problems that could arise in our relationship with the Government of India. I am sure the same questions could be asked about our possible relationships with many other
Legal Assistance
countries. For all these reasons, it is my intention to vote against this Bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Questions and comments.


Mr. Riis:: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to have an opportunity to say a few words on Bill C-58. I must say at the outset-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Order, please. I called for questions and comments. The Hon. Member is not questioning or commenting. Therefore, if there are no questions or comments, the Hon. Member for Kamloops- Shuswap (Mr. Riis) has the floor on debate.


Nelson Andrew Riis: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I could have used that Standing Order since I do not plan to say much on Bill C-58 in order to allow it to proceed to committee as quickly as possible.
There are obviously a number of serious shortcomings attached to Bill C-58, and it is for that reason that we have been encouraged to co-operate and to facilitate the consideration of this Bill at this stage so that the legislative committee can hear the appropriate witnesses with the appropriate expertise to improve the Bill. I sense a willingness on all sides of the House to improve the legislation. Some serious errors have already been brought to the attention of Members of the House.
Basically, Bill C-58 is an Act to provide for the implementation of treaties for mutual legal assistance in criminal matters and to amend the Criminal Code, the Crown Liability Act and the Immigration Act, 1976. I want to say at the outset that I oppose this Bill in its present form for a whole number of reasons. Some of them have been mentioned already and, as the debate continues, some of the more technical concerns will be brought to the attention of the legislative committee and presumably the appropriate amendments will be moved.
I think it pays to look at the background of this legislation since this is the stage when we have an opportunity to debate the principle of the Bill. For that reason, I think it is appropriate that we look at the motivation behind Bill C-58.
Of course, we go back to the famous Shamrock Summit at which the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney) and the President of the United States met in Quebec City to sing When Irish Eyes are Smiling and to come to some agreements on the need for free trade negotiations. At that time, the President made some requests of the Prime Minister, and this Bill basically flows out of the request that the United States be given authority to extend powers of investigation into Canada beyond the existing laws. I think this is the result of one more of the ongoing demands that President Reagan made to the Prime Minister of Canada in order to open the door to some free trade negotiations. It is essentially another concession.
Bill C-58 is a very serious concession. It does not allow only countries like the United States to carry on investigations in

September 15, 1987
Legal Assistance
Canada, but it is open-ended so that it provides the Government of Canada with the authority to enter into a treaty to allow another country to enter Canada to carry out police investigations or various other kinds of law-enforcement investigations without ever coming to Parliament for authorization. In a rather extreme case, that would mean that if the Government of Canada wished, it could enter into negotiations with the military junta in Chile and allow the Chilean national police to infiltrate organizations in Canada. That is an extreme example, but it makes the case that the Chilean security forces would be allowed to operate in Canada. That would of course pose a very serious threat to the freedom and well-being of people who have fled the oppressive military regime there and found sanctuary in Canada.
The Bill would allow that regime or any other tinpot dictatorship to enter into an agreement with the Government of Canada without scrutiny, monitoring or even the knowledge of Parliament until after the fact. I do not think that is in the best interests of Canadian security or our concern for those who have fled oppressive regimes. If we are talking only about the United States, then let the legislation express it as being the U.S. and limit it to that country.
Someone might say, if it were only the U.S., would we have any concerns? Yes, we would. You will recall a number of occasions when decent law-abiding Canadian citizens have attempted to enter the U.S., or in some cases simply pass through, and have been turned back. Who are some of these people? 1 just want to give a couple of examples to indicate how oppressive American law can be when it is applied in cases like this.
You will recall that back in 1985 a Canadian was denied entry to the U.S. This incident received a fair bit of publicity at the time. This dangerous person was none other than Farley Mowat, the famous Canadian author.


Charles Joseph Clark: I got him in, Nelson.


Nelson Andrew Riis: The Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) says he got him in. We appreciate that intervention, but the point is that the U.S. deemed this man to be dangerous. All he wanted to do was to go down to the U.S. and promote his most recent book. Why was he denied entry? I remember speaking with him a few days later at a function here on the Hill. He was still kind of leaping with delight at the fact he had caused so much concern to the American authorities. Apparently he had at one time threatened to shoot down some American bombers with his .22 rifle. He had had enough of their invading our airspace and he was going to take some steps himself and take on the United States' Strategic Air Command.


Charles Joseph Clark: Did his book sales go up?


Nelson Andrew Riis: I suppose they might have increased as a result of this publicity. Knowing Farley Mowat, he would have taken
advantage of this rather peculiar event at the American border.
It is peculiar that we would not be concerned about that kind of situation and have taken steps to negotiate with the U.S. so that this kind of silliness does not occur.
Another example occurred last year when Professor Jim Harding from one of the Saskatchewan universities wanted to travel from Calgary to Los Angeles to Mexico City to Costa Rica to participate in a UN conference. When he arrived in Calgary and was about to depart for Los Angeles, the American authorities said they did not want him passing through their country. They considered him to be a dangerous person. The reason was that in his youth he had participated in a peace conference in the Soviet Union. As a student he joined with other students from around the world to discuss peace. He was obviously identified then as a Communist and an undesirable and denied entry.
I could go on with a whole list of similar incidents. Certainly the Minister does not need to have me lay out that list. Perhaps later on he could do us a service and stand up and give us some other peculiar events. That would encourage us, before we fall all over ourselves facilitating the U.S. in carrying out investigations here, to come up with a little bit of balance between the two countries.
Under existing law, U.S. enforcement agencies, before they can come into Canada to carry out investigations, must ensure that charges have been laid in the U.S. against the individual or individuals concerned. This legislation will change that. No, you do not have to have been accused or have charges laid against you. As long as the American investigative authorities believe there is some problem, they can enter Canada to investigate. The FBI can come in at that stage before any charges occur in the U.S. That will place a considerable number of Canadians at risk. Given the activities of some U.S. law enforcement agencies which have become public recently, I am not certain that we can have a lot of faith in the aboveboard nature of their operations.
Think, for example, of all those individuals who left the U.S. because they refused to serve in that immoral war in Vietnam. They made a very difficult decision and a number of them decided to seek sanctuary in Canada. They came here and are now citizens, and I suspect most of us know a number of them because they often play influential roles in our communities. These people would obviously be targets for this kind of undercover investigative work.
Then we have the people in the U.S. right now who oppose some of their country's foreign policy, particularly that aggressive foreign policy in places like Central America where the administration is bound and determined to fund the Contra movement and overthrow the Government of Nicaragua by force. I am pleased that our Secretary of State for External Affairs has on a number of occasions spoken out and indicated that Canada opposes that intervention. Yet the U.S. administration under President Reagan is doing everything it can to
September 15, 1987

get arms and explosives to make that attempt more vicious and murderous than ever. Peaceful protesters in the U.S. speaking out against the administration in the U.S. might come under investigation, and if they were to flee to Canada for safety they would, as a result of this Bill, be investigated by those organizations here in Canada.
I do not want to take up valuable time on this legislation because the same points will be made at subsequent stages. Let me say that I believe Members of the House recognize that the few points I have made in the last moment or two are sufficient to warrant voting against this Bill in its present form. Certainly everything I have heard so far indicates that this Bill is inappropriate. We should not pass this Bill. The Government should go back to the drafting board and draft a Bill which is fair, just, decent and compassionate and bring it forward. For goodness' sakes, let us stop this Bill from proceeding and get on with the real business of Canada.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Question.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


Nelson Andrew Riis: On division.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation\

The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 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 York East (Mr. Redway)-Administration of justice-Sentence in Quebec National Assembly murder case-Call for reform of criminal law; the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation-Coverage of registered retirement savings plans-Request for amendment to legislation; the Hon. Member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier)-The Constitution-1987 Constitution accord-Language minority groups- Representation of language minority groups in public service.
_______________________________________8965
Mint and Currency



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
Right Hon. Joe Clark (for the Minister of Supply and
Services) moved that Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Ron Stewart (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of
Supply and Services): Mr. Speaker, Bill C-46 is designed to accomplish several specific objectives which I will outline in a moment. When considered in their entirety, however, three general themes are evident. Certain housekeeping measures are proposed to consolidate, within one piece of legislation, and to modernize all technical matters pertaining to coins. Second, several proposals are included to improve financial arrangements for the Mint and to give it more operational flexibility. Finally, several modifications are proposed to provide a framework for new marketing initiatives the Mint may wish to pursue.
Among legislative housekeeping matters relating to coinage, I believe it is desirable to simplify the approval process for minor changes in size and composition of existing Canadian circulating coins. Governor in council authority to effect such changes will allow the Mint to respond relatively quickly to situations of metal shortages and to benefit from new technologies, thereby ensuring adequate supplies of domestic coinage and positive seignorage revenues. As well, all technical matters, some of which are now found in the Currency Act, should be consolidated within the Mint Act while leaving the primary responsibility for matters relating to our monetary system with the Minister of Finance.
Among the second group of proposals to improve the financial and operational flexibility of the Mint is an amendment that would permit the Mint to bank in the private sector. Current practice whereby the Mint conducts its financial transactions through a special account in the Consolidated Revenue Fund distorts the Mint's true financial picture by not recognizing interest which could be earned on deposits. Additionally, most of the Mint's financial transactions are in foreign currencies, and being allowed to make its own direct arrangements for these transactions would be administratively and financially advantageous to the Mint.
To create a proper capital structure the Minister is proposing to permit the Mint to issue $40 million in shares which would be purchased by the Minister of Supply and Services. These shares would be redeemable at face value. This would provide the Mint with a level of capitalization to meet its needs consistent with accepted norms for determining private sector capitalization financing requirements.
[Stage Direction]
September 15, 1987
Mint and Currency
Accordingly, the Mint will also be given authority to borrow up to $50 million from the private sector or from the Consolidated Revenue Fund as may be approved by the Minister of Finance. This amount is consistent with the Mint's recent history and with projections for future requirements of its approved five-year corporate plan.
The Mint will also be authorized to seek additional borrowing authority through appropriations in future, if such an increase is required. This would provide further financial and operational flexibility without requiring changes in enabling legislation but would still ensure that the exercise of such authority would remain subject to Parliament's approval. I repeat, Mr. Speaker, that such authority would remain subject to Parliament's approval.
The Minister is proposing that we eliminate the requirement that all corporate profits be paid to Canada at the end of each fiscal year, which has not been done in any event. Rather, earnings should be applied to meet approved investment requirements and, under the capitalization structure, dividends would return a portion of profits to Canada.
The third group of changes are designed to improve the Mint's marketing framework. Governor in council approval should provide authority for the Mint to respond more quickly to market opportunities and imperatives to produce precious metal coins. Moreover, we wish to remove any doubt that the Mint may borrow, rent or lease precious metals for its internal working inventory, thus ensuring its continuing role in stimulating Canada's mining industry.
The existing 1991 sunset clause on production of the very successful gold maple leaf bullion investment coin will be removed to ensure continued world-wide investor confidence in a product with long-term market liquidity. There will also be changes in the public reporting requirements in connection with the production of precious metal coins. Current requirements jeopardize the confidentiality of the Mint's marketing and production programs in an environment of ever-increasing world competition.
Finally, the Minister proposes that the Mint's Board of Directors be enlarged from 7 to 11 members and that the discrimination favouring membership from the Public Service be removed. Both these changes will allow for greater expertise to participate in making direction-setting decisions for an organization that has become highly market-driven. Appointments to the board will continue to be approved by the Governor in council.
These proposed changes are the result of a comprehensive review of the Mint's legislative environment and, if adopted, will constitute the first major revision to minting legislation in the past 18 years.
I would like to conclude my remarks with the hope that the revised legislation will serve to give the Mint an up-to-date legislative environment that will permit it to continue its record of success. That success will rebound to the benefit of
the Mint, its many customers and, most important, the shareholders who are, of course, the people of Canada.
Leonard Donald Hopkins: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to be participating in this debate on Bill C-46 which makes certain amendments to the Acts governing the Royal Canadian Mint. Not many Canadians know very much about all the activities of the Royal Canadian Mint. It is a tremendous organization and I think it should have a higher profile in the eyes of the public of Canada.
The Mint has some outstanding people working for it. It certainly has the country's interests at heart and is to be congratulated for the tremendous job it is doing in promoting its business in the international markets of the world.
Following upon what the Parliamentary Secretary has just stated, 1 think it is important to note that the production of the Centennial coins by the Mint in 1967 was a great step forward and proved to many people what a solid, business-like structure existed within the Royal Canadian Mint. Further things came to light in 1976 during the Olympic Games in Canada. The Olympic Games presented an open opportunity to produce many more coins for the international market and allow the Mint not only to pay its own way or break even, but indeed to make a huge profit. Following 1976, with the experience of the Olympic coins, the Liberal Government of the day put a marketing structure into place, which really started the boom in coins at the Royal Canadian Mint.
As a result of that legislation in 1976, the income at the Royal Canadian Mint is some $990 million, compared to the $50 million in income and business in the early 1970s. The reason for that huge increase in business is that the people at the Royal Canadian Mint and others in government since 1976 not only sold their professionalism and expertise but indeed marketed Canadian bullion which was in serious trouble.
Between 1979 and 1984, Canada exported some one million ounces of gold coins annually. This helped the gold market tremendously in Canada. Last year, 1.5 million ounces of gold were put into coins in Canada, which represents a fantastic growth in a Crown corporation that has demonstrated its expertise.
I want to compliment the people at the Royal Canadian Mint for the work they have done and hope they will continue with the initiatives they have shown.
I must admit that for a number of years as a Member of Parliament I had not paid much attention to our Canadian Mint until I went there to get a briefing. It was a rather pleasant experience to go through the entire plant where everything was described to me. I was shown the various types of coins they were making, including coins for India, Australia and Japan.
September 15, 1987

People may not think that Canadians would do much coinage business for Japan, but the Royal Canadian Mint does a lot of business making coins for Japan.
As well, it makes coins for Britain and several European countries where the technology is supposed to be so great that one would think they would do it for themselves.
Canada has increased its markets for coinage greatly throughout the Asian rim and Europe, which indeed has been very beneficial for gold production in Canada.
During my visit to the Mint the officials showed me the carts where the gold bars were kept. I was permitted to pick one of them up, but the officials smiled at me when 1 tried to do it with one hand. One requires two hands to pick up a gold bar which is valued at about $250,000. It is a unique experience to hold $250,000 in one's hand for the first and probably only time in one's life. I only hope that the Mint is not robbed because my fingerprints may still be on that gold bar.
I believe it is appropriate to provide the Royal Canadian Mint with added powers in order to be more flexible in its operations. The change in metal prices in the world is very important to the Mint because it must depend on the low cost of metals to keep its costs down. When the price of silver or gold increases greatly, the cost to the Mint rises dramatically.
It is interesting to note that outside factors over which the Mint has no control account for 94 per cent of its cost of producing coins. The Mint cannot control the price of gold or silver. It has its labour costs and assaying costs, as well as the wages for its professional engineers and tradesmen. Therefore, only 6 per cent of the costs are under the control of the Mint.
What is the difference between the Mint Act and the Currency Act? The Mint Act deals with the production and issuance of coins and gives the Mint the authority to make and sell coins.
The Currency Act deals with the use of coin and paper currency in the money system. Of course, the Currency Act is very much related to the Department of Finance. There are many other areas of government activity which either control or share a certain amount of power within its administration.
I want to refer to one part of the summary of the Royal Canadian Mint corporate plan of 1987, which deals with Canadian circulation coinage. I stated a moment ago that the production of coins makes much money for the Mint. However, the Mint does not make a big profit on the production of Canadian currency in order to keep costs down. Its profits are made on the foreign coinage that it is able to sell. It states under "Canadian Circulation Coinage":
This product line constitutes the basic "raison d'etre" of the RCM. While all other activities of the Mint are profit-motivated, the overriding objectives with respect to this activity are to produce and supply coins of the currency of Canada, of the highest quality and at the lowest possible cost. Therefore this product is not a significant contributor to the profitability of the Corporation. The Mint must exercise discretion, and take the necessary initiative, to ensure that an adequate supply of coinage in all denominations is available to meet the demand.
Mint and Currency
With regard to bullion products, it is important to note that in 1979 the Royal Canadian Mint introduced the gold maple leaf bullion coins, as was mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary. From 1979 to 1984, on average, one million ounces of gold coins were sold annually. In 1985, in an environment of reaction to South Africa, 1.8 million ounces of gold maple leaf coins were sold, making us the market leader. In 1986, 1.5 million ounces of gold coins were sold. A lot of the reason for our being a world leader is the expertise, of the Royal Canadian Mint, the ability to produce, and the ability to look after the markets. We owe it a mark of credit there.
Other countries are going to enter into competition with us on the coin market, undoubtedly with many other coins such as Olympic coins, but with the expertise we have in this field and the experience the Mint people have here in Canada, I do not think we should be overly concerned about its ability to compete. As Britain, Australia and others come on stream, I think Canadians will be able to compete very well in the market-place as far as coins are concerned.
With regard to numismatic products, the report tells us that the major marketing thrust will be in the international collectors' market where the Royal Canadian Mint expects to increase significantly its number of collector customers. As you know, Mr. Speaker, we have great stamp collectors and coin collectors and so on and this market will undoubtedly grow.
The Bill at hand in its provisions withdraws the sunset clause mentioned by the Parliamentary Secretary which called for an end to the gold bullion maple leaf program in 1991 and provided for public accountability of sales. That will give the Mint a chance to go ahead and continue to sell that coin. The approximate total amount of business done by the Royal Canadian Mint up to now is $990 million. I believe that some $800 million of that is due to the sale of the gold maple leaf coin. So this is a very important amendment to this Bill. The elimination of this clause, of course, will enable the Mint to remain competitive internationally. The Mint still remains accountable to Parliament, as has been mentioned, not only through its five-year corporate plan, but it will continue to report annually to the Parliament of Canada.
I think it is important that the appropriate parliamentary committee take those reports and at least extend to the Mint the courtesy of having a couple of meetings or a hearing, if for no other reason than to educate ourselves as Members of Parliament as to what it is doing in the country and on the international scene, and also to give it a profile, telling Canadians what the Royal Canadian Mint is doing. We have a responsibility to get that information out there as well.
The Bill would allow the Canadian Mint to react more quickly to the imperatives to produce coins in certain metals and sizes, giving it more flexibility, and the amendments to the Act would allow changes to be made to the type of metal used

September 15, 1987
Mint and Currency
in the production process and to the size of the coins. For example, size changes of up to 10 per cent would be permitted. There are no restrictions on the type of metal used to produce a coin, only that the colour of the coin must remain the same.
The amendments allow the Mint to respond quickly to cost changes in metals, thus guaranteeing a positive seigniorage- the difference between the cost of production and the face value of the coin-to accrue to the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Finally, they would allow the Mint to effect these changes through Order in Council rather than having to come before Parliament in the form of special legislation. Today, with all the Orders in Council that go through, I do not know whether that is speeding up the process. However, we certainly do know that if it had to rely on the House of Commons for flexibility, it might wait a long time with the amount of business and priorities given to particular pieces of legislation.
Because the international market in precious metal coinage is very competitive, the Mint wants flexibility to respond to changes in the market and to mint new precious coins. That in part is related to what I said a while ago, that the Mint has no control over the cost of these metals and, therefore, from time to time it may have to change to another metal or to another coin in order to remain competitive.
The Bill proposes a general authority to go into precious coin production, which is another step forward. It gives the Mint added initiative.
In addition to all of this, we have an increase in the board of directors. At present we have seven members on the board of directors of the Mint, but it is overloaded with public servants. The thrust of this particular amendment is to allow the government of the day to go out into private enterprise and into other industrial areas of Canadian life and pick people to go on that board. I would hope that, since this is the beginning of the increase in the board-and these amendments provide for that increase-serious thought will be given to the appointment of these people now. Those four additional positions on the board of directors of the Royal Canadian Mint should be filled in the future by well qualified, well trained, experienced people. They should not be used as patronage positions for people who are looking for a little fame for the moment. Given the record of the Royal Canadian Mint and its expertise, and considering what it has given to Canada with respect to coins and money abroad, it is very important that these people be well qualified for those positions and that they always have the best interests of the Royal Canadian Mint at heart.
I think this is a good step as a follow-up to 1976. Perhaps the Parliamentary Secretary would have a few more words to say about the $40 million capitalization before we close off debate. The authorized capital of the Mint is $40 million divided into 4,000 shares of $10,000 each. The Government, through the appropriate Minister, is permitted to buy those shares. Under what conditions would that happen? Under what conditions would the Mint want to buy them back from
the Government? What triggers these sorts of things? 1 wonder if the Parliamentary Secretary could give us an example of how this would operate, because I think it is very important. We know that when Crown corporations need money, the Government of Canada is there and it has a certain onus to lend these corporations money.
It also gives the Mint the opportunity to go into the private market-place to borrow up to $50 million. We would like to think, however, given the positive financial picture of the Mint at the present time, that this will not be necessary, especially if the markets of the world continue to treat us favourably, if the Canadian Mint remains competitive to the extent I mentioned earlier, if its expertise is well used, production is on target and quality is good. We certainly must mention quality here. The metals must be absolutely pure, flawless. They are simply not used if they are not. We must compliment the people in the Mint who have implemented quality control as part of their job. Obviously they are doing a very good job in this area.
I leave these questions with the Parliamentary Secretary. What would trigger the purchase of shares from the Royal Canadian Mint by the Government of Canada through the appropriate Minister? What would trigger the Mint to buy them back, other than perhaps their being a bit more flush at that time as opposed to others? Are there any other factors to be considered?
I hope that it will not be a case of the Government buying a number of shares with the hope of having more control over the operations of the Mint since these people have been doing a good job. We want them to be free to exercise their goodwill in the international market-place as well as their ability to sell as long as they keep their good record which they have had until now.
Through you, Mr. Speaker, I would like to congratulate all personnel at the Royal Canadian Mint for the tremendous job they have done over the years. I hope that through this Bill and through other activities they will be able to gain a higher profile in the public domain so that the people of Canada will fully appreciate just what kind of people we have working in that Crown corporation and, indeed, others in our Government who do not always get the just rewards and compliments that they deserve.


Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pleasure to be able to speak today on Bill C-46, an Act to amend the Royal Canadian Mint Act and the Currency Act. As I understand it, the Royal Canadian Mint operates under three Acts, the two Acts to which I have already referred and the Financial Administration Act, an Act with which all organizations in the Government are required to deal.
We in the New Democratic Party have no quarrel at all with this particular legislation. However, we do want it to go to committee. I suggest to the Parliamentary Secretary that with a little preparation we could probably pass it at just one
September 15, 1987

meeting of the committee. I say this in light of the fact that we have a number of questions that we want to ask and, like the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins), we want the opportunity to ask those questions and to receive answers to them.
What we are really wanting to find out is why in many cases in many parts of this Bill the Government has made the moves that it has made. For instance, in which direction does it intend to go? What are its intentions as far as the Mint is concerned? As suggested by the previous speaker, the members of the committee will have an opportunity to take a good look at the operations of the Royal Canadian Mint and understand better than they do at present why the changes are being made.
The clauses of the Bill are straightforward. The Parliamentary Secretary gave us an outline which indicated the main changes being made. However, the reasons for some of the changes are somewhat obscure. We would like those reasons to be aired and to be reported by the Government. The opportunity of going before a legislative committee will allow us to do that.
The Bill itself establishes a very clear and straightforward objective. In fact, the changes to the Acts are more direct and in simpler language than we have had before. The objectives of the Mint are to mint coins in anticipation of profit and to carry out other related activities. We would like to question the officers of the Mint as to exactly what is meant by "other related activities".
Clause 3 of the Bill talks about capitalization. Although we recognize that the Government is bringing the structure of this Crown corporation more in line with the general structure of corporations both private and public, the Mint got along without that structure for a good many years. It will be interesting to find out exactly why at this moment the Government feels that it is important to move in this direction.
The Mint operated from 1908 as an agency of the Government. It was not until 1969 that it was made into a Crown corporation. Even at that time it was given no capitalization since it was recognized that the relationship between the Government and the body that produced parts of our legal currency had to be very close and under strict government control. Consequently, even when the Crown corporation was formed in April of 1969, the need for a corporate structure was not recognized, or was found not to be pressing to the extent that not up until this particular Bill was introduced was a change to its structure considered.
The Royal Canadian Mint has been one of the most flexible Mints in the world. Consequently, besides refining precious metals and treating them it produces coins of all varieties. This change of capitalization is something that we would like to look into. For instance, as the previous speaker suggested, although it is probably just a requirement to tidy up the situation that is presently in place, if one reads that particular clause thoroughly one could ask why we have these shares
Mint and Currency
being put in place since they are all to be purchased by the Minister of Supply and Services. However, Clause 3.2 allows the sale of shares back to the Mint, it would appear, or possibly to some other purchaser, although it is indicated that that cannot happen at this time. That particular possibility is one of the questions that I wish discussed.
Although this Bill does not allow privatization at the moment, the structure being put in place would suggest that at some time it is possible. I do not think that even this Government with its policy and ideology of privatization would move toward privatization of this particular industry. That would seem to be an incredible idea, and one that I hope the Government is not thinking about. It is one that does not make a great deal of sense.
The second area that we may wish to question concerns the board of directors. There are two ideologically different positions in the approach to Crown corporations and boards of directors. In the past the Government has often allowed and even encouraged placing senior public servants on boards of directors. A couple of years ago I was on the public accounts committee which took a good look at the Canadair situation. The committee found that some of the problems of Canadair were no doubt closely related to the fact that the board of directors found itself so closely linked to the Minister responsible at that particular time that some of the members of that board of directors did not feel that they should or could make decisions which would be opposed to the story that they were receiving from the Deputy Minister who was on the board of directors.
That particular position has been questioned. In its weighing it can be suggested that it is a good idea, particularly in this type of corporation which must be close to the Government in its development. I gather that the position taken by the Government in this particular Bill is to set up a board of directors entirely separate from the Government, and through some other process give the instructions which it thinks necessary.
Even under those circumstances, and this is the reason we would like to have an opportunity to question the Government on its position, and even in its precision the Government has taken the step of moving away and then putting in place requirements for relationships with the Minister of Finance and the Minister of Supply and Services, which almost return it to the situation that previously existed.
Under those circumstances we need to question if there is any real justification for raising the number of directors from 7 to 11. Why was this particular change made? Previously the board of directors included the Chairman, the Master of the Mint, and five directors. The board of directors has been changed to include the chairman, the Master of the Mint, and nine directors, but with a further suggested requirement that there will be no "favourites" in the sense of public servants. In

September 15, 1987
Mint and Currency
fact, there is an elimination of public servants from the board of directors almost entirely.
The other main changes are mostly housekeeping, but to some extent perhaps we should look at those changes. In the Bill there are a number of things we should look at and question, but probably they will not make any difference in the direction. The removal of the sunset clause for the production of gold coins makes sense. It makes sense for any business organization, which is what the Mint has become in the last 20 years, to have the ability to plan ahead instead of saying that this operation will stop in 1991 and after 1991 we will not have any more maple leaf coins, or else make that decision a month or so before and consequently cause a number of problems. Instead of that, the sunset clause is worth while.
I have a great desire to ask why the idea of Canadian content in coins that will be used in Canada is not part of the Bill. I know that the Bill states that making it a requirement as far as all coins produced by the Mint are concerned would probably cause some problems. I know that the Mint has a policy requiring Canadian content in coins that become legal tender in Canada. But that is not part of the Bill, and it is one of the questions that I wish to ask or even to suggest an amendment which may make that a requirement.
Many of the coins for other parts of the world are produced with metals other than Canadian metals. In fact, the refining of metals has become a fairly large part of the money-making portion of the Mint. I would appreciate the opportunity to find out why that has not been made part of the Bill. The Canadian content as a policy only could leave it open under certain circumstances, particularly where the distance is being increased in the relationship with the Government of Canada. The type of control which the Government will have is being decreased.
Other than that, as I have stated, I have no particular concerns about the Bill. I recognize that the officers of the Mint do an adequate or even an outstanding job in operating the Mint as a business. They have brought in revenues of SI billion with a $33 million profit last year, or they plan on a profit of $33 million in 1987. The Mint made approximately $16 million last year. The markets of the world have affected the business within the Mint, both positively and negatively. The fact that the United States produced an eagle coin in 1986 possibly has or will cut into sales by the Mint of the maple leaf coin.
In the end the chances are that, as my dad told me many years ago, "If you could make money you would be doing better than the rest of us". This is one way in which Canada and the Canadian Government is making money and showing a profit. I am pleased, therefore, to allow this Bill to go to committee.


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, is there a question and comment period?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: There are no questions and comments.


Raymond John Skelly: On debate, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: On debate. The Hon. Member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly).


Raymond John Skelly: Mr. Speaker, 1 wanted to raise with my colleague and other Members in the House the concern I have about the activities of the Mint. I hope that in committee the issue can be raised of the nature of Canadian coinage in relation to the corporate structure of the Mint. In this House we have discussed at great length the introduction of the dollar coin by the loonies-


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The loonies?


Some Hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Raymond John Skelly: I am sorry, the Conservatives. We have a situation that is serious. It is quite interesting to see people's reaction to the dollar coin. I was upstairs in the cafeteria purchasing lunch when the cashier attempted to give one of the more prominent Conservative Members of the House a handful of loonies as change. The individual refused to accept it. 1 represent in my constituency an area of senior citizens. There are vending machines in senior citizen residences and it has been found that there is a movement toward dollar coins in machines away from smaller denominations. For example, washing machines which used to cost 50 cents and 75 cents to run, now cost one dollar. It is much more convenient to stuff a dollar coin into a machine, and this has meant a 25 per cent increase in cost to senior citizens in many areas.


Mr. Stewart:: You are really reaching.


Raymond John Skelly: I hear my colleague on the other side of the House saying that I am really reaching. The people who are reaching are the senior citizens, who are reaching into their pockets more often to respond to a policy of the Government that has harmed them. This 25 per cent inflationary increase is now finding its way into the the operation of other types of vending machines.
The Member on the other side who is smiling at my presentation might himself have been involved in business and would have enjoyed an increase to one dollar, but this is a serious matter, Mr. Speaker.
I had hoped to ask my colleagues a number of questions about the thrust of discussion in committee on this issue. Rarely in the House of Commons does one get an opportunity to discuss the activities of the Mint, the policy direction it strikes and the recommendations it makes to Government. I hope my colleague and other colleagues will consider the inflationary effect of the change in coinage in Canada. I can see there are Conservatives on the other side of the House who hope that we will go to a two dollar coin and so have a 125 per cent increase in inflation.
September 15, 1987

There are matters where other changes in this House have been seriously inflationary. For example, when the Liberals made the conversion to the metric system of measurement, Conservatives howled about this. Many Canadians were under the whip of the oil companies when that industry converted from gallons to litres, which caused a substantial increase in the price of fuel at that time.
I hope that when this Bill goes to committee there will be a discussion of the inflationary effect of the loonie.


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


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.
Motion agreed, Bill read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we call it five o'clock and proceed to Private Members' hour?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: Is there unanimous consent to proceed with the introduction of the next Bill and then call it five o'clock?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.


CANADIAN ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION ACT
Hon. Elmer MacKay (for the Minister of the Environment) moved: that Bill C-74, an Act respecting the protection of the environment and of human life and health, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The Hon. Member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Browes) will be recognized.
It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of Private Members' Business, as listed on today's Order Paper.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' BUSINESS-PUBLIC BILLS   CRIMINAL CODE MEASURE TO AMEND
Svend Johannes Robinson: that Bill C-207, an Act to amend the Criminal Code (gun control) be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to rise in support of my Private Members' Bill, Bill C-207, which is an Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to the sensitive and important issue of gun control. I want to emphasize, because I think it is
Gun Control
particularly important in the discussion of this legislation, that this is a Private Members' Bill. This Bill is one which I am putting forward not on behalf of the New Democratic Party, not on behalf of the federal caucus of the New Democratic Party, but which I am putting forward as a private Member of this House. Each and every Member of this House is entitled to bring to the attention of the House issues which are of concern to that Member. I emphasize that because I know there are very strong feelings in different parts of the country respecting gun control.
My colleague, the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), has himself introduced legislation on gun control, but his Bill would move in exactly the opposite direction from mine. I am attempting to tighten gun control in Canada to make gun control more effective. My colleague from Skeena has decided in his Private Member's Bill that he wants to eliminate entirely the requirement for firearms acquisition certificates for residents in northern Canada. I know that my colleague from Skeena will explain to this House and to the people of Canada why he believes that in northern Canada there should not even be the most minimal restriction to ensure that those who have a history of previous involvement with violent crime, those who have a history of being involved in serious indictable offences, those who have a history of psychiatric imbalance, and those who to happen to be living in a Schedule III riding should not be required to obtain a firearms acquisition certificate.
A few minutes ago, we were talking about loonies. I would not characterize this particular proposition as a loony proposition, but I certainly believe that the suggestion that we eliminate entirely in northern Canada the requirement for even the minimal safeguard of a firearms acquisition certificate is not one that I could possibly support. Rather, I believe the time has come to recognize that we should tighten up and make more effective gun control legislation. We should recognize that there are a number of provisions in the present gun control law which should be made more effective. The purpose of my Bill is to do precisely that.
The purpose of my Bill is to heed the call of coroners' juries across the land who time after time have drawn to the attention of Parliament the existing weaknesses and shortcomings of gun control legislation. It is to heed the call as well of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. That association has proposed to Parliament on a number of occasions that we make more effective Canadian gun-control legislation. For example, it adopted the following resolution at a recent annual conference:
Therefore be it resolved that the Solicitor General of Canada now address these concerns in conjunction with his provincial counterparts and take the steps necessary to end this increase in available weapons.

September 15, 1987
Gun Control
The Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police has said that Parliament should recognize that it is too easy to buy a gun in Canada and that that results in unnecessary death, suffering, additional crime and suicide. As well, there are more accidents involving children coming across loaded weapons, accidentally discharging them and being critically injured or in some cases killed.
Chief Bob Stewart, the Chief of the Vancouver Police Department and the former head of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, has himself spoken out very strongly on this question. He said, as quoted in a newspaper article:
"The proliferation of handguns is reason for concern," said Vancouver
police chief Bob Stewart-
"If we don't try to control this at this stage, it will get to the point of being
like the U.S. problem and there will be no way to turn it around," Stewart
said.
There are today at least 850,000 firearms registered in Canada and it is unclear just how many rifles and shotguns are in circulation because, unlike handguns, they do not require any form of registration with local police departments or the RCMP. My Private Members' Bill would recognize that problem and tighten the law in that particular area.
There are other areas of concern as well. A coroner's jury in Toronto was recently very critical of Canada's gun legislation. It pointed out that even after a person has been convicted of an offence involving firearms, as long as he has a firearms acquisition certificate, he can go right back out and buy another gun. That does not make any sense whatsoever. The coroner's inquest into the death of Scarborough musician Alan Boyarski who was shot dead by police on August 11, 1985, made it very clear that there is a serious loophole in the law in this respect.
In fact, the law should require that a person's right to own a firearm following such a conviction would be limited. Surely we should take away the firearms acquisition certificate of a person convicted of such a crime for an extended period of time to prevent similar incidents from taking place in the future.
There are other areas as well that should be looked at in our examination of Canadian gun control legislation, and I would like to touch on two or three of them. There is the question of combat schools in Canada, an alarming recent development. In a number of areas, schools have sprung up to train people in combat techniques. In some cases, this involves the use of guns.
As well, there are concerns about suicide. The Centre for Suicide Prevention in the Province of Quebec has called upon federal and provincial Governments to impose stricter regulations on who can obtain firearms. The centre points out that firearms were used in one-third of all suicides in Quebec between 1975 and 1979.
Another concern is the rapidity with which individuals may obtain a firearm. A person may acquire a firearms certificate, and a matter of a few hours later go into a store and buy a
gun. That person may be in a state of extreme anger or in an unbalanced state and may go right out and shoot someone or in some cases commit suicide. Surely there should be a minimum period of time between the acquisition of the certificate and the actual purchase of the weapon in order to ensure that the possibility of death is not as great.
As well, we must look at tighter controls on the use of guns by police involved, for example, in chases. The former Chief of Staff of the Secretary of State for External Affairs, Bill Neville, lost his 20-year-old son Lindsay on an isolated stretch of Highway 38 near Parham, Ontario. He pleaded with the coroner's jury to recommend to the Government tighter controls on the inappropriate use of firearms by the police in certain situations.
Another problem that has been highlighted by a number of police authorities is the problem of the illegal acquisition of firearms. It has been pointed out that in a number of cases, people have obtained very seriously lethal weapons without even going through the procedure of obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate.
Our judiciary may not be applying as rigorously as one would have hoped the provisions of the Criminal Code requiring prohibition orders and mandatory minimum sentences for convictions involving the use of firearms. As well, there is a provision in the existing gun control law requiring that a course in firearms safety be taken before a certificate can be issued.
This particular provision was referred to in a recent evaluation. Decision Dynamics Corporation conducted a very comprehensive review of gun control provisions in Canada and pointed out that the 1977 legislation includes a provision which has still not been proclaimed 10 years later. That is the provision that requires the completion of a safety course or a test in the safe use and handling of firearms as approved by the provincial Attorney General as prerequisite to obtaining a firearms acquisition certificate. Ten years later, that provision has not yet been proclaimed. I would have hoped that the Government would have moved forward quickly on that.
It is important to note that my proposed tougher gun control legislation would in no way impair the rights of those who enjoy hunting in a safe manner. This legislation would in no way diminish their rights. Indeed, many hunting clubs in Canada have been at the forefront of the call for safety courses, and indeed many have educated their members themselves in the safe use of firearms. Those are not the people targeted, if I may use that word in the context of this debate, by this legislation. Rather, the purpose of the legislation is to recognize that far too many people in Canada are dying as a result of the widespread abuse of firearms.
Statistics speak loudly and clearly on this question. Let us compare the situation in Britain with that in the United States. In the U.S. of course it is wide open. We all know about the incredibly high level of crime there involving the use of handguns. Thousands of people are murdered every year as a result
September 15, 1987

of the proliferation of handguns in that society. The Rambo mentality is alive and well. We do not want to see that in Canada.
By contrast, in the U.K. there are far tougher gun-control laws than we have here in Canada. What are the statistics? Hand guns were involved in 10,728 deaths in the U.S. in 1979. In England it was eight. I think that figure speaks for itself.
I would point out as well that Canadians themselves are calling for tougher gun-control legislation. A Gallup poll conducted in February of 1982 shows that 70 per cent of those questioned believed the gun-control law should be made more effective. I say more effective. Certainly these laws should not be weakened.


Mr. Witer:: What about the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?


Svend Johannes Robinson: The Conservative Government has indicated that it is prepared to examine gun control laws. The Hon. Member for York East (Mr. Redway) is present and I want to commend him for the work he has done in prodding his Government into taking some action. Yet his efforts have fallen on deaf ears. The Conservative Government has refused to take any action whatsoever to tighten up gun-control legislation. In February of 1986 the Hon. Member for York East asked the then Minister of Justice what action he was going to take with respect to the recommendation of the coroner's inquest into the death of Allan Boyarski. That man had purchased two hand guns less than five months after he was convicted of illegally carrying another hand gun. The Minister, rising up to his full height, said:
Mr. Speaker, I do not wish to discuss the specific case-but amendments to
the firearm control provisions of the Criminal Code-have been under
consideration by the Department of Justice-they are to be discussed this
week-The hon. gentleman's concerns will be looked into then.
They may have been looked into but no action was taken.
An Hon. Member made reference to the Hon. Member for Skeena. He is reflecting the views of many of his constituents and bringing forward a Private Members' Bill, which he has every right to do, reflecting the serious concerns of the people of Skeena. He does an outstanding job. The fact that I happen to disagree with the contents of his Bill is neither here or there. I say again, he has done a terrific job of representing his constituents on this important question, but it is the Conservatives who are in government. It is not up to the Hon. Member for Skeena to pass legislation, any more than it is up to me. Why has the Government failed to act?
The Hon. Member for York East was at it again in October of 1986. He pointed out that the Minister had said the previous spring that he was going to be reviewing gun-control legislation. He asked the Minister when he was going to take action. What did the Minister say? Indeed, a review was taking place. He hoped to have the recommendations in his
Gun Control
hands very shortly. Undoubtedly that would lead to legislation. Since then more coroner's juries have recommended tightening gun-control laws. More people have died through the use of firearms. More children have been killed accidentally through the use of firearms. How much longer is the Government going to wait? How much longer is he going to refuse to heed the plea of the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, coroner's juries, members of his own caucus, before the Minister finally takes action to tighten gun-control laws?
In conclusion, I want to acknowledge the contribution made in this area of the law by another Member of this House, the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand). He has been subject to a great deal of criticism as a result of the leadership role he took in the search for tough gun-control legislation. The Hon. Member introduced legislation which in no way impinges on the right of hunters to continue to hunt safely as they see fit. Indeed, as Solicitor General he was responsible for the adoption of the original gun control legislation. It is members from all Parties, Members such as the Hon. Member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace- Lachine East, Members such as the Hon. Member for York East, and myself as an NDP Member, who again appeal to the Government to take action. Let it recognize that the time is long overdue for effective gun-control legislation. The evaluation report of the committee that looked into the existing laws found that the number of firearms charges has increased. The severity of sentences for firearms offences has increased. Most important, murder by firearms as a percentage of all murders has declined since the new legislation came into effect.
As a society which values human life, surely we have an obligation to ensure that we have the most effective gun-control laws in this country. That is the purpose of my Bill and I hope at the very least, if it is not adopted at second reading today, that it will be sent to the appropriate standing committee where the subject matter can be studied carefully and thoughtfully. Canadians can be given an opportunity to appear before that committee to voice their concerns. As a result of that process, perhaps we can adopt effective gun-control legislation.


Mr. Vince Dantzer (Okanagan North):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased to have an opportunity this evening to speak on Bill C-207. The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) talks about loony Bills. This is a loony Bill. However, it does touch on matters of real interest not only to my constituents but to all Canadians. This is so because gun control affects the very fabric of our rights and freedoms in this democratic society. It also touches on issues of public safety, indeed, life and death. It is no wonder that when changes to Canada's gun-control legislation are under consideration, there is a very lively debate.
It remains a controversial subject and continues to inspire sharply divided opinion. Under this Bill, the Hon. Member proposes to toughen the system by replacing acquisition certificates with possession certificates. Just recently, as the

September 15, 1987
Gun Control
Hon. Member said, Bill C-213 was debated during Private Members' hour. That Bill, sponsored by the Hon. Member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), proposed to relax gun control in certain parts of the country. It is interesting to note that members of the same Party, the NDP, can have such divergent views. That is typical of their inconsistent and scrambled egg approach to most things of importance. It also illustrates, in all fairness, that this is a controversial subject.
In this country it is difficult to propose measures relating to firearms control. Canada is diverse, and the interests of those major urban centres such as Montreal and Vancouver are not the same as those of more remote communities. The trapper in northern Alberta and the Inuit of Baffin Island have far different interests in gun control than do people in Montreal or Vancouver. For that matter, the people in my constituency have a far different interest in gun control than do people in major urban centres.
One should also not forget the millions of Canadians who safely and responsibly enjoy firearms in sport and recreation. Let us not forget that target shooting is a very important part of the Olympic Games. I think all Canadians were justifiably proud when Linda Thom won the gold medal in pistol shooting for Canada in the 1984 Olympics. When we consider gun control let us also not forget that the use of firearms in sport, recreation, and as a means of livelihood has been part of Canada's heritage for over 400 years. Hunting and target shooting remain legitimate pastimes today enjoyed by millions of Canadians from coast to coast.
It should be emphasized that it is not the concept of gun control which is at issue here. The principles and objectives of gun control designed to prevent criminal and irresponsible use are supported by the vast majority of Canadians and deserve our full support. Any change to the legislation must recognize the legitimate interests of millions of Canadians who own and use firearms responsibly. I believe a careful balance must be struck. It is important that all those affected are carefully considered before the House brings any change in gun-control legislation.
It is as a result of my concern for the millions of honest, law-abiding Canadians who enjoy the use of firearms that I must speak out strongly against the main thrust of this Bill. I am informed that over 6,000 letters were received by the Government when a Private Member's Bill identical to this one was before this House. My own office was flooded with letters on the subject. Typically, they expressed concern about what most people perceived as proposals to place further restrictions on the use and ownership of guns in Canada. The majority of those letters indicated that we already have sufficient gun-control laws and strongly opposed greater restrictions on the use of guns.
People living in rural areas of Canada are dependent on their guns, some for their living and others simply as a means
of protection of property and a form of recreation. It is worth remembering that firearms are very important to a large number of Canadians. It is an unusual farm truck in my constituency which does not have a gun rack and guns in the cab which are used daily for the legitimate purposes of sport, recreation, hunting or protection of farms from animals. The people in my constituency of Okanagan North have a strong interest in legislation which proposes to restrict their activities in this area.
Let us consider for a moment the many Canadians who would be affected by Bill C-207. In the Provinces of Ontario and Quebec alone there are over one million hunting licences issued each year. Hunting is a very popular sport and, in many cases, a means of livelihood from coast to coast in Canada. Indeed, hunting is truly a unique part of Canada's heritage. It is a pastime enjoyed by fathers and sons and, I am pleased to note, an increasing number of women are also participating in this sport.
I am talking about law-abiding citizens. Many hunters have had their firearms in their families for many years. All of these people would be required to get firearm possession certificates under this proposal. These many people have presented no problem in the way in which they use guns, and this Bill does not attack the problem areas. This Bill would only unnecessarily inconvenience millions of responsible gun owners.
Experience before 1979 and since then with the firearms acquisition certificate system does not indicate that any problem exists for which more stringent controls would be justified. This system has been in force for just over eight years, and it is still too early to determine how effective the system has been. It is certainly premature to consider introducing even more restrictive legislation.
The objectives of the gun-control legislation seem to have been forgotten when Bill C-207 was drafted. The Bill does not deal at all with the criminal element. It deals with millions of Canadians who use their firearms responsibly.
There are many implications of this Bill which concern me. I would like to make it clear that bureaucratic red tape would ensnarl the many citizens who would be affected under this Bill. First, they would have to get an application form and then present themselves to a firearms officer to make application. This can cause considerable hardship for many people in outlying areas where the nearest police station may be many miles away. They must make application during normal working hours, which would mean that many people would lose wages. This procedure would have to be carried out by millions of people.
My investigations indicate that one million man-hours would be required for the issuance of the certificate to all those who do not now hold one. That represents the equivalent of 645 police officers working full-time for one year. I think the House will agree that the time of our police can be put to better use.
September 15, 1987

Under these circumstances 1 urge that Members of this House treat this Bill as the loony Bill it is and reject it in favour of the present legislation.


Mr. Maurice Tremblay (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I am very pleased as well to have this opportunity to speak to Bill C-207 concerning gun control.
At the outset, Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out that Canada has long since had legislative measures on gun control and that these measures have been endorsed by a number of previous administrations. The aims of these measures deserve our support and I think they bear repeating. Quite simply, Mr. Speaker, they are designed to prevent potentially dangerous individuals from having access to firearms, to promote-and this is very important-the sense of responsibility among owners and users of firearms, and of course to discourage criminal use of firearms as much as possible.
As I see it, Mr. Speaker, the measures advocated in Bill C-207 fall somewhat short of these aims and do not justify imposing additional restrictions on responsible users. This Bill does not come to grips with the real issue, which is the use of firearms for criminal purposes. All things considered, Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that I will not be able to support the Bill sponsored by the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).
The firearms acquisition certificate system set up in 1979 was designed to single out any individual seeking to acquire a firearm by any means whatever. The provision concerning firearms acquisition certificates applies to any person over age 16 who wants to buy a firearm for the first time. It also applies to people who already owned firearms before 1979 and who now wish to purchase additional firearms or to borrow one from a friend. The existing legislation on firearms acquisition certificates already covers a lot of ground.
The Criminal Code now includes additional provisions for another mechanism to identify firearm owners who could be dangerous and prevent them from owning and using these firearms.
First and foremost, Mr. Speaker, these measures include important preventive measures which reinforce the prohibition powers of the court.
In several cases, the court can issue an order of prohibition, which is a court order prohibiting a person from owning a firearm, ammunition or an explosive substance, as its name would indicate.
First, the court must impose a prohibition of at least five years when an offender has been convicted or released under Section 662.1, that is in relation with:
-an offence involving acts of violence punishable by a maximum penalty of at least ten years of imprisonment, or
-an indictable offence covered by Section 83, that is use of a firearm in committing an indictable offence.
Gun Control
Second, subsection 98(2) of the Criminal Code gives to the courts the discretionary power to issue an order of prohibition when a person is convicted or released under Section 662.1, that is in relation with:
-an offence committed accompanied by violence or by an attempt or threat of violence against another person, or
-an offence involving the use, carrying, possession, handling, shipping or storing of a firearm or ammunition.
For neither of these prohibitions is it necessary for the person involved to have used violence. It is enough for that person to have threatened to use it, such as in the case of aggravated theft, or to have attempted to do so.
A third provision also allows for preventive prohibition. If a peace officer has reasonable grounds to believe that public safety justifies it, he can make such a request to a provincial court judge. If the judge of the provincial court agrees to this request, he can prohibit someone from owning firearms, ammunitions or explosive substances for a maximum period of five years. This order can be issued following or without a conviction for an indictable offence.
Finally, the Criminal Code also provides a power of prohibition in cases where the firearms officer is asked to refer to a judge of the provincial court a refusal to grant a firearms acquisition certificate. If the judge of the provincial court agrees to such a refusal, he can prohibit the claimant from owning firearms for a maximum period of five years.
It is therefore obvious, Mr. Speaker, that the courts already have extensive powers to deal with the criminal and irresponsible elements in of our society. It must be emphasized that those provisions only apply, in a very selective way, to persons who, there are reasons to believe, are a danger to themselves or to society. As opposed to the provisions in Bill C-207, prohibition provisions do not decry the vast majority of firearm owners who in the last analysis are honest, law-abiding, responsible citizens, Mr. Speaker. And the available data indeed support that contention.
The annual report on firearms issued by the RCMP Commissioner includes pertinent and interesting statistics. In 1986, more than 184,000 firearm acquisition applications have been filed, of which 1,339 were rejected, less than 1 per cent. The fact that more than 99 per cent of all applications are approved confirms that the vast majority of firearm owners in Canada are responsible and do not endanger public safety.
Prohibition order statistics also are very interesting and revealing. During 1986, 5,378 persons were prohibited from owning firearms, ammunition or explosive substances. By the end of 1986, such prohibitions involved a cumulative total of 20,307 people.
Mr. Speaker, it is my personal view that those data are selfexplanatory. Thanks to the current legislative measures which identify all those who wish to acquire firearms and forbid selectively those who are a public security risk from possessing

September 15, 1987
Gun Control
firearms, Bill C-207 would be superfluous. The purpose of this Bill is not to deal with criminals and irresponsible individuals. It would only impose an unfair and unnecessary burden on legitimate firearm users.
Moreover, Mr. Speaker, 1 suggest that we would better achieve the true objectives of firearm control by strictly imposing heavy penalties on all those convicted of an offence involving the improper, criminal or reckless use of firearms. In other words, I think that it would be better to punish severely all criminals and irresponsible individuals, and not create new obstacles for law-abiding citizens wishing to possess firearms for legitimate sporting or leisure activities, as would be the case with Bill C-207.
The current legislation includes, in the area of sentencing, a whole series of provisions to dissuade criminals from using firearms. The Criminal Code, as amended in 1977, has reinforced the penalties which the courts may impose. The most significant of these new means provides, under Section 83 of the Criminal Code, in the case of a first offence, for a penalty of not less than one year and not more than 14 years, to every one who, and I quote: "uses a firearm while committing or attempting to commit an indictable offence". This new section, which came into force on January 1, 1978, provides that a sentence so imposed on a person would be served consecutively to any other punishment imposed on him or her.
In the case of subsequent offences, the minimum penalty is increased to three years and should also be served consecutively to any other punishment.
Also, the legislation provides for the following offences and penalties: a fine or imprisonment of not more than two years for permit related offences; a fine or imprisonment of no more than five years for the possession of a firearm by a person who is prohibited from owning one; the possession of a prohibited weapon, pointing a gun at another person, carrying a concealed weapon without a permit; and also an imprisonment of no more than ten years for carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof for a purpose dangerous to the public peace or for the purpose of committing an offence.
In addition to the penalties I have just mentioned, there are safety related offences dealing with the handling, storage and sale of firearms.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the whole series of offences and penalties which i have just described may effectively achieve the essential goals of firearm control, which are to dissuade their criminal and ill-advised use and discourage their irresponsible and inconsiderate use.
According to an independent evaluation carried out every three years of the current legislative measures, these provisions have had positive results.
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the provisions of Bill C-207 are not aimed at facing the true problem which is the criminal and irresponsible use of firearms. It would introduce bureaucratic complications which would prove expensive by absorbing the
modest resources of the criminal justice system and represent an unfair burden for millions of honest and law-abiding users. Under the circumstances, Mr. Speaker, I will vote against Bill C-207.
[DOT]	(1730)


Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have the opportunity to speak to Bill C-207, a proposal to amend the gun-control provisions of the Criminal Code.
When I was born in a teacherage in a remote spot in Alberta, we had a gun in the house. We have always had guns and have handled them safely and well. They have given us a great deal of pleasure and have provided a great deal of food.
Guns have not proven to be any problem to us. The only person ever killed violently in our family was my grandfather who died in a car accident in 1929. No one has ever been killed due to the use of a gun in our family.
I have always believed that guns are an essential part of our lives in western Canada, and Alberta in particular.
In essence, the proposed amendments to the legislation would extend the current law in three ways. First, individuals who owned a firearm prior to 1979 and who have not subsequently obtained a firearms acquisition certificate would be required, if they wished to retain possession of the firearm, to submit themselves to screening by police. The purpose of this screening would be to determine if their possession of a firearm constitutes a hazard to their safety or to the safety of others. Second, it would mean that the mere possession of ammunition by anyone who has not passed this screening will be an offence under the Criminal Code of Canada. Finally, the amendment would require anyone who has a firearm or ammunition in a motor vehicle to have a firearms possession certificate. I would like to use the time available to outline some very serious reservations I have regarding these proposed changes.
[DOT]	(1740)
The current legislation provides the legal basis to deny individuals who wish to acquire a firearm the right to do so if there is reasonable cause to believe, for the safety of the public, that they should not have one. It is intended to prevent convicted criminals who have used violence against another person, or who have used firearms in the commission of their crimes, and individuals who have been treated for mental disorders associated with violent behaviour, or who have attempted or threatened violence against others, all within a previous five-year period, from legally acquiring firearms.
At the time the current legislation was being drafted, a choice had to be made as to whether or not this screening should apply to everyone who possessed a firearm or only to those who would acquire one after the legislation came into
September 15, 1987

effect. For a number of reasons, and as a result of a delicate compromise, it was decided to follow the latter course.
It is implied in the explanatory notes to the Bill that the current law does not apply these screening provisions to individuals who acquired their firearms prior to its inception, and the proposed change is necessary to correct this lacuna. While it is true that the screening provisions do not apply with respect to individuals who possessed firearms prior to 1979, and who do not intend to acquire another one, there are, however, other adequate existing procedures which are intended to achieve the same end result. I am referring here to the actions which may be taken under the provisions of Section 98 and Section 101 of the Criminal Code.
Section 98 provides the authority under various circumstances for the courts to impose a prohibition order which prohibits individuals subjected to the order from possessing firearms, ammunition or an explosive substance for a specified period of time. In some cases, these orders are mandatory additions to sentences imposed upon convictions for crimes in which violence against a person is used. In other cases, a peace officer or a firearms officer, who has reason to believe that it would not be desirable in the interest of public safety for a person to possess any firearm, ammunition or explosive substance, may apply to a provincial court judge for an order prohibiting that person from possessing any of these items.
Not only do these procedures exist, but they are being used for the purposes intended. 1 draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the latest annual firearms report to the Solicitor General of Canada by the Commissioner of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police. Page 13 of this report states that in Canada, during 1986, there were 3,474 people prohibited from possessing firearms, ammunition or explosive substances pursuant to the provisions of subsection 98(1).
These are mandatory prohibition orders imposed as a result of a conviction of an indictable offence where the offender might have been sentenced to 10 years imprisonment or more. Such orders do not take effect until the offender's release from imprisonment. There were also 951 of what are termed "discretionary prohibition orders" issued in 1986 pursuant to subsection 98(2) of the Criminal Code. Under this subsection the courts have the discretion to prohibit an individual who has been convicted of an offence involving the use, carriage, possession, handling, shipping or storage of any firearm, ammunition or any offence, other than an offence referred to in subsection (1), in the commission of which violence against a person was used, threatened or attempted, and where they believe it is not reasonable for the person to possess firearms.
The courts have made good use of the prohibition orders available to them in the Criminal Code.
In addition to these procedures, I can inform you, Mr. Speaker, that there is another procedure with far-reaching implications which exists in the code for the protection of us all. Under Section 101, a peace officer may apply to a magistrate for a warrant to search for and to seize any
Gun Control
firearm, ammunition or explosive substance or offensive weapon which he believes would be dangerous to the public peace if it were to be in the possession or control of a person. Furthermore, a peace officer may carry out a search and seizure without a warrant in circumstances where application for the warrant would be rendered impracticable by exigent circumstances. Such a right, surely, was not conferred lightly. It impinges on our basic desire for freedom from intrusion into the sanctity of our homes.
Law with force such as this does not need the additional restrictions contemplated in Bill C-207. The control of ammunition is also an issue which apparently the Bill's author would like to inject into the Criminal Code. 1 think it is important for us to realize that more restrictions and controls are not necessarily solutions to all our problems. If firearms are adequately controlled, the question of ammunition should not be a problem.
Furthermore, if it is the Hon. Member's intention to control ammunition, I think Bill C-207 needs further drafting in order to avoid some real problems. Ammunition is not defined. We have in the country thousands of persons using muzzle-loading firearms. Are their black powder or lead balls considered to be ammunition? Other shooters, for economy and quality control purposes, assemble their own ammunition. I have spent hours and hours making bullets. Are ammunition components to be controlled or only assembled ammunition?
I am particularly disturbed by another effect of the amendment which would impose a type of de facto carrying permit regime for firearms such as any rifle or shotgun and, worse still, could turn law-abiding citizens into criminals. The Bill would not only require everyone who possesses a firearm to have a possession certificate but would also require that anyone who possesses one, or ammunition for that matter, in a motor vehicle have such a certificate.
Furthermore, the proposed amendment would require any occupant of a motor vehicle, if he becomes aware that a firearm or ammunition is present in the vehicle, to have reason to believe that some occupant of the vehicle is the holder of a possession certificate. The reasonable action of anyone finding himself in these circumstances would be to determine if indeed some occupant did possess a certificate. Ordinary citizens, in consequence of such an obligation, must become involved in the enforcement process, because if they fail to do so, they can be charged with committing an indictable offence. Enough said, 1 believe, of the possible dangers posed by this type of legislation.
In conclusion, let me say that this Bill does not improve the current legislation. Worse, it encumbers it with unnecessary additions and further unwarranted restrictions. I believe it is not deserving of our support.


Mr. Alan Redway (York East):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to say a word or two in connection with Bill C-

September 15, 1987
Gun Control
201, which, as you know, is an Act to amend the Criminal Code with respect to gun-control laws and legislation.
The Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) has pointed out that I have had a great interest in this area of the law, along with other areas of the criminal justice system, since I came here as a Member of Parliament some three years ago. I did not come lacking in interest in this area, I came bringing my interest in this area of the criminal justice system with me when I came to Ottawa.
1 recognize as you do, Sir, and as has been outlined in the House this afternoon, that this is a very controversial area in which there is a wide divergence of opinion as to just what should be done with respect to gun control. We have heard this afternoon, and 1 have heard in the past on many occasions, that in fact rather than tightening gun-control laws we should be loosening them up or, at the very minimum, we should leave them alone.


William Lesick: Hear, hear!
Mr. Red way: The Hon. Member for Edmonton East (Mr. Lesick) has said, "Hear, hear!". Of course, during his own remarks he said that in all his long career in using and having guns in his family none of them have ever lost their lives as a result of the use of firearms. Thank goodness that that has been the case. We would be devastated to learn that the Hon. Member or any member of his family had lost their lives through the use of guns. 1 am sure that, very fortunately, the Hon. Member has never had the opportunity to walk down the street during a bank robbery or the hold-up of a gas bar. There are people who have had other experiences in this respect, particularly police officers whom we all call upon to aid and to assist us when we are faced with dangerous situations such as people carrying and using firearms in an improper fashion.
As I indicated, 1 have listened carefully to this debate. I have listened to such debates many times in the past. There are those who feel that we should tighten up gun-control legislation. There are those who feel that we should leave it alone. There are those who feel that we should loosen it up. Surely, we can come up with some laws that deal with all of the concerns and all of the situations that have been pointed out this afternoon, concerns which are pointed out on the many occasions when this subject is raised.
There are certainly legitimate concerns on the part of hunters and target-shooters. That is something which we all understand. However, at the same time there are other legitimate problems that exist with the use of firearms. We have to have some gun-control legislation to deal with those problems. I think perhaps the most pressing of these at the present time are the ones that have been pointed out by the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police. My friend, the Hon. Member for Burnaby, referred to the resolution dealing with firearms that was passed one year ago in August of 1986 by the eighty-first annual conference of the Canadian Association
of Chiefs of Police. At that time the chiefs of police were calling upon the Solicitor General of Canada to address their concerns in conjunction with his provincial counterparts and to take the steps necessary to end the increase in available weapons, as well as to review the present gun-control laws.
In their resolution they pointed out a number of situations with which they are concerned. One concern in particular, that which causes the greatest concern to them-I know it does to the Chief of Police in my own city of metropolitan Toronto-is expressed in the following resolution:
WHEREAS there is presently a worldwide surplus of automatic and semiautomatic weapons primarily designed for purposes of warfare now finding
their way into the Canadian market place-
Obviously, that is the area of greatest concern to the police. What police officer, chief of police or otherwise, would want to see any one of his compatriots or colleagues on the police force face in a show-down someone armed with an automatic or a semi-automatic machine gun when that police officer had in response to defend him or herself a revolver in order to serve and protect the public as they are sworn to do? The growing number and the world-wide surplus of automatic and semiautomatic weapons is an area that really has to be addressed, and addressed seriously by the Government.
In order to try to express my own concerns with this situation, as you will recall, Mr. Speaker, I have raised questions in the House on two occasions dealing with gun control. The first occasion was about a year and a half ago. It came about immediately after the Boyarski case in Metropolitan Toronto in which guns were used, guns that had been used which did not comply with the present gun-control legislation. At that time the Solicitor General, who was then the law officer in charge of this legislation, indicated that there would be some changes made to our gun-control laws, and made very promptly. That was about a year and a half ago.
Subsequently, one year ago, I raised the issue again in a question to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who had then assumed the responsibilities for gun-control legislation. At that time the Minister indicated that there would be prompt action in this regard. Now, almost two years have passed since the Government indicated that we would be seeing something in the way of new gun-control legislation, and we have not seen anything of the sort. I know it is disturbing to the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police.
Although hunters and target-shooters are content with what we have now, I believe that it is disturbing to the average Canadian. The average Canadian now lives in an urban area and is faced with these potential dangers, not the danger of someone hunting ducks or deer or of someone shooting a clay pigeon or shooting at targets on a range, but with the problems of people running around the streets with weapons that may very well cause problems, and very serious ones.
It is long overdue that the Government start to address this problem and to introduce some legislation to deal with it. 1
September 15, 1987

hope that the Minister of Justice intends to do so, and to do so in the reasonably near future.
1 have to say that I have had a research assistant trying to deal with this problem for the past six months and to base with the Minister. He has been unable to meet with the staff of the Department on this subject because of one problem after another that has presented itself. The time has come to deal with this matter, and to deal with it promptly. I hope that we will not have another delay as referred to by the Minister of Justice in the press just yesterday. He was quoted as saying that he agrees that there is a demand for criminal justice law reform but he feels that it has to be a slow and laborious exercise. Heavens, Mr. Speaker, the time for slow and laborious exercise has certainly passed in the case of gun control.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: 1 would like to read a statement to the House at this time concerning Private Members' Business for Thursday, September 17, 1987.
The Hon. Member for LaSalle (Mr. Lanthier) has withdrawn his Bill, Bill C-259, which, according to the order of precedence, would be scheduled for debate on Thursday, September 17, 1987. It has been impossible to arrange for any other item of Private Members' Business to take its place on that day. Therefore, no notice will be published for Private Members' Hour on Thursday. The House will continue with the business before it prior to that time pursuant to Standing Order 39(3)(b).
The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1) the order is dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Alan Redway: Mr. Speaker, 1 know that you are well aware of the infamous case of Denis Lortie. You will recall that he is the man who, some three years ago, burst into the Quebec National Assembly carrying two sub-machine guns. Interestingly enough, we were just talking about gun control legislation. Mr. Lortie stormed into the Quebec National Assembly carrying two sub-machine guns, and within the space of some 45 minutes he had killed three innocent government employees and wounded some 13 others.
Adjournment Debate
At that time Lortie was convicted of first degree murder. He appealed that conviction, was granted a new trial, and finally in May of this year he pleaded guilty to three charges of second degree murder and nine charges of attempted murder. At that time he was sentenced by Mr. Justice Desjardins to a mandatory sentence of life imprisonment.
1 do not know what you think of, Mr. Speaker, when you hear the words "life in prison". What do they in fact mean in the case of Lortie? Well, in the Lortie case a life sentence means that he can apply for parole after 10 years. Not only can he apply for parole after 10 years, but it has been decided that the three years he has already spent in prison will be part of that 10 years. In fact, he can apply for parole, and will likely be out on parole after seven years at the most, and that for the murder, whether first or second degree, of three people, and a conviction on the charge of attempted murder of nine others.
Is that life in prison? It does not mean life imprisonment to me. 1 suspect it does not mean life imprisonment to you, Mr. Speaker. I venture to say that it does not mean life imprisonment to the vast majority of Canadians. I suspect that Canadians probably think life imprisonment means what happened in the case of Rudolf Hess. Once sentenced to life imprisonment, he did serve the rest of his natural life in prison. Of course, that is not what life imprisonment means in the case of the sentence of Denis Lortie, even though the judge used the words "life in prison".
I am sure, Mr. Speaker, you will recall another case that occurred very recently, the case of one Yves Trudeau. He has two nicknames. Some people know him as "Apache" Trudeau, and some people call him the "Mad Bumper". Yves Trudeau is a biker. He has confessed to murdering 43 people, and he is believed to have been involved in the murder of 40 others.
In exchange for turning police informer, Yves Trudeau was allowed to plead guilty to manslaughter. And he was sentenced, you guessed it, to life in prison. What does life in prison mean as far as Apache Trudeau is concerned? In his case, it means parole after seven years. This man admitted to killing 43 people and he is suspected of killing another 40, a total of 83 people. His sentence "life imprisonment" is seven years. Can you believe that, Mr. Speaker? Well, I cannot believe it. I know that by and large Canadians cannot believe it either.
Obviously we need something in the way of a major reform, at least in our sentencing in criminal cases and in our criminal justice system. The previous Government thought so too. It appointed something called the Canadian Sentencing Commission to study that problem. The Commission reported in March of this year. It said that there was a lack of public confidence in criminal sentencing, that there were great differences in sentencing for the same offences and that there were too many people being sent to jail for non-violent offences.

September 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
The commission came up with a long list of recommendations which basically were aimed at restoring public confidence in our criminal justice system. How can we restore the confidence of the great Canadian public in our criminal justice system? I believe there are certain basic things we should be thinking of here. We should be wanting to make sure that a person who commits a serious offence pays a proper penalty for it by spending a substantial part of that person's life in prison.
1 believe that we should be looking at longer sentences for violent crimes, particularly murder. 1 believe that we should not be trivializing murder and other serious offences, particularly violent crimes, by rapid paroles. I believe that we should be trying to put more certainty into the sentencing procedure. We should limit the discretion that judges have in imposing sentences, not tying their hands altogether, but putting some definite limitations on their discretion and we should make them spell out specifically what sort of sentences they are imposing. We should not kid the troops by saying life imprisonment when we mean only 10, 15, 25 or even 7 years. We should make judges spell out specifically when parole of any sort is applicable and for how long a period. That is the sort of thing we should be doing.
I hope tonight that we will have from the Parliamentary Secretary some specific words on the subject, that he will tell us that that is what the Government will do and that it will do it fast. 1 hope he will not tell us, as reported in the newspaper yesterday, that although this report of the Sentencing Commission came out in March of this year that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is not going to meet with his provincial counterparts on this until 1988. Surely the Government can do better than that.


Mr. Francois Gerin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, I thank my colleague for raising this issue because I must say at the outset that his remarks faithfully mirror the concerns of many Canadians in this respect. As it happens, they often find it hard to understand why an individual sentenced to five years should be paroled after a year and a half under conditions with which they are not familiar.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Justice shares the concerns not only of the Hon. Member but of many Canadians, and I think he has made a commitment to take vigourous action to prevent crime, and violent crime more specifically. Perhaps the sanctions provided under the criminal Code ought to be more in line with the seriousness of the criminal act involved.
Last March 27 the Minister of Justice tabled in the House the report of the Canadian Sentencing Commission, a complex document of 592 pages containing 91 recommendations. We must take time to make an in-depth analysis of this report and
give it all the attention it deserves. The report recommendations have significant implications concerning every aspect of the criminal justice system, from police work to sentence serving. Its consequences for the provinces are particularly significant because they have jurisdiction over the administration of justice and the enforcement of many sanctions prescribed under the Criminal Code. This is why the provinces must have enough time to analyze the full impact of the report and have an opportunity to express their views at length. The Minister of Justice is therefore planning to have extensive consultations with the provincial Governments.
In addition, in view of the importance of this matter for all those involved with our criminal justice system, the Minister of Justice wants to consult all of them. These consultations should include the judiciary, the associations of defence counsels, the various provinces, the correctional authorities and certain organizations, such as the John Howard Society, which play an active role in the criminal justice system.
Finally, we must not forget the new draft of the Criminal Code prepared by the Law Reform Commission. Major reform proposals such as the new Code and the report of the Commission on sentencing cannot be examined independently. Comments about one must necessarily take the other into account.
However, in view of their importance as far as determining the direction to be given to the Canadian justice system, 1 can only say, Mr. Speaker, that whatever the time it takes to prepare a responsible reply to the recommendations of the Commission, this time will not be wasted.


CANADA DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORPORATION-COVERAGE OF REGISTERED RETIREMENT SAVINGS PLANS-REQUEST FOR AMENDMENT TO LEGISLATION
David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, the 67,000 Canadians who entrusted their savings and RRSP funds to Principal Trust and its affiliated companies will lose $191 million as a result of the bankruptcies of these companies and particularly of First Investors and Associated Investors.
Speaking for the Government, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Hockin) has denied any real responsibility for this disaster by pointing out that with the exception of Principal Savings and Trust, whose depositors had their funds insured by the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation, all the other subsidiaries of that original trust company were established under the laws of the Province of Alberta and their depositors were not covered by CDIC. That claim is factually and legally correct.
There is at least one group of people who invested their savings in subsidiary companies and who had every right to expect that their money would be protected. I am referring to the thousands of people who put part or all of their savings into
September 15, 1987

registered retirement savings plans through these Principal subsidiaries.
These people were encouraged to put their money into these plans by federal legislation which told them that if they did so, they would not have to pay any income tax on that money until after retirement, when the plan would begin to give them an income which, together with the old age assistance and Canada Pension Plan, would permit them to live in relative comfort. Of course, at that time they would begin to pay income tax on that money.
It was not surprising that thousands of people put their RRSP funds into affiliated companies on the advice of the salesmen. The salesmen were paid a 3 per cent commission for making sales in these companies rather than the 1.5 per cent commission they were paid for sales in Principal Trust itself. Naturally they pushed the subsidiaries, and it is not surprising that they often did not warn their customers about the lack of protection in those companies.
Thousands have now had their retirement incomes wiped out. The tax they would have had to pay when they retired will also disappear. Surely it is time to amend the income tax law so that moneys put into RRSPs are required to be put into plans which are covered by CDIC.
The stories of some of the people who were hurt are just unbelievably sad. Let me put on record a few of the cases of which I have heard.
A 71-year-old man and his wife had over $17,000 in RRSPs and $20,000 in term certificates with First Investors. They were hoping for a small monthly income in their old age. Now everything is gone.
A senior citizen had $77,000 in RRSPs and term certificates with Associated Investors and First Investors. He now has only $200 in the bank. His entire life savings are gone.
A senior citizen had $12,000 in term certificates with First Investors. This amount was originally in Principal Savings and Trust Company and was insured. Without permission and with specific instructions not to do so, it was transferred over to the subsidiary companies that had no insurance.
An older gentleman had $15,000 in RRSPs. This represented his savings from over 20 years. He was told that the investment was guaranteed, but obviously it was not and his money is all or in large part gone.
A widower who is over 70 years invested all his life savings with First Investors. That money has disappeared.
I call on the Government to take its responsibilities seriously and act on behalf of ordinary Canadians who have been persuaded, and often duped, into investing in uninsured funds. The money involved was saved with great difficulty in order that they could live with some dignity and comfort in their retirement years. The least the Government can do is to amend
Adjournment Debate
the Income Tax Act with respect to RRSPs to ensure that the money invested in that way is covered by CDIC insurance. 1 call on the Government to take action and not delay any longer. Enough people have been seriously and grievously hurt.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of the Canada Deposit Insurance Corporation has always been to protect the deposits of Canadians against the loss of funds they could incur if the institution holding their deposits should go bankrupt.
Until now, full insurance coverage by the CDIC has been limited to certain types of deposits whose total amount does not exceed an amount set in the Act, which amount is now $60,000. The reason for this is that, contrary to small depositors, individuals and corporations having very large deposits or other types of investments normally have the knowledge and capacity to diversify their risks and avoid undue losses which could result from the bankruptcy of a financial institution. In other words, the purpose of deposit insurance is not to guarantee the types of investments made by corporations and wealthy individuals.
Members of this House will certainly agree that this reasoning still holds and applies just as well to RRSPs as to ordinary deposits. 1 especially wish to remind the Hon. Member that, if the Government maintained the present ceiling of $60,000 for full insurance coverage by the CDIC in Bill C-42, it was precisely because it wanted to make certain that the majority of small RRSP owners, that is those who invest only in regular deposit instruments and guaranteed investment certificates, would still be fully insured.
However, the solution proposed by the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) is less than satisfactory. Under the Income Tax Act, Canadians are now entitled to choose among a large number of investment instruments with a savings retirement program associated with a RRSP. Any initiative to limit RRSP investments to insurable deposits under the Deposit Insurance Corporation Act would be too restrictive. It would probably result in the disappearance of self-managed RRSPs and reduce the possibility for RRSP owners of obtaining higher returns thanks to a more diversified investment strategy.
It is also important to provide similar protection when nonmember corporations are involved. There is now an investigation in Alberta on the misrepresentations which could have occured in relation with Principal Trust, which is a member institution of the Deposit Insurance Corporation, and its nonmember affiliates, First Investors and Associated Investors. In addition, the Government of Canada has already taken certain initiatives in Bills C-42 and C-56 to increase protection of consumers in general, and it is planning to take other such initiatives in the next legislative package on the reform of the financial sector.

September 15, 1987
Adjournment Debate
We also recognize the need to co-ordinate consumer protection measures in view of the sharing of jurisdiction over financial services. This is why this matter is also the subject of ongoing discussions with the provinces.


THE CONSTITUTION-1987 CONSTITUTION ACCORD-LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS-REPRESENTATION OF LANGUAGE MINORITY GROUPS IN PUBLIC SERVICE
Jean-Robert Gauthier: Mr. Speaker, the question I asked last June 5 had to do with the Constitutional Accord, more particularly with the provisions concerning the protection of the rights of official language minority groups. It will be recalled that the accord was tabled in the House on June 3. On June 4 I put a question to the Prime Minister, and I raised the issue again on June 5.
Mr. Speaker, I have already explained the problem we are faced with, either here in the House or before the Special Joint Committee on the Constitutional Accord. I have had an opportunity to explain the problem facing minorities.
The only thing mentioned in the accord is the obligation of the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures to protect the rights of official language minority groups. There is no question of promotion. To me, that is insufficient.
Protecting the present situation is tantamount to protecting the status quo, which is just another way of saying that, because of the rapid rate of assimilation which will be threatening us in the coming years, we of the Canadian Diaspora, it threatens with disappearance groups who are important for the survival of this country, our Canada, with two official languages.
We believe that the Meech Lake Accord must be amended so as to include, in addition to the notion of protection of the linguistic duality, the notion of promotion of that duality. This is a crucial aspect, especially for the francophone minorities outside Quebec.
If we are prepared to include in our Constitution the notion of linguistic duality, as suggested in the accord and as a fundamental characteristic of Canada, it seems to me the least we can say is that we must make sure that this fundamental characteristic will endure and be the subject of some kind of promotion on the part of both federal and provincial government levels. This requires the assurance that there will be promotion in addition to preservation.
Yet, notwithstanding all the evidence heard by the special committee to urge the Government to amend the accord, it has been to no avail. The Prime Minister keeps saying that the accord cannot be amended lest it be compromised.
But what was the specific purpose of this new constitutional round? It was to redress the situation where Quebec was not a full-fledged member of the Canadian constitutional family. Therefore, negotiations were based on the five proposals submitted by the Quebec Government: first, the specific
recognition of Quebec as a distinct society; second, the guarantee that Quebec's powers in the area of immigration will be widened; third, a limitation to the Canadian Government's spending powers; four, a review of the constitutional amendment process, including the recognition of Quebec's veto right; and five, Quebec's involvement in the appointment of Supreme Court justices.
We in the Liberal Party support all those principles. But as our Leader the Right Hon. John Turner stated last week, and I quote:
We want to provide better protection to official language minorities by ensuring that the Canadian Government has a responsibility not only to protect, but also to promote the rights of official language minorities across Canada. Provinces also would have an opportunity to commit themselves not only to the protection but also to the promotion of our linguistic duality.
Mr. Speaker, we accept the Meech Lake Agreement because we accept Quebec's five claims. However, I cannot see how the amendment we are proposing on the obligation, at least at the federal level, to promote language duality might conflict with Quebec's demands. In my view, this creates no problem as far as adopting the Meech Lake Agreement is concerned.
Moreover, I cannot see how this amendment can be rejected by other provinces because only those that would want to would be committing themselves. If they do not want to, no problem, they will not have to. The idea would be that the federal level, the Canadian Parliament would undertake to promote official languages across the country and that provinces in due course, when they feel like it, would do the same.
If they are generous enough towards their minority and if they really believe in what they signed when they recognized this language duality as a basic feature of Canada, then they could and should prove their good intentions by becoming promoters of that language duality.
To me, Mr. Speaker, as to many experts we heard here and in committee, there is no problem with that amendment. The Government would have us believe that we want to foul up the Agreement. That is not true! We wholeheartedly want Quebec to join Canada again in an atmosphere of good will.
If there are problems, and I feel that I have just demonstrated that there are none with the addition of the word "promotion", those who are saying that there are problems should provide proof of that: the onus is on them, not on us.
A newspaperman wrote this morning in the Montreal Gazette-and I was quite surprised to read that Mr. William Johnson could write anything like that-and I quote in English from the Montreal Gazette of September 12, 1987:
So the come-from-behind Liberals propose to give to Ottawa and all the provinces the responsibility for "promoting" as well as preserving minority language rights and linguistic duality.
September 15, 1987



Mr. Speaker, I do not accept the "come-from-behind" label. The day following the Meech Lake Constitutional Accord, 1 raised in the House the issue of adding promotion to the Accord in addition to ensuring the protection of minorities.
I suggest, therefore, that Mr. Johnson should read these documents and make sure he realizes that what we want is neither more nor less, and that if we say that there will be protection, Mr. Speaker, it is quite normal to say that there must be also promotion if we are really serious about this Accord.
Mr. Speaker, the Government which resists any amendment refuses to share the legal opinions it has received from many specialists on the real impact the definition of "distinct society" may have.
Mr. Speaker, are the rights of women, natives, linguistic minorities truly subject to the Charter of Rights and Freedoms? 1 think so, but the Government adds: We have authorities, legal opinions which support this position.
If such legal opinions exist, why does the Government not share them with us and tell us exactly where this difficult question which is the subject of a national debate comes from?
The Government has recognized that promoting a linguistic duality is essential. 1 simply refer you to the Official Languages Act which incorporates in a Parliament's statute the obligation for the Federal Government to get involved in promotion.
Well, we are all aware that a statute may be amended, but a constitution is strong and resistant. All we want is: Make sure that not only the constitutional concept is accepted and enshrined, that the Federal Government is really committed to preserve the French reality outside Quebec and the English reality inside Quebec, but that it is obligated to promote this concept.
I feel this is not difficult to understand and does not seem to affect the Meech Lake Accord in anyway, except that it will give something very strong and reinforce the obligation for the Federal Government not only in a statutory fashion, but also in a Constitutional fashion, also to promote preservation.


François Gérin: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand anything anymore.
My colleague has been promoting the official languages, his record is impressive in that respect and I commend him for that. But now he is getting mixed up and tripping over carpet flowers. Listen, all he has to do is look it up in the official
Adjournment Debate
languages measure which was tabled recently, Bill C-72, which says in so many words that the Government will have to promote this Canadian duality in its institutions. But that is already a fait accompli. Where my friend gets all mixed up is when he starts talking about the Meech Lake Accord. That is where he trips, falls down, and does not know how to get back on his feet. I can understand him to a certain extent because to them and to Quebec, what did distinct society mean in 1982? In 1982, "distinct society" meant that Quebec was being left right out of the Constitutionbal Accord, it simply was not there. What you did was unspeakable, and you signed that without Quebec.
Today we have a Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) who gets along with the ten provincial premiers, he comes up with an accord, you admit it is a nice accord but in fact you are saying it lacks this and lacks that. Everything was lacking when you signed the accord because Quebec was left out, half of Canada was missing, one of the founding peoples was missing , everything was missing. And today you are telling us that we ought to add promotion .. . not the other provinces but only Quebec. But it is included in Bill C-72.
Well, make up your mind on this question, make up your mind about the Meech Lake Accord, take a definite position, stop straddling the issue. The Meech Lake Accord is the perfect constitutional accord for 1987. In 1995, in 1992, at the next constitutional round we can amend it, Mr. Speaker. Do not back both horses. It is a perfect accord. It is a perfect accord today, it is endorsed by nearly all Canadians.
The Liberals simply cannot make up their mind. Stop confusing people.


Jean-Robert Gauthier: You do not understand anything!


François Gérin: Be a man, as we say. Be a man. If you are to support it, do so without reservations. After that we will work together to build a better Canada. For the time being remember the very serious mistake you made by leaving Quebec out in 1982. Neither the Conservatives nor the New Democrats did that. You Liberals did that. So remember that and continue to promote linguistic duality, but without bringing in issues which are irrelevant. Congratulations to the Prime Minister for his Meech Lake Accord!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Paproski):: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 3(1).


[Stage Direction]
The House adjourned at 6.30 p.m.
[Stage Direction]

Wednesday, September 16, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers