1987-11-17

Hon. Doug Lewis (Minister of State and Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, in accordance with the provisions of Standing Order 99(2) I have the honour to table copies, in both official languages, of the Government's response to the fourth report of the Standing Committee on Official Languages.


STRIKING COMMITTEE
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Mr. Speaker, I have the honour to present the forty-first report of the Striking Committee.
[Editor's note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


STARRED QUESTION
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism):: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 204?


SECTION 37(4) OF THE PUBLIC SERVICE EMPLOYMENT ACT
Mr. Gauthier: During 1985, 1986 and 1987 to date, did any person having been employed as Executive Assistant, Special Assistant or Private Secretary to a Minister, or in any of those capacities successively, take advantage of the provisions of section 37(4) of the Public Service Employment Act which provide for appointments without competition and, if so (a) how many (b) how many have been so appointed (c) in which departments have the positions been filled?
Mr. Vincent Della Noce (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister Responsible for Multicultur-alism: Mr. Speaker, I have been given the following information by the Public Service Commission:
During 1985, 49 persons having been employed as Executive Assistant, Special Assistant or Private Secretary to a Minister, were entitled to take advantage of the provisions of section 37(4) of the Public Service Employment Act. During 1986 and 1987 to date, no person with such a position has been entitled to take advantage of the provisions of section 37(4) of the Public Service Employment Act and, therefore, no appointment flowing from that section of the Act has been made.
b)	Among the 49 persons employed in 1985, 10 have been appointed under the provisions of section 37(4). It is to be noted that all of the 49 persons concerned acquired the priority entitlement conferred by section 37(4) of the Public Service Employment Act as a result of the change of Government in September 1984.
c)	The ten (10) persons who were appointed under section 37(4) in 1985 were appointed to the following departments:
.Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission : 1
.Department of Communications : 1
.Employment and Immigration Canada : 4
.Fisheries and Oceans : 1
.Revenue Canada-Taxation : 1
.Transport Canada : 1
.Treasury Board Secretariat: 1
Mr. Speaker, I ask that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some Hon. Members:: Agreed.

[DOT] (mo)


MOTION TO ADJOURN UNDER S. O. 29 GATT RULING RESPECTING THE EXPORT OF WEST COAST SALMON AND HERRING
Mr. Speaker:: I wish to bring to the attention of the House that I have an application for an emergency debate and I will

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
hear the Elon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, I apply under Standing Order 29 for permission to debate an emergency.
Yesterday evening it was learned that a preliminary ruling by a panel of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade has come down against Canada with respect to our laws governing the export of West Coast salmon and herring. I suggest that this is a specific and important matter requiring urgent consideration. If the ruling is confirmed later this month it will jeopardize the jobs of some 6,000 to 8,000 shore workers in a Canadian industry.
Women and small coastal communities in British Columbia are vulnerable. A woman working in the fishing industry is most likely to be a plant worker. In a number of West Coast communities, the processing plant is the major employer. Communities such as Prince Rupert, Port Hardy and Alert Bay depend on the income brought by these enterprises.
All British Columbians know that this is a serious threat to the fish processing industry in our home province, but it is much more than just a regional issue. While this ruling only applies to the export of West Coast salmon and herring, similar export restrictions on the East Coast make it ripe for further American challenges.
In the recently concluded trade deal with the United States, Canadian negotiators agreed not to maintain or to introduce import or export restrictions except in accordance with the GATT. If this ruling is confirmed the Canadian Government has lost its right to manage its own resources. Canada's sovereignty and its independence to set our own resource policy will have been surrendered.
This debate that I urge you, Mr. Speaker, to grant is not about a simple regional issue, nor solely confined to fisheries. It is a present and urgent threat to Canadian independence. I know you will agree that this is an urgent issue and that it should be debated in the House now. I look forward to your favourable ruling.


Mr. Speaker:: Earlier this morning I received the application of the Hon. Member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands with respect to this matter and, obviously, given my own interest in my own province, I certainly agree with the Hon. Member that it is a very important matter. However, I do not think it is appropriate at this time to go into an emergency debate. There are other opportunities for the Hon. Member to raise the matter.
Having said that, it is not to be construed by anyone in this House and certainly not by the public who are watching and listening that this is not a matter of very grave concern to the Province of British Columbia and, as the Hon. Member pointed out, it may well be a concern to our fellow Canadians
on the Atlantic Coast. However, at the moment I do not find that it is appropriate to have an emergency debate.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Monday, November 16, consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, the War Measures Act, which was passed by the Canadian Parliament in 1914, has become Canada's all-purpose emergency legislation. Using this Act, it was possible to intern thousands of Canadians during World War I and to outlaw organizations such as the Communist Party and Jehovah's Witnesses. The War Measures Act made it possible for the internment of thousands of Japanese during World War II and the displacement of some 20,000 Japanese from their homes and properties which were subsequently sold. It was possible, using the provisions of this Act, to forcibly detain hundreds of Canadians during the FLQ kidnappings of October 1970. It was also possible at that time to use the legislation to authorize police raids on students and peace activists in Manitoba and Ontario.
Once the Act had been invoked and the powers given, Governments were very slow to remove them. The Act invoked in 1914 was in force until January 1920. The War Measures Act was invoked during World War II and was in force until 1951. Following the invocation of the Act in 1970, it was kept in force until April of 1971.
It has obviously been very easy for a Government of Canada to invoke a crisis atmosphere. In 1970, it was done very quickly and easily and, in the minds of many people, often for the wrong reasons. It was not because the Government feared an insurrection or an apprehended insurrection, but that it wanted to choke off legitimate democratic dissent in Quebec. It tried to permanently stop the growth of the independence movement in that province and, as some people said, to put Quebec in its place.
We know, Mr. Speaker, that it did not stop the growth of the independence movement. In fact, I would maintain, and many people would agree with me, that it was the incarceration of more than 200 people, none of whom were terrorists or revolutionists, but obviously nationalists, which led, to a large extent, to the rapid growth of the Parti Quebecois and to its winning of an election using democratic means. Those were political aims and were not security matters at all.
November 17, 1987

Of course, as I indicated in my earlier remarks, it is very difficult to deal fairly, objectively and cooly with an issue when there is what the public perceives to be a very dangerous situation. It is very difficult for a government or parliament to deal with that. I know because when I, and most of my colleagues who were Members of Parliament at the time, voted against the War Measures Act, our constituents thought we were doing wrong. Nearly all the provincial Governments supported the then Government. We were alone. But later, the then Leader of the Official Opposition, the Progressive Conservative Party, the Right Hon. Robert Stanfield, praised our Party. He did not do that when we voted against the measure, he did it much later.
It is obvious to me and to others that the position we took was to a large extent vindicated and proven correct by subsequent events. I say that because, despite the claims made by the then Minister in the Liberal Government, Mr. Mar-chand, that there were thousands of members in the FLQ organization, the fact is that there were only a handful of people and there was no danger or threat of a revolution. It was the present Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Turner), the then Minister of Justice, who promised that the reasons the Government imposed the War Measures Act would be explained at a suitable time. That suitable time never came. We still have never had from him or from the former Solicitor General any explanation as to why the War Measures Act was imposed at the time.
As I have already indicated, even the political aim of smashing the separatist movement failed. In fact, the action was counter-productive because it was responsible to a large extent for the election of a PQ Government in 1976. It is perhaps easy to be right with hindsight but, in this case, members of the New Democratic Party were right at the time. Some of us paid for it politically.
Having had that experience, I would want the successor legislation which we are discussing at the present time to be far better than what we had. In this way the kind of misuse of the Act and the way in which people have been mistreated, for example, the Japanese, the Jehovah's Witnesses and the people in Quebec who were mistreated and lost their democratic rights, would not happen again. We are not satisfied that the Bill we are discussing today will accomplish those aims or see that the excesses which were permitted on using the War Measures Act will not be used again.
Let me point out some of the difficulties we see with the present Bill. The public welfare emergency which is dealt with in Clauses 3 and 6 of the Bill directly affect the provision of goods and services in Canada during an emergency. As such, it is seen as legislation which can be used to end legitimate labour stoppages. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association stated in its submission to the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) on October 5 of this year the following:
Emergencies Act
Despite the economic disruptions which may be inflicted by strikes in the post office, the railways, or even the auto industry, we would be loath to see them become ready targets for emergency powers.
While there may be some circumstances in which some strikes have to be terminated in the public interest, we believe it is preferable that such action be taken in the context of well-balanced labour legislation or by specific statutes narrowly addressed to specific circumstances.
I point out to Hon. Members that that is precisely what we have done with regard to the Post Office and the railways and what we might very well do in respect of the current airline dispute at Air Canada. We do not need that type of provision in this Bill.
Public order emergency is defined in Clause 14 of the Bill as "threats to the security of Canada" based on the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. How can we be sure that the distinction between subversion and dissent will be respected? CSIS is having great difficulty in doing so.
As I pointed out earlier, we have as an example of that the surveillance performed by the RCMP and CSIS of poor Nick Turnette in Winnipeg. Many things can be said of him, but he has certainly never said or done anything no one who knows anything about Winnipeg or Nick Turnette would suggest it for a moment-that could be classified as subversive. It would be ludicrous and laughable if it were not so sad to see how the activities of CSIS are being misused.
International emergency is defined as a threat to any country in which the political, economic or security interests of Canada or any of its allies are involved. That is contained in Clause 25 of the Bill. It is far too broad a power. Who would want to threaten someone with sanctions for simply carrying out normal business practices that could be construed as against the interests of Canada or its allies? The Canadian Civil Liberties Association points out that there are few places in the world in which Canada or its allies do not have political, economic or security interests.
War emergencies in this Bill are virtually unchanged from the provisions of the War Measures Act. Is this really good enough for a country which has seen such rapid development in human rights legislation and organization over the past 20 years?
In conclusion, I want to say that the Minister was quite critical of the excesses of the War Measures Act in his remarks, and quite properly so. A body which acted against the War Measures Act in 1970 is the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. If the Minister is sincere about wanting to remove the excesses of the War Measures Act he should listen carefully to the association. It certainly does not support the Bill as he has drafted it.
In its submission to the Minister the association has asked time and time again for more precise drafting and specific definitions of the powers being granted to the Government under the provisions of this Bill. In the end, it makes 23 recommendations to improve the Bill. The recommendations are as basic as wanting a simple definition of the word

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
"emergency" so that the law can only be invoked when there is imminent and serious peril to the lives and health of many people. It also asks for an independent adjudicator appointed by the Canadian Labour Relations Board to award compensation for those ordered to perform duties in connection with the use of emergency powers. It also asks that the Government accept the duty to provide compensation for those injured by the exercise of emergency powers. Surely, if the experience with the Japanese Canadians is to mean anything, then there must be a clear-cut responsibility to negotiate compensation- not just the power to do so but the duty to do so. After all, the Japanese have been waiting 45 years, and they still have not received compensation for the injustices perpetrated upon them.
Finally, the association makes a request to limit the Government's power to prohibit and regulate assemblies during public order emergencies. As the association states, the right of assembly is fundamental to a democratic society, and perhaps it is the key right to achieve the goals of democracy. In the words of the association:
In so many ways, the right of peaceable assembly serves as a prerequisite to the existence of other freedoms. It represents one of the most potent ways that citizens can challenge excesses of government power. Indeed, one of our concerns is that this power might be used to prevent legitimate critics from effectively calling into question the very declaration of a public order emergency.
In the end, democracy must hold sway, if our form of government is to mean anything at all. If a government limits or even threatens to limit the power of assembly we have the very real possibility that force will be substituted for democratic principles. I remind Hon. Members that that is precisely what the Government of South Africa does in order to maintain the power of the white minority over the huge black majority in that country. We do not wish that situation to even be possibly used in Canada.
We ask, do we not have confidence in our democratic ways? In this legislation can we not say that the democratic rights of Canadians come first and limitations on them must always be tightly drafted to cover specific situations in order that the climate of repression and fear, which has too often been used by Governments in the past, will be replaced by confidence in our people and in their inherent democratic sense?
For the reasons that I have outlined, we will not vote for this Bill, certainly not in the form in which it is drafted at the present time.


Mr. Blackburn (Brant):: I listened with interest to the Hon. Member's speech on Bill C-77. Would the Hon. Member care to comment or expand upon an issue that I raised yesterday in my speech when I questioned whether this type of legislation should come in under the auspices of the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) rather than the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn).
My feeling then was that this legislation would be used mainly in peacetime; it would deal with disorder and disruption within the country when we were not at war. War is certainly the most unusual and most unlikely type of situation in which this legislation would be used. In stating that, I do not in any way cast negative aspersions on the integrity, honesty, or ability of the Minister of National Defence. I meant it more in an academic manner.
I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) if he agrees that legislation like this should be in the civilian domain as opposed to the military.


David Orlikow: I certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn). I can only speculate and guess as to why it was the Minister of National Defence who brought in this Bill. I suppose the reason is that once the Bill is imposed it is the Armed Forces that carry out its provisions.
I certainly agree with the Hon. Member for Brant, both in principle and in fact, that this is a matter which deals with the whole question of justice, controls, and a reduction of the democratic rights of the people that are involved in the use of this Act. Therefore, I believe that this Bill should have been brought in and a decision to implement it should be made by the Cabinet on the recommendation of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Hnatyshyn) rather than the Minister of National Defence.
My view has nothing to do with how I feel about the present Minister of National Defence, the Minister of Justice, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher), or any other Minister. It is pretty obvious to me that this Bill should have been dealt with as a matter of our whole system of justice and how it affects the democratic rights and freedoms of the people of Canada.


Mr. Hopkins:: I wish to ask the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) if he believes that the clauses dealing with international conflict and war are strong enough or too strong, and if he agrees that strong measures are needed for direction under those particular circumstances?
The second question I wish to pose deals with the compensation part of the Bill where, under Part V, a Federal Court judge becomes the assessor to assess cases when complaints come requiring compensation for citizens of Canada. First, they decide whether the citizen has a case in point, and whether he or she deserves compensation. They have the authority to make that decision under this Bill. After the case is heard, and if the citizen is not satisfied with the decision, the only manner in which the case can be appealed is back to the Federal Court where the decision came from in the first place. The Federal Court assessor or judge will then make a recommendation to the Government.
The one thing that the assessor cannot do is increase the amount of money as far as the Government is concerned, because it has already put a ceiling on what it will pay by way of compensation. Clause 50(3) states in part:
November 17, 1987

(3) The decision of the Assessor on any appeal under this Part is final and conclusive and is not subject to appeal to or review by any court, except in accordance with Section 28 of the Federal Court Act.
That latter part simply means that there is no appeal as long as the court follows the due process of law and the rules of natural justice. If the court does not base its decision on a mistake of fact or law, or interpretation thereof, in essence what it means is there shall be no appeal.
Does the Hon. Member feel that in this particular clause the Government is in fact setting up its own legal system to manage this Bill? Indeed, is it being its own decision maker in the end? It is the one that will decide whether or not a Canadian citizen deserves compensation.
It is interesting to note that under the War Measures Act a Canadian citizen had the right to take a case to a county or district court and from there they could automatically go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We know that that is a long route, but a citizen did have that option. Is it fair that a Canadian citizen should stop at the Federal Court of Canada and not have access to the due process of law throughout the legal system of Canada from the bottom up to the Supreme Court of Canada?


David Orlikow: I am not a lawyer, and obviously I am not an expert. I am hesitant to give answers to the somewhat technical questions asked by my hon. friend. However, let me state that I am very doubtful that I would wish to support any legislation which states that there can be no appeal from a decision made by any judge. I certainly have reservations about that question.
In respect to the question on involvement in international matters, I wish to put on the record the view of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in one of its recommendations for changes in this Bill. It states:
A re-definition of international and war emergencies so as to avoid
situations made possible by the current Bill in which emergency powers could
be invoked in Canada in response to innumerable and various circumstances
elsewhere in the world that only remotely, if at all, affect Canadian interests.
In their brief they use an illustration that Canada has some business and commercial involvement with companies in Indonesia. They say that if there were some kind of emergency or revolution in Indonesia our involvement there, which would be very tenuous, might be used under the provisions of this law to invoke the Emergencies Act in Canada.
I do not feel I could give a more specific answer than that. It points out my feelings and the feelings of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association and the Canadian Bar Association, that before the Bill is passed a great deal of very careful consideration must be given to it clause by clause.


Mr. Charles-Eugene Marin (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, the second reading of the Emergencies Bill has helped to put some
Emergencies Act
distance between us and the memories of the War Measures Act that still come back to haunt us.
When the Emergencies Bill and the Emergency Preparedness Bill were tabled on June 26 this year, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) laid bare the fundamental defects of the present legislation.
"Experience has shown", he said, "that the War Measures Act does not provide for the desired moderate response to national emergencies in peace time. History's painful lesson has been that the Act gives the Government sweeping powers without any guarantees for the fundamental rights of Canadians".
The time has come, not to rewrite history but to prevent a tragic repetition. By adopting this new legislation, we will also bring Canada's laws in line with this country's international reputation. The Summit meeting of heads of state and heads of government from Francophone countries held recently in Quebec City demonstrated the prestige Canada enjoys among both rich and poor nations. Canada owes its reputation to the hospitality, the readiness to share and the respect for the differences of others that is customary among Canadians.
In this context, the War Measures Act is shockingly out of place. It is surprising, to say the least, that Canada is practically the only democratic country-unlike its provinces and territories-that does not have appropriate legislation to deal with emergencies.
The Emergencies Act will correct this anomaly so that the Government will be able to respond to national emergencies through the use of means that, while extraordinary, will be limited to what is strictly required. The Government will be in a position to deal with four main types of national emergencies: public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies.
The Emergencies Act will provide for parliamentary review of the use of emergency powers and their revocation. It will oblige the Government to return to Parliament for any renewal or amendment of a declaration of emergency and to answer to Parliament for the use of these powers. The legislation will limit where and when emergency powers are used and will make it possible to respond appropriately to each type of emergency. Finally, it will enable the Government to act quickly, thus limiting physical injury or material damage.
The Emergency Preparedness Act will also reflect the federal Government's desire to be able to respond more appropriately to the needs of Canadians in a state of emergency. It is in this perspective that the legislation will define the role, responsibilities and mandate of Emergency Preparedness Canada.
Furthermore, with the tabling of this Bill, the 1981 Emergency Planning Order has been repealed. The Order was criticized because of its wording, which was very open to misinterpretation, and its legal basis. In fact, it was based on a royal prerogative, not a statute, and has now been replaced by

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
a Cabinet directive until orders arising from the new legislation can be drafted.
There are times when the subject matter of certain Bills is so important that unanimity should prevail over partisan concerns.
The legislation we are considering on second reading today fits this category.
Madam Speaker, the abolition of the War Measures Act and replacing it with new legislation means the end of a nightmare for those of us who are from Quebec and comes in response to a requests made by Members of all Parties represented here, requests that still echo between the walls of this House.
Madam Speaker, as a Quebecer and a Canadian, I am proud that I and, with me, all Members of this House are being asked to turn a stormy page in our history and write another, more peaceful chapter.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Questions or comments. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Cowi-chan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly).


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity to make a few remarks on Bill C-77 respecting the Emergencies Act. We should begin by recognizing that all Members of the House and most members of Canadian society would agree on certain basic principles. I think it is helpful if we begin from a recognition of those principles.
If we take the most minimal definition of government, we would agree that it exists to provide for the good order and security of our society. We would agree that a government must have adequate power to protect society from threats to good order and security. We would also agree that in granting such adequate power to government Parliament must build in adequate protection for the rights and liberties of groups and individuals.
There is a recognition that emergency powers themselves can create a threat to the good order of society if those emergency powers are abused. Indeed, the Canadian Civil Liberties Association suggests that the abuse of the War Measures Act in 1970 was a contributing factor to the subsequent abuse of human rights by the RCMP. It quoted the testimony which RCMP Sergeant Robert Potvin gave to the McDonald Commission. When referring to the War Measures Act, he said:
And so, in our minds, while the Act had been revoked, the situation had not changed, and that to some extent many of the same measures that had been used at that time seemed to us to be still necessary. And so there was a kind of attitude, if you will, that prevailed among those of us that were doing the work.
It is absolutely essential that adequate power for government to protect against threats to society must be balanced by
adequate protection for groups and individuals so that these powers are not abused.
We all know the saying of Lord Acton: "Power tends to corrupt; absolute power corrupts absolutely". It is a fact that in a time of crisis a panic atmosphere often develops which allows the Government and the authorities to take action which would not be allowed in a time of more sober reflection.
This measure gives the Government much wider latitude to deal with situations than Canadian people would wish, in a time of reflection. Individual rights would be ignored or trampled upon. Right now we are in a time of comparative calm when we should be able to look at Bill C-77, the Emergencies Act, in a spirit of reason, looking at both sides of the question.
In general, while maintaining the balance between the requirements of the state and the need to protect the rights of individuals, Members of the Opposition might be expected to champion the rights and liberties of individuals and to oppose strongly the increase of government bills at the expense of those rights. Conversely, government Members might be expected to insist on broad enough government powers to deal with any conceivable emergency. These are the traditional roles that the Government and the Opposition have tended to play in Parliament when dealing with this kind of emergency legislation. Perhaps this might be a very good time to have this kind of a debate. We are not that far away from an election when it is very likely that we will be changing which side of the House we sit on. It is a good time for us to be thinking about the arguments of the other side.
New Democrats, as we contemplate the possibility of being in Government, will want to ensure that government will have adequate authority to deal with emergencies even as we continue to be concerned about the need to protect individual rights and liberties. I am sure that government Members will want to be thinking of the time not too far distant when they will be sitting in opposition. They will not want the Government to have undue powers. I urge government Members to have that medium term point of view-not a long term point of view but a medium viewpoint, instead of an exceedingly short term one.
We can look at the way in which the old War Measures Act has been abused. I think all Members here recognize that fact, and feel it is long overdue for the scrap heap of history. When we look at the old War Measures Act we see a couple of very shameful incidents in Canadian history, perhaps the foremost of which is the deportation from British Columbia and the internment of the Japanese during World War II. This is something that cannot be considered by intelligent Canadians without a sense of shame.
I said that we should be conducting this debate this morning in an atmosphere of a spirit of reason. At the same time we have to bring a certain degree of commitment and emotion to
November 17, 1987

this debate. When we look at the way we treated the rights of Japanese citizens in Canada during the Second World War we cannot feel anything but shame. These people were forcibly evicted from their homes, their homes were seized, their businesses and properties were expropriated, they faced restrictions on travel and their families were separated. Ken Adachi in his book The Enemy That Never Was points out that no Japanese was ever convicted of espionage and yet we treated the Japanese as being enemies of Canada solely on the basis of race, a most shameful example of the way in which we trampled upon the rights and liberties of Canadians. The native born nisei and the naturalized issei, that is the Japanese who had been born in Japan and had come over here and taken up Canadian citizenship, were treated worse than the issei aliens, that is the Japanese who had come over here and had never taken out Canadian citizenship, because the issei who had never been naturalized were under the protection of the International Red Cross and the Spanish embassy. We treated our own citizens more shamefully than the aliens who were still citizens of Japan, a country with whom we were at war at the time. That was a shameful incident in Canadian history.
We could look at the false emergency of 1970 when the War Measures Act was proclaimed, and yet the reasons for the proclamation of that War Measures Act have never been justified. We have heard many times what the then Minister of Justice who is today the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) said, that it was his hope that someday the full details of the intelligence upon which the Government acted can be made public because until that day comes the people of Canada will not be able to appreciate fully the course of action which has been taken by the Government.
Certainly the Members of our Party, the majority of whom voted against the imposition of the War Measures Act at that time, would very much like to have the details of that shameful situation made public. From everything that can be determined right now there was absolutely no justification for that Draconian law being applied at that time. Four hundred and ninety-seven people were interned, in most cases for no other crime than the crime of believing in Quebec nationalism, having exercised their democratic right to speak and organize in favour of Quebec nationalism. Fewer than 20 of that 497 were convicted, mostly on minor charges to which they pled guilty. Indeed, Rene Levesque pointed out that we cannot help thinking and saying that this degradation of Quebec was intended quite deliberately. He says that "the half Government", referring to the Bourassa Government, "we had until now has been swept away by the first hard blow". He added that:
the Quebecois are witnessing an operation aimed solely at 'disorganizing and
dislocating, or at least trying to compromise and demoralize as much as
possible, most of the groups and organizations that give a democratic
expression to the Quebecois' most legitimate aspirations and collective needs".
That is the way in which Rene Levesque saw the imposition of the War Measures Act at that time when he was working for what he considered to be the best future of Quebec, a person who the present Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) spoke
Emergencies Act
of as being perhaps the greatest democrat that Canada has ever seen. Perhaps that is the typical hyperbole of the Prime Minister but certainly Rene Levesque had a great commitment to democracy. Yet he saw the imposition of the War Measures Act as a deliberate attempt to trample the rights of the Quebecois into the ground.
It is this completely unjustified use of power under the War Measures Act that we objected to at the time. Finally the then Leader of the Opposition, Robert Stanfield, admitted that he had been wrong in supporting the War Measures Act when it was imposed in 1970. It is well past the time when it should be disposed of. It should no longer be in the statute books of Canada. If for no other reason, I welcome the introduction of Bill C-77 for the statement in one of its clauses that the War Measures Act is hereby repealed.
We have, however, a lot of problems with Bill C-77 itself. As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association points out, it in turn gives very sweeping powers to the Government in times of emergency. It defines four different kinds of emergency. It talks about public welfare emergencies, times of civil disorder, international emergencies and war emergencies.
Clause 38 gives the Government complete carte blanche in terms of war emergencies. Let me read Clause 38:
While a declaration of a war emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council
may make such orders or regulations as, in the opinion of the Governor in
Council, are reasonably necessary or advisable for dealing with the emergency.
The preamble says this Act has to be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. We can ask whether Clause 38 does not give the Government such complete power that the Charter would have very little effect. Indeed, it is questionable whether this does not give the Government the kind of power which would have allowed it to treat the Japanese in the shameful way in which they were treated in World War II had this been the law of the land at that time.
The Civil Liberties Association points out that the powers that are granted to the Government under this legislation tend to be too broad and too sweeping for the crises with which they are supposed to deal. In turn, the emergencies are too vaguely defined. The Civil Liberties Association suggests that there should be a much tighter requirement for the Government to justify its need for this kind of legislation, to point out to the Canadian people, Parliament, and the courts why the existing legislation is not adequate to deal with individual crises as they arise. Instead, it is only necessary that the Government declare that such an emergency exists in the opinion of the Governor in Council.
One of the provisions of this Act which may be forwardlooking is the provision for compensation, Clause 46. Unfortunately, when we look at Clause 46 we see:
(3) Any sum recovered by the Crown pursuant to an action under subsection (2) shall be applied

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
(a)	first, to payment of the costs actually incurred in the action and in levying execution, and
(b)	second, to reimbursement of the Crown for the compensation paid to the person whose rights were subrogated, and the balance, if any, shall be paid to that person.
We are talking about a great new right of compensation for individuals who suffer from the imposition of this Act, yet when it comes to them receiving any financial compensation they are last in line. The Government looks after the recovery of funds for itself first.
In Part VII, Consequential and Related Provisions, there are some amendments to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979. The Energy Supplies Emergency Act gives the Government powers to deal with our energy supplies in the event of an emergency. I hope I will learn in committee how that Energy Supplies Emergency Act will be affected by the Mulroney-Reagan trade deal which says that in the event of any kind of energy shortage the United States will have access to Canadian energy supplies in the same proportion as they have in the past. How will that impact upon the Canadian Government's power to control energy supplies in the event of a national emergency? I suggest that that power is being very seriously compromised.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association has made a number of very positive suggestions that should be considered very seriously by the committee. Perhaps the most basic is that the Government should create and circulate a working paper for Members of Parliament and the public. The paper should link the kind of anticipated emergencies that provoked this Bill with the kinds of powers with which the Government seeks to address those emergencies. In other words, the Government should be much more specific.
All sides of the House have agreed that we want to move away from the Draconian legislation that we had under the old War Measures Act. We are looking for a new regime, a new provision that will give the Government sufficient power to act in the event of emergencies. We are all agreed on that, but we must find some way to ensure that the rights and liberties of groups and individual Canadians are protected. We are very concerned that Bill C-77 does not do that.
The Canadian Civil Liberties Association calls upon the Government to produce a working paper so that we can see specifically what the Government is trying to do and how it is trying to do it. Then we can study Bill C-77 in committee in an effort to produce legislation which will do that which Members on all sides of the House want to have done.
Unfortunately, the Bill in its present form does not give the protection for the individual rights and liberties which we feel are essential for Canada to remain a strong democracy. On that basis we are not able to support this Bill. If the Government insists on pushing it through, we look forward to having changes made in committee which will make it more acceptable to the Canadian people.


Mr. Ferland:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for my colleague. He said the law was very strict. Of course, he referred to the problems experienced by the Japanese during World War II, and I should think that all Hon. Members deplore such incidents. However clause 37 provides that the act remains effective for only one year; in other words, from the moment the war measures are implemented the legislation has to be brought back before Parliament after 365 days, unless it has been repealed before. I should like to know how my colleague feels about clause 37 of the legislation in particular, and about clause 36 as well.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, obviously the limitation of one year is helpful, but Clause 41 provides that the Act can be continued for a further period of 360 days and that it can be repeatedly continued. Therefore, the limitation of 360 days means that there will be a review at the end of one year and that it may then be continued. I do not believe that that will in any way safeguard the rights of people who are being impacted upon. As we all know, in 1970 the War Measures Act did not need to be in effect for a whole year in order to affect very seriously the rights of the people of Quebec.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, my colleague is referring to clause 41, so I should like to quote it for the record:
At anytime before a declaration of a war emergency would otherwise expire,
the Governor in Council, after such consultation as is required-may, by
proclamation-
With respect to consultation, the Lieutenant Governor of each province must be consulted. So this has to be a guarantee provided under the provisions of clause 41, and I would urge my colleague to read them over again.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, we certainly welcome all the additional guarantees in terms of consultations, having to come before Parliament, and so on. However, the fact remains that Clause 38 gives the Government carte blanche to make such orders and regulations which, in the opinion of the Governor in Council, are reasonably necessary or advisable for dealing with the emergency. It has those powers for a period of 360 days, which is a very long period in which to take a great many actions. There can then be reviews.
If we look at the kind of climate which existed in Canada towards Japan during the Second World War, and the kind of cumulative racism which was directed towards Canadians of Japanese ancestry, even with the provision requiring a yearly review it would have meant that it probably would have passed the House of Commons.
Indeed, even in 1946, after the war was over, a very respected Conservative Member for whom I have a lot of
November 17, 1987

respect, Howard Green, was still making some very negative comments about the Japanese, saying they should not be allowed to return to British Columbia, and so on. Therefore, the kind of hysteria and panic which builds up in a situation of crisis seems to validate Governments taking this kind of sweeping action against the rights of individuals. What we are saying in this time of comparative calm, is that we should build into this Act the kind of protection that will not be swept away in a time of panic.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member a question about civil liberties, which becomes paramount in a Bill such as this. Perhaps I should ask him if he thinks it is really possible for any government to bring in a Bill of this nature that does not in some way affect civil liberties? I think that is the greatest challenge any political party could possibly have under the circumstances.
The Hon. Member stated that Bill C-77 should be worded in such a way that it did not affect civil liberties. May I ask the Hon. Member what amendments he would look to in order to prevent this from happening?
Secondly, with regard to the review committee process, what if we had 30 Members of the Senate signing a request that the declaration be tabled, or the continuation of a declaration be tabled in the House and be debated; or there could be a request from 15 Members of Parliament for a similar debate, a signed statement and the review committee would go through this. Does the Hon. Member think that, given a massive majority Government, for example, it is possible for that committee to really make an impact? It sounds good-we are going back to the parliamentary process, but does the Hon. Member see a weakness? Could the review committee really make an impact at a time when that committee is obviously going to have a massive majority of Members from the Government benches? Does that not really indicate that regardless of this Bill or any other Bill, the final essence of the administration of the Bill, its fairness, is going to rest with the attitude of the government of the day?


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for the series of very important questions. First, with regard to whether it is possible for the Government to bring in any kind of legislation dealing with national emergencies which does not affect civil liberties, I will say, no, I think civil liberties will always be affected. However, I would draw attention to a statement made by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. It said the idea is to make the invocation of emergency powers as politically vulnerable an exercise as we can make it. In other words, the Government should have to be very wary about exercising the powers it would have under any such legislation. That means that we have to build in safeguards.
The kind of amendments I would be looking for would follow the sort of suggestions made in the summary of recommendations of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association. I hope the committee will look at those very seriously and consider them point by point, and in turn that the Government
Emergencies Act
will consider these amendments so that we can provide the maximum protection.
I do not think it is possible to have law that does not in some way impact upon civil liberties, and if I said it was, I really did not intend to do so.
With regard to the review process, I think the Hon. Member has it twisted. I think 15 Members of the Senate and 30 Members of the House of Commons are able to institute the review process rather than the other way around. Certainly, when a government has a large majority, I think it is very difficult sometimes to expect that there will be sufficient people in the Government to stand up and speak out against abuses. However, I still think it is important to have that kind of review process. Even if no corrective action is taken, the very fact that there is a public review process is a helpful stage. Not all governments have large majorities. I would expect that after the next election we will not have a Government with quite such a large majority. In fact, we might even have a minority Government that will be much more sensitive to the rights of individuals.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, it is amazing to see just how anxious NDP mambers are to take office in Canada. But they would have to improve their position in Quebec where, according to a poll taken last weekend, they had only 8 per cent of popular support.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I suggest that Part IV of Bill C-77 is somewhat confusing. We often get the impression that members of the opposition do not quite understand what this Bill is all about. Part IV of the Emergencies Act concerns "a war or other armed conflict, real or imminent". Part IV of the War Measures Act applied only to war, invasion or real or apprehended insurrection.
According to Part IV of Bill C-77, the declaration of an emergency must be justified and may be challenged. It is important to emphasize that point. Under the present legislation, the declaration of a state of emergency is based on "conclusive evidence that war, invasion or insurrection, real or apprehended, existed". In the proposed legislation, all orders and regulations would be subject to scrutiny by Parliament. No such provision exists at the present time.
Under Part IV of Bill C-77, Parliament might decide to reconsider or revoke a declaration of a war emergency. Such is not the case under the War Measures Act.
Part IV of Bill C-77 will be subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. The War Measures Act is not.
Part IV of Bill C-77 provides for expiration at the end of 360 days. Continuation of a declaration requires the approval of Parliament. The current legislation provides for no expiry date. In Bill C-77, there are provisions for compensating persons having suffered damage or injury as a result of the

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
application of the Emergencies Act. The present legislation does not include such provisions.
Finally, before the new legislation takes effect, the provinces shall be consulted and their views reported to Parliament. This is a new provision.
In my opinion, Madam Speaker, Bill C-77 which has been introduced in this House by the Minister of National Defence reflects and meets the expectations of Canadians.
Some may ask why the Minister of Defence is sponsoring this Bill rather than the Minister of Justice. 1 believe that it is time that Canadians realize, first, what role our army plays in peace time, and second, that emergency measures in Canada come under the jurisdiction of the Minister of National Defence. It is therefore important for the Minister of National Defence to be able to table such Bills and to defend them in this House.
A number of questions have been raised by many Canadians and by Members of the Opposition. I should point out that this does not surprise me on the part of the Opposition as they are often a bit confused. In fact, why is the Government introducing this Bill? The main purpose of the Government is to abrogate the War Measures Act and to replace it by a modern piece of legislation, better adjusted to the reality of the 1990's and the year 2000. Have no fear, Members of the Opposition, we shall still be in power in the year 2000.
How does the Emergencies Act differ from the War Measures Act? The Emergencies Act, which applies to all sorts of emergencies, provides for mechanisms and guarantees which are absent from the War Measures Act. In addition, it provides for compensation in the case of losses, damages and corporal or material injury and preserves the legitimate interests of the provinces. Of course, this Parliament is not used to a Government which consults the provinces and takes their aspirations into account. We now have one and I must say that the provinces are very happy about it. And this will certainly continue for a long time.
The other questions people are asking are: Which guarantees are offered by the Emergencies Act? What are the procedures to follow? How will the legislation protect fundamental rights and freedoms in an emergency? First, the Act is subject to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms and the Canadian Bill of Rights. It is also in compliance with the 1967 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights of the United Nations in relation with the inviolable nature of certain fundamental rights, even during national emergencies. What would be considered an emergency and what are these rights? These rights include the right to life, the right to be protected from torture, inhuman punishment and slavery, the right to protection from the retroactive application of sanctions and the right to freedom of thought, conscience and religion. In fact, other guarantees give Parliament the right to examine the use of emergency powers. Thus, the Government will have to give Parliament a concise explanation of the reasons why it has invoked the Emergencies Act, the opportunity to debate
the issue and details of the special measures it is considering to deal with the situation.
Other guarantees which do not exist in the War Measures Act restrict the use of special emergency powers by the Government. These major restrictions have to do with a time limit, a geographical restriction to resort to emergency powers, the obligation to secure parliamentary authority to cancel the declaration of a crisis situation, the obligation to consult the provinces before implementing the act, and in the case of an emergency situation in only one province, the obligation to wait for the province to make a formal application before declaring a state of emergency. What a change from what we witnessed in the past!
In fact other Canadians are wondering why the Government now introduces this legislation. Indeed, we are honouring an election promise. Members of the Opposition are always taken aback when they see the Government living up to its election promises. I must say that right now most of our promises have been honoured, and it will not be long before we fulfill all our 1984 promises.
Recent catastrophic incidents in other countries-I have in mind the tragic accidents at Bhopal and Chernobyl, tornadoes in central Ontario, earthquakes in Mexico, and increasing international terrorism-are example of events which have made Canadians fully aware of the ever present and growing threat of a major crisis.
The October 1970 crisis underscored the gap between ordinary legal mechanisms provided under such legislation as the Criminal Code and the National Defence Act on one hand, and the extraordinary powers available under the War Measures Act on the other hand. Those who were in Quebec during the 1970s will remember the situation in which Quebecers were living at the time.
What is actually missing from our federal legislation in order to address an emergency? The laws of this country that deal with emergencies and grant special powers have many flaws. First, the War Measures Act is commonly viewed as being too vague and too drastic for public welfare emergencies and public order emergencies in times of peace. The few other provisions in other federal laws that can be used in emergencies have many loopholes. They are little more than a piecemeal mixture with little safeguards. The passing of emergency bills that might be put together in the hustle and bustle of an emergency could give rise to hasty actions frought with passions or excesses. Moreover, their passing would be delayed if the Government was not sitting and would become impossible if Parliament happened to have been dissolved at the time of an emergency.
The question often arises as to why the legislation is divided into four parts. Well, each definition is designed to limit the scope of each part of the Act to a specific, carefully delineated type of emergency. The powers available in each part are scaled to the type of emergency covered by each. In the majority of cases, one part only would be invoked, but under
November 17, 1987

exceptional circumstances it would be possible to simultaneously invoke several parts of the Act.
We are asked by Canadians what types of situations the Bill will cover. We say that the Emergencies Act will only apply to national crises. The emergencies that could give rise to a national crisis have been divided into four groups: public welfare emergencies, public order emergencies, international emergencies and war emergencies.
What is a public welfare emergency? A public welfare emergency results from a natural disaster or accident so serious as to be a national emergency. The provisions dealing with emergencies are designed to allow the federal Government to mobilize the resources of the nation as a whole in order to meet a very serious disaster. All provincial and territorial governments have enacted emergency legislation to meet public welfare emergencies within their jurisdictions. Provinces and territories have acquired sufficient ability, resources and experience to meet most public welfare emergencies, by themselves or with the help of the Canadian Government, provinces or neighbouring territories. However, in a national emergency, the vast mobilization and coordination operation which might become necessary could only be organized by the federal Government.
When the direct effects of an emergency are felt mainly in a single province, the Emergencies Act provides that a public welfare emergency can be declared only if the province indicates that the emergency exceeds its own capacity or authority to deal with it. In serious emergencies which affect several provinces, all the provinces involved have to be consulted before the Act is invoked. In addition, the Act provides that the control or direction of a province over any police force over which it normally has control or direction, including the RCMP, will not be affected.
Canadians can therefore be assured that the Act will not be used lightly to deal with minor or localized emergencies.
What is a public order emergency and why does the Act apply to such emergencies? These are other questions asked by Canadians.
The Emergencies Act defines a public order emergency as an emergency that arises from threats to the security of Canada and that is so serious as to be a national emergency. The threats to the security of Canada are defined in the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act and concern mostly spying, sabotage, subversion, terrorism and attempts to overthrow the established Government. Legitimate dissidence is explicitly excluded.
The purpose of Part II of the Bill is to establish measures of limited application providing fully satisfactory guarantees to face such threats when they constitute a national emergency and when ordinary provisions prove inadequate. If the effects of the emergency are limited to a single province, this province must indicate that it is unable to deal with the emergency by itself before the emergency can be declared under the terms of
Emergencies Act
Part II of the Act. In all cases, the Government will be obliged to consult the provinces affected by the emergency before invoking Part II of the Bill. The provisions of the Criminal Code will continue to be used to deal with emergencies of a less serious nature caused by instigators of public disorder.
People are wondering what the purpose is of Part 111 and why it is essential to the Bill. Part III of the Emergencies Bill deals with international emergencies. It gives the Government fully safeguarded and appropriately limited exceptional powers to act quickly in case of a serious international emergency, without having to resort to the draconian and controversial powers it is given under the War Measures Act. Before proclaiming a state of emergency under this part of the Bill, the Governor in Council must consult all the provinces to the extent that, in his opinion, it is appropriate and practicable to do so.
Part III enables the Government to take and implement, in co-operation with our allies, preventive and preparatory measures of a civil, military, economic and diplomatic nature to deal with the emergency and reduce tension. At the same time, it enables the Government, if necessary, to put the country in a state of preliminary preparedness for war, to start the process of mobilizing civilians and to take steps for emergency preparedness. Consequently, it acts as a deterrent against acts of aggression that are contrary to the interests of Canada or those of our allies.
What does Part IV say? Part IV of the Emergencies Bill deals with war emergencies and provides additional, fully safeguarded and appropriately limited powers to deal with such emergencies, powers that would not be provided under Part III. Part IV would apply only to a real or imminent conflict involving Canada or its allies.
So what is the purpose, Madam Speaker, of the War Measures Act and what are its shortcomings? The War Measures Act was passed by Parliament on August 21, 1914. Not many Members in the House today were present or even born at the time this Act was passed.
When World War I broke out, the Act was passed without dissent after only one-half hour of debate. It contains very few guarantees for protection of provincial interests, parliamentary review or civil rights. In any case, it will not be said that Bill C-77 was passed in half an hour. We will take the time to consider this Bill, and we want to make sure all Members of this House fully understand its implications.
The War Measures Act was quite similar to the Defence of the Realm Act which the United Kingdom passed on August 8, 1914. I am not sure, but there must have been similarities. This legislation was adopted quite hastily. Very extensive powers were thereby granted to the Governor in Council who could proclaim the existence of a state of emergency, then enact such orders or regulations which were deemed necessary or advisable for the security, defence, peace, order, and welfare of Canada. Under the Act, a state of emergency might be

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
decreed by proclamation and, until it is revoked, this proclamation is conclusive evidence that a state of war, invasion or real or apprehended insurrection exists.
Such a definition does not make it possible for Parliament or the courts to question the assessment made by the Government of an emergency or the need to use the legislation. The British legislation expired a little after World War I while the Canadian legislation has never been revoked. If the Progressive Conservative Party had been in power for longer periods since 1914, it might have had an opportunity to revoke this legislation. But as you can see, Madam Speaker, we are not missing any opportunity; while we are here, we are bringing in major changes.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I doubt that!


Marc Ferland: My honorable friend would have liked to be on the Government's side, but he has chosen to sit in the opposition.
It is generally felt that it is incumbent on the provinces to act to cope with peace time emergencies. In this case, how could one justify the provisions of the Emergencies Act dealing with public welfare emergencies? It may be that a peace time crisis could exceed the capacity or authority of a province to deal with it. In this case, the province or provinces involved could decide to seek the federal Government's assistance. [DOT]
If a public order emergency occurred, it might be necessary to pool all the resources of the nation to cope with a crisis. Such a major operation could only be undertaken by the federal Government, because it alone has the power to requisition resources and move them from one province to another to meet an emergency situation. The provisions of the Act will make it possible for the federal Government to respond quickly to a province seeking an emergency declaration, pool the resources of the nation to meet the crisis, send help and divide in a fair way the burden of an intervention or the means to remedy the situation.
Where the direct impact of a public welfare emergency is mainly limited to a province, the Government could only declare that a public welfare emergency exists if requested to do so by the province directly involved.
In the case of serious emergencies affecting more than one province, each of the provinces involved shall be consulted before an emergency can be declared to exist.
There are rumors at large, mention is made of civilian internment camps. As you know, there are rumormongers everywhere. I have still a minute left, Madam speaker, so I will conclude on this. This Government has no plans for setting up civilian internment camps. The enactment of the Emergencies Act and the Canada civil protection legislation have nothing to do with that. People should not try to suggest that Bill C-77 will open the door to the establishment of camps for detaining Canadians behind barbed wire. No, this is not in the Bill. Bill C-77 is a bill that was thought out thoroughly and prepared in
agreement with the provinces, after numerous consultations. It is a modern piece of legislation that meets the aspirations of Canadians of year 2000.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: I have a couple of questions I would like to put to my hon. friend and fellow member of the Standing Committee on National Defence. One has to do with a very old legal tenet in British and Canadian law, that is, the right to sue for redress. In this case I am speaking of civil law.
Apparently this Bill would prevent that recourse to the courts. Instead, compensation would come from the Minister, a politician, and not from the courts. If a citizen is not satisfied with the amount of compensation, he or she could not appeal to the courts but only to an assessor who is named by Order in Council, in other words, by that Minister.
1 do not wish to put my hon. friend at a disadvantage. I do not know if he has a legal background. I do not have a legal background. But it seems to me that this is contrary to the basic legal right that all Canadians should have, that is, the right to take a grievance, in this case a civil grievance, before the court and have the court, which is outside of the political domain, outside of partisanship, decide on the merit of the case before it, and not go to someone-and I will not call him a flunky-who has been appointed by the Minister to act as an assessor. Would my hon. friend comment on that?


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, of course, just like my colleague who sits on the Standing Committee on National Defence, I have no legal qualifications and I am not a lawyer myself.
For the first time however, the measure now before us, Bill C-77, is the first emergencies legislation in Canada recognizing that if Canada or the Government unfairly hurts its citizens by its actions, the latter can hope for compensation.
Unfortunately, Madam Speaker, I lack the legal competence to answer his questions, but I am sure that the committee, when the Bill is referred to it, he and I will call upon legal experts who can reassure both of us.


Mr. Parry:: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland) knows full well that Bill C-77 creates a new category in Canadian jurisprudence, international emergencies. Clearly then the Government has an idea of the kind of crises that would be declared international emergencies.
For this reason, I would like to ask the Hon. Member whether he could give us some examples of the kind of crisis that will be declared under Bill C-77 as being an international emergency.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, I must say that I am not a jurist and that semantic exercises are always possible, but when we are speaking about an international emergency, we
November 17, 1987

are all aware of the problems caused by sabotage, bombs, and so on. We only have to watch the evening news on television to realize that international terrorism has become a major problem. I believe that this legislation could eventually allow Canada to come to an agreement with a number of other countries on common measures to fight this international problem. This could therefore be considered as an international emergency and Canada could join with other countries to try to deal with this scourge.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I want to ask my hon. friend a question about the Bill of Rights. He mentioned at the beginning of his speech that the Bill of Rights did not apply to the War Measures Act. He will understand that when the Bill of Rights was passed in 1960 the Diefenbaker Government got a lot of publicity for bringing it forward and passing it. However, that Government made another declaration that the Bill of Rights would not apply to the War Measures Act.
In retrospect, does the Hon. Member feel that the Diefenbaker Government of the day should have let the Bill of Rights take precedence over the War Measures Act, so that some of the things he has been talking about would not have happened?
Also, the Hon. Member will know that the Premier of the Province of Quebec and the Mayor of Montreal requested in writing in 1970 that emergency measures be brought in. Does he feel that the Government of the day did the right thing by acceding to that request, or does he think that that Government should have ignored it? I think this question is very important, because we have heard many comments about the bringing in of the War Measures Act in 1970. However, it must be clearly understood that it was specifically requested by the Premier of Quebec and the Mayor of Montreal.
Did the Government of the day do the right thing or the wrong thing? That is what I am asking my hon. friend.


Marc Ferland: Madam Speaker, naturally, we cannot expect anything but a loaded question from our Liberal friends.
We should perhaps reflect on the situation which existed in Quebec in 1970. Naturally, there had been a request by the Mayor of Montreal and the Quebec Government for the Canadian Government to take action. Did this necessarily mean that the Canadian Government had to invoke the War Measures Act? The Hon. Member is perhaps in a better position to answer because he was in the House then as a member of the Government which was in favour of imposing the War Measures Act in Quebec in 1970.
I believe that the Government could have used other measures and other methods than those provided by the War Measures Act. The Canadian Government used a cannon rather than a fly swatter to kill a mosquito. In my opinion, the
Emergencies Act
Government used an act which was too strong and provided much too extensive powers to deal with the situation.
I then lived in Quebec City, not too far from the Quebec Parliament, and I must say that all Quebecers were surprised one fine morning to find armed soldiers at all the doors and around all Government buildings. There was something of a panic. We must also remember that the physicians were on strike in Quebec at the time. Things were really going well in 1970 in Quebec!
What we have to remember, Madam Speaker, is that if Bill C-77 had existed in 1970, Quebecers would never have suffered what a number of them did suffer. I believe that the Canadian Parliament invoked a much too strict and too strong legislation to deal with the situation at the time. I believe that at the time, the police had the resources to conduct investigations and keep the situation under control. They may have needed additional manpower, but there was certainly no reason to ask the army to act as though Quebec were at war with Canada or one of the provinces. I think the War Measures Act, as it was applied in Quebec, went far beyond what the situation warranted.
I may add that, at the time, I was a private citizen and did not have access to certain information. However, on the basis of what I read in the newspapers and what I was able to find out, I believe that the people who were here in the House at the time and who on the basis of the information they had were capable of voting in favour of proclaiming the War Measures Act in Quebec-I believe those people should have been far more critical and should have realized that this legislation went far beyond what the situation warranted.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The period provided for questions and comments has now expired. Resuming debate. The Hon. Member for Glengarry- Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria).


Mr. Althouse:: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Hon. Member.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: The time for questions and comments has now expired. The Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria) on debate.


Mr. Don Boudria (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Madam Speaker, I welcome this opportunity today to take part in the debate on Bill C-77. I listened very carefully to the speeches we have heard in this Chamber, as you have, Madam Speaker, and one thing is pretty clear, and that is that certain Members of other political parties insist that the decision by the Government in 1970 to proclaim the War Measures Act was unwarranted.

As a matter of fact, the Hon. Member for Renfrew- Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) asked a specific and

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
important question of a member of the Conservative Party, the Hon. Member for Portneuf (Mr. Ferland). He asked whether in fact in 1970 the Government of Canada did the right thing, or whether the Government of Canada at that time should have refused the request made by the Attorney General of a province and a mayor of the largest city in the land. Of course, he did not get an answer to that question. The only answer, albeit inadequate, was that perhaps there was a need for a few more policemen or something like that and that the measures used were far too great-


Vincent Della Noce: Excessive.


Don Boudria: Excessive is the word. 1 thank the Member opposite. The Member has reminded me for a very good reason. He wants to let Canadians believe that the measures were excessive to the requests made. Let me remind you, Madam Speaker, of the request made at that time. I read from the letter:
Under the circumstances, on behalf of the Government of Quebec, 1 request that emergency powers be provided as soon as possible so that more effective steps may be taken. I request particularly that such powers encompass the authority to apprehend and keep in custody individuals who, the Attorney General of Quebec has valid reasons to believe, are determined to overthrow the Government through violence and illegal means. According to the information we have and which is available to you, we are facing a concerted effort to intimidate and overthrow the Government and the democratic institutions of this province through planned and systematic illegal action, including insurrection. It is obvious that those participating in this concerted effort completely reject the principle of freedom under the rule of law.
That is the truth, and that was the request made by the Government of Quebec at that time. The request was not to send in six more policemen to patrol some place. Far from it. You have listened very attentively, Madam Speaker, to the statement I have just read from the Attorney General of the Province of Quebec at that time. For Members to stand in this House, either the Conservative Member who has just spoken- incidentally his Party supported the imposition of the War Measures Act at that time-or New Democratic Party Members, pretending that nothing happened, saying that someone in this House in 1970 cooked up this whole thing is just a little less than total honesty.
I read further from a letter sent by the Mayor of Montreal at the time. He said:
The chief of the Montreal Police has informed us that the means available to him are proving inadequate and that the assistance of higher levels of Government has become essential for the protection of society against the seditious plot and the apprehended insurrection in which the recent kidnappings were the first step.
It is obvious the request made at that time was, indeed, very serious. I am not saying that the War Measures Act was not a blunt instrument. I will agree that it is too blunt an instrument, but you have to remember what was asked for was asked by a duly elected Government of a province in this country and the mayor of the largest city in Canada. Given those two facts, and given the instrument available at the time, it is a little less
than honest for some people to claim, in hindsight, some 16 or 17 years later that the wrong thing was done.
Members of Parliament at the time stated, and have stated since, that we needed a new Bill because the War Measures Act was too blunt an instrument. I want to congratulate my colleagues in the Liberal Party for their foresight and objectivity in the way they have dealt with this topic.
When the Liberal Government in the past attempted to reform this law, the only thing we heard was partisan rhetoric from the Conservative Party, which Party refused to let this kind of legislation proceed, claiming that it was a diabolical plot on the part of the evil people in Government who wanted a new War Measures Act so they could use it again at every whim, or some nonsense like that. The present Party in Official Opposition is far more reasonable. We understand there is a need to modify the law. I think Members of this House on the opposition benches should be credited for that. It is my duty to bring it to your intention, Madam Speaker, as I know you would want me to do.
The Bill Before us is a very serious piece of legislation. It should not be taken lightly by the Government or any Member of this House. The Bill with which we are dealing can have, could have and would have an impact on the fundamental freedoms of the citizens of Canada if and when it was used, and hopefully it never will be. Notwithstanding, one needs to be prepared and one needs to have legislation to ensure that our country can be protected while at the same time adhering to a delicate balance so that the rights of Canadians are not trampled upon unnecessarily.
In 1970, like most Members of this House, I was not a parliamentarian. A few Members here have had the honour and privilege of serving here for a number of years, but most of us were doing other things. I was on staff in Parliament here travelling around the corridors of this building seeing people in military gear, battle dress as a matter of fact, carrying guns. Those were indeed very sad things to see. Hopefully we will never again see a day in Canada that would necessitate any kind of similar action.
No one wants this new Bill to be used. It is like buying life insurance. One does not buy life insurance with the intention of reaping the benefits, because obviously that does not happen. The present War Measures Act is a piece of legislation that has been in existence for a long time and is in serious need of amendment. We know, for instance, it was initiated by the then Conservative Prime Minister, Sir Robert Borden. It was passed through Parliament in very little time because our country was at war, or just on the brink of War World War I. Since then the legislation has been used only twice. The second time was during the Second World War and finally during the October crisis of 1970.

Madam Speaker, we in the Liberal Party have no intention of drawing out the debate in this House as a matter of course.
November 17, 1987

What we want is a thorough discussion in the committee that will be responsible for considering the Bill, Subsequently, there are certain proposals, certain concerns and grievances we will want to bring before the House, and we hope that the Government will then make the requisite changes to improve the Bill.
Madam Speaker, I see it is almost lunch time. I will continue my comments later today.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order. It being one o'clock, I do now leave the Chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.


Mr. Jean-Claude Malepart (Montreal-Sainte-Marie):: Mr. Speaker, the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs tabled a report yesterday containing recommendations on tax reform which show beyond the shadow of a doubt that the Conservative Government and interest groups indicated before the committee report was even drafted that tax reform is unfair to Canadian families.
All Canadians remember the supposedly heart-felt promises of the Prime Minister to the effect that the Canadian family is the corner stone of our society, yet it was this Conservative Government which partially deindexed family allowances, it was this Conservative Government which reduced the maximum amount of the child tax credit.
Mr. Speaker, I urge all Members of the House to put pressure on the Conservative Government and force it to eliminate injustices towards families by endorsing the report recommendations aimed at doubling from $65 to $130 the benefit for the family's third child, raising the maximum income ceiling before reducing the child tax credit, and providing an amount of $130 for children over age 18.



DANGEROUS PRODUCTS


Mr. Guy St. Julien (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, according to Mr. Hatcher of Atomic Energy of Canada Limited, there are no radioactive waste disposal sites in Quebec, but such provincial institutions as Sherbrooke and McGill Universities as well as the Ecole polytechnique actively participate in the various phases of the program.
In addition, according to a statement made in Ottawa last February 2 by Mr. Ladanyi of the technical advisory committee concerned with the radioactive waste management program, a group of geologists consider that there are a number of potential sites in northern Quebec, particularly south of the 50th parallel.
Mr. Speaker, we all know that these groups work in secret, and today I urge the Inuit, Naskapi and Cree people as well as the residents of Abitibi and New Quebec to put pressure on the Governments of Ottawa and Quebec so that their region not be turned into Canada's garbage dump where highly radioactive waste will be stored and buried.



ACID RAIN


Ms. Lynn McDonald (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, 35 countries are now meeting in Geneva to discuss measures to reduce acid rain producing toxic emissions. Unfortunately, from the rumours which have reached us about the in camera meetings, it seems that Canada is objecting to strict standards.
At the same time, the Minister of the Environment, (Mr. McMillan) is congratulating himself for the measures being considered and the leadership shown by Canada. What leadership is he talking about? How strange it is to congratulate oneself for maintaining at the present level our emissions of nitrous oxides!
Since these emissions are a major cause of acid rain throughout the world, we should immediately reduce substantially the level of these harmful emissions and eliminate them in the long run. It is time to disassociate ourselves from the unecological acid rain policy of the United States. The Minister of the Environment should stop congratulating himself. It is time for him to insist that his delegation take a firmer stand and support adequate reduction standards.

Congratulations when they are due and not until then.

November 17, 1987



THE CONSTITUTION


Mr. Thomas Suluk (Nunatsiaq):: Mr. Speaker, I spent the last two weeks in my riding and was concerned to hear many negative comments from northerners regarding the Meech Lake Accord. Not only is the former Leader of the territorial Government contesting the Accord in court, but many Members of the Legislative Assembly are telling northerners they are second-class citizens. I, for one, Mr. Speaker, do not believe that anyone in this country has the right to tell a group of people they are second-class citizens.
As well, it is being promoted on the public airwaves that the Accord enables the provinces to extend their boundaries into the Territories. The only discussion of this nature of which I am aware involves the Inuit of northern Quebec and their cousins in the Territories with regard to the islands off the coast of Hudson Bay which are presently within territorial jurisdiction.
I think it is time that informed debate and intelligent facts be presented to northerners to replace the fear and resentment that are now being promoted.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Mr. Speaker, I and the members of my Party continue to be perplexed and dismayed by the Government's cutbacks to Indian postsecondary education. We are fundamentally opposed to the recent changes which have been made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. McKnight) to the Indian post-secondary education assistance program.
These changes are denying Indian students access to postsecondary institutions. Hundreds of Indian students who have been accepted into these institutions are having the doors shut on them because of the Minister's lack of support.
How can the Minister, on the one hand, advocate Indian self-government and economic self-sufficiency and, on the other hand, put a cap on the number of Indian students who may receive post-secondary education assistance? Does the Minister not see the inconsistency here? He should be aware that many Canadians students and educators, Indians and non-Indians, do see the inconsistency. If he does not revoke these regressive measures himself, a new Liberal Government will certainly do so.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-SUPPORT EXPRESSED BY CANADIAN CATTLEMEN'S ASSOCIATION

Mr. William G. Lesick (Edmonton East):: Mr. Speaker, there is an illusion, a dangerous illusion, that those who favour free trade are somehow less Canadian than those who oppose it. We are seen as prepared to sacrifice our culture and our sovereignty to the interests of material gain. We are even portrayed-as disposed to political union, all because we state that we are prepared to trade and compete openly with our neighbours. This is ironic, for the survival of Canada, as a sovereign and cultural country, depends greatly upon our prosperity. The weak are more readily absorbed than the strong, the timid more easily than the confident.
These words were spoken by representatives of the Canadian Cattlemen's Association on behalf of more than 100,000 members at this morning's meeting of the Committee on External Affairs and International Trade. I believe they are worthy of the consideration of all Members of Parliament.
Alberta cattlemen, who produce 40 per cent of Canadian beef cattle, support their colleagues from coast to coast and are in favour of free trade with the United States. Their history is Canada's history and what is good for cattlemen is good for Canada.



TAX REFORM


David Orlikow: Mr. Speaker, for years NDP Members of Parliament have argued that our tax system makes poor and middle-income Canadians pay too much and less wealthy individuals and large corporations pay too little, indeed, often no taxes at all.
Now the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs of this House, which is comprised of a majority of Conservatives, has confirmed the truth of our analysis. It calls for taxing the banks and large corporations more and closing the loopholes in our tax laws which have permitted them legally to avoid paying their fair share of taxes.
One of the favourite methods used by these corporations is the provision for deferred corporation taxes. Some corporations will never pay these taxes. Consolidated Bathurst, MacMillan Bloedel, Stelco, Bell Canada and Imperial Oil have availed themselves of this right. There is now more than $30 billion owing to the Government in deferred taxes.
I suggest that the Minister of Finance (Mr. Wilson) change the law so that the companies which benefit from these interest-free loans be required to pay interest on loans.
November 17, 1987

Eric Kierans once suggested that the interest rate be set at 1 per cent over prime. If the Government adopted that proposal it would collect several billion dollars which could be used to finance programs which are needed, or to reduce the deficit which the Government seems so concerned about dealing with.
We will now have to go cap in hand to U.S. Congressmen and Senators to seek approval to help our poor regions in times of crisis; our farmers, our fishermen and our plant workers. So it is no wonder President Reagan is now singing a new version of the U.S. National Anthem:
* *
*



PHARMACEUTICAL INDUSTRY

[Stage Direction]
Oh say can you see,
Mulroney has given Canada to me.
Oh how proudly Americans stand.
On what used to be some poor Canadian farmers' land

Mr. Gabriel Fontaine (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, the Liberals will hold their weekly caucus meeting tomorrow. They will certainly discuss the patent legislation, Bill C-22.
As he did two weeks ago, the Hon. Member for Montreal- Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart) will try to convince his Leader and the Liberal senators of the importance of Bill C-22 for Canada, Quebec and Montreal, as this would mean 1,300 jobs in Montreal and $700 million in investments.
At this Liberal caucus meeting, the Quebec lieutenant, the Hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides (Mr. Garneau), should assert his provincial leadership, and the caucus chairman, the Hon. Member for Saint-Denis (Mr. Prud'homme), whom I consider to be very respectful of the House of Commons, should defend the authority of this institution.
It is the moment of truth for the Liberal Members of Parliament. No one will understand it if they are unable to face up to the unelected Liberal members of the Senate, unless the Liberals, especially those from Quebec, have been forced to sign a pact of obedience to the Liberal Government of Ontario. We will know the answer to this question when we see what happens to Bill C-22!
* *
*



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT

[Stage Direction]
And of course from sea to sea,
Canada's fishing industry is now ours for free. America is truly the home of the brave And Canada now will be the home of the slave.


Mr. John Oostrom (Willowdale):: Mr. Speaker, the privatization of de Havilland Aircraft has been an outstanding success, vindicating the Government's action.
Since January 1, 1986, when the sale became official, the workforce has increased by 1,000. Research and development has also increased.
Recently, Boeing has proposed an anti-submarine version of the de Havilland Dash 8. The aircraft will incorporate the latest electronic technology, making this one of the world's most advanced systems, as well as having a purchase price of less than half of that of a large anti-submarine warfare aircraft.
In addition, there will be lower operating costs, for it will consume one-third less fuel than the competing four engine turbo-prop.
The aircraft will be available for both advanced and developing nations. Such an aircraft would be a major addition to Canada's Armed Forces where it would be used to ensure our sovereignty, and the product will be built in Canada.


Mr. George Henderson (Egmont):: Mr. Speaker, Canadians no longer use the term "sell-out" when they discuss the Mulroney-Reagan trade fiasco. They now see it as a giveaway.
Canada has given the United States free access to our energy and other natural resources. Canada has lost its right to control its own destiny.
Canada will benefit further, for it will receive new technology which will strengthen our aerospace industry. Furthermore, it shows that private industry is the vehicle which will ensure Canada's economic success.
It is very funny that Bob White and his union, who opposed the deal, are very quiet now.

November 17, 1987
Oral Questions



WINTER OLYMPIC GAMES


Mr. Iain Angus (Thunder Bay-Atikokan):: Mr. Speaker, today in St. John's the Olympic Flame began its long journey across Canada, to arrive in Calgary next February to signal the opening of the Calgary Winter Olympics.
This journey through Canada's cities, towns and villages will give all Canadians a chance to participate in this great event. While our hopes and our support will be riding with our elite Olympic athletes as they train and ultimately compete against the world's best, this torch relay will give ordinary Canadians-whether they are athletes themselves or, just like the rest of us, proud Canadians-an opportunity to share the spotlight.
I want to take this opportunity to congratulate the organizers of this event, and especially to congratulate the thousands of participants and volunteers whose efforts in this relay will truly make the Olympics the kind of success that all Canadians want.
To our Olympic athletes, let me say that our best wishes are with you as you go into your final months of training. We know we will be proud of you.



CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-POSITION OF OPPOSITION

Mr. Guy Ricard (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, the Free Trade Agreement covers an innovative range of disciplines such as telecommunications, computer science, tourism, architecture and engineering, which provide a wide range of services.
Canada and Quebec are net importers of services, especially in engineering. Lavalin in Montreal, for instance, is known the world over for its specialized engineering projects.
However, opening up markets for services is not enough. There must be free trade in services.
Today, communications and management consulting firms in Quebec are asked by companies to coordinate their product planning, production and distribution.
The two Opposition Parties claim that the Free Trade Agreement is worthless and should be scrapped.
Why are they denying professionals in Quebec a chance to take advantage of an additional market of 250 million customers? Why are they denying Quebecers a slice of the same pie Ontario is eating? Isn't Quebec part of Canada too?



EDUCATION


Hon. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay- Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, this morning this caucus met with the Canadian Federation of Students. A top priority of the Canadian Federation of Students in its policy area is the creation of a national advisory council on post-secondary education.
This is supported also by the Universities Association, by the Community Colleges Association, by the Canadian Teachers Federation, and by a wide variety of the business community. Indeed, it was a clarion call from the post-secondary education conference in Saskatoon.
In view of the clear body of opinion across the country, is it not possible for the Government to create an ongoing vehicle for the consideration of post-secondary education, preserving provincial jurisdiction but also recognizing the Canadian challenge and the Canadian need?



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Yesterday, following the tabling of the report of the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs, the Minister stated that before any changes were made in the White Paper on Tax Reform, the banks would have to be consulted. Mr. Macintosh, President of the Canadian Banking Association, announced yesterday that he would ignore the recommendation by the Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs. So the Minister has his answer.
Will the Minister endorse the position taken by the banks or will he defend the interests of Canadians and ensure that the private sector pays its fair share of the tax burden?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I think it is quite clear that the objective and the direction of the White Paper is to increase the taxes that are paid by the banks, the insurance companies, and by the trust companies. The White Paper points out that they are not paying their fair share. I believe the effective tax rate is about 14.8 per cent federally, relative to the average of approximately 18.6 per cent or 19 per cent. The White Paper proposals are to get that average tax rate up into the 21 per cent range. That is the
November 17, 1987

clear direction of the White Paper. I think the Hon. Member should rephrase his question before he draws a conclusion.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would ask the Minister of Finance to rephrase his answer and simply indicate to the House whether in fact he intends to respond to the unanimous recommendation of the committee, made by members of all Parties, that a minimum tax be applied, as the only way to regain the fairness.


TAXES PAID BY FAMILIES
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, what does the Minister define as fairness? How can he reconcile the fact that according to the Finance Committee's report the banks pay an average of less than 1 per cent of their Canadian profits while the Government itself has imposed new taxes that will cost the middle class family with two kids $447 additional taxes in the coming year? Is that his definition of fairness? Is there one definition for the banks and another definition of unfairness for families with kids?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member has asked a couple of questions. Let me say to him that 1 propose to respond to all aspects of the proposals of the Finance Committee report. That will be done next month, when I put down a Ways and Means Motion.
Let me draw to the attention of the Hon. Member that a family earning $30,000, with one earner and two children under age 18, pays $4,150 in taxes. A single person under age 65, also earning $30,000, pays $6,485. In other words, under tax reform the family pays quite a bit less tax than the single individual.
I should point out that there is a significant drop in the amount of taxes that families pay as a result of tax reform.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I would say to the Minister of Finance that while he may cite those tables, what he does not cite is that the Government has already raised taxes for families in the middle income level by over $2,000 in the past three years. All he is giving back is what he has already taken away.


FARM INCOME-ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, let me just come to a final question about the committee's report. It says that the proposed changes in the White Paper may affect farmers more than any other group. In particular, it points out that changing the treatment of cash, income and losses, is going to have a devastating effect on many farmers.
Is the Minister of Finance prepared to say today that he will get rid of the punitive new accrual accounting method, which no one understands, anyway-what we do understand is it is going to cost the farmers a lot of money-that he will follow
Oral Questions
the recommendations of the committee, so that the farmers can get on with what they do best, which is farming, rather than fighting the tax bureaucracy of the Conservative Government in Ottawa?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the Hon. Member made reference to the fact of a tax change over the past three years since we took office. Let me also draw his attention to the fact that there have been other changes, too. The average mortgage on a $50,000 house today is $1,200 a year less than it was back in 1984. That is considerably more than any tax increase on that same family.
Let me also point out that well over a million jobs have been created in that time so that there are many more Canadians paying tax because they have a job. Those are the advances we have seen under this Government.
The Hon. Member just made reference to the proposal for a change in the accounting system for farmers. What he has said quite clearly is that he does not understand it because he said it was going to be devastating, that it was going to cost the farmers a lot of money. He does not understand that the key reason for this is to save the cash accounting system for the legitimate farmer, and to avoid the problems that will arise as a result of the ability of farmers, part-time farmers and other farmers who are not legitimate farmers, to write-off farm losses against other income. We are trying to save the cash accounting system for legitimate farmers.


CANADA-UNITED STATES TRADE AGREEMENT-EFFECT ON FISHING COMMUNITIES
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister for International Trade. On October 19, when the Minister was asked whether or not the current export regulations protecting our Pacific processing plants would remain in effect under the Prime Minister's free trade deal, she replied as reported at page 10135 of Hansard:
There is no change in the situation. Those rights are protected under the free
trade agreement.
Today we learn that thousands of jobs in British Columbia, and more in Atlantic Canada, are now at stake. What is the Minister now going to do to protect our fishing communities?


Hon. Pat Carney (Minister for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is confused. The point he is making I do believe refers to a GATT panel decision which has been leaked and has nothing to do with the free trade agreement we negotiated with the United States.

November 17, 1987
Oral Questions


PROTECTION OF FISHING INDUSTRY
George Roland Henderson: Mr. Speaker, this grievance was initiated by the United States through GATT, but when we asked the Minister and the Government on several occasions about how free trade protected the fishery, the Minister always replied: "Yes, free trade does protect the fishery". Will the Minister now admit that the Government has not secured any protection whatsoever for our fishing industry against either present or future American laws, when the Government negotiated the free trade deal with the United States? Will she now admit that she and her Government took the Yankee bait, hook, line and sinker?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, my previous answer still stands. I believe the Hon. Member is referring to a GATT panel and it is interesting to note that that opposition Party has always placed all its eggs in the GATT process, and has always maintained that Canada would be better off relying solely on the GATT than on a negotiated agreement with the United States. I again say he is dealing with a GATT decision and it has nothing to do with the free trade agreement negotiated between Canada and the U.S.


ENERGY-PRICING POWERS OF PROVINCES
Hon. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question to direct to the same Minister. My Party has pointed out that as a result of this agreement, Canada as a nation, and our provinces, are going to experience a significant reduction in powers. Specifically, on October 8 1 indicated to the Minister that the provinces' rights, in terms of pricing decisions on energy, have been substantially altered and reduced as a result of this agreement. The Minister on that occasion said that was wrong.
Considering that today the former Premier of Alberta, Mr. Lougheed, has publicly stated there has been a reduction in the rights of the provinces in terms of pricing decisions, does the Minister stand by what she said on October 8, or is she now saying the former Premier of Alberta is wrong, as well as myself?


Mr. Shields:: Well, you are sure wrong, Ed.


Hon. Marcel Masse (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Socialist Party always asks the same questions, so he will get the same answers. The rights of the provinces are set forth in the Canadian Constitution, not in the Free Trade Agreement with United States. The negotiations that took place between the Government of Canada and the Government of the United States were not about the Canadian Constitution but about free trade between Canada and United States. In this Agreement, Mr. Speaker, the energy sector and especially the Western provinces will find things they have been wanting for years.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, the Minister knows very well why, in his own briefing notes, the so-called sensitive issue was going to be left to the Prime Minister. It is because the Government knows, and the Prime Minister knows, that this Government is impinging upon the traditional constitutional rights of the provinces to control their own resources-and Mr. Lougheed has pointed that out.


PROCESSING OF FISH-GATT RULING
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question, this time on the related issue of the lack of Canadian Government control over a policy option. My question for the Minister pertains to a preliminary ruling in the GATT decision which says that Canada, if it is subsequently confirmed by a full committee of GATT, will no longer have the right to set regulations about the processing of fish in our own country as a precondition for export.
It states in the agreement:
Both parties have agreed they will not maintain or introduce import or
export restrictions except in accordance with the GATT, or as modified by the
agreement.
Does this proposed agreement with the United States not lock us into accepting a GATT decision? I want to know the answer to that, yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think I should point out to the Hon. Member that Canada has been a member of the GATT for 40 years.


Mr. Clark (Yellowhead):: He is against it.


Pat Carney: If he seriously suggests that the free trade agreement in any way affects our obligations under the GATT, I think he had better rethink his position on that.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I suggest to the Minister that just for once she should read the agreement because she was wrong with Peter Lougheed, she has been wrong with me in the past, and she is wrong again today. Will she listen to the question and read the agreement?


TERMS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the
Minister if it is or is not the case, according to this agreement, that in a subsequent decision reached by the GATT, Canada will no longer have the right, if it pertains to trade between Canada and the United States, to say no to the GATT decision? Will the Minister answer that, yes or no?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I please point out to the Hon. Member that I was right in my original answer. I was right in the free trade agreement. I am right in saying that he does not have the faintest idea with respect to what he is talking about.
November 17, 1987


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROCESSING OF FISH-GATT DECISION
Mr. George Baker (Gander-Twillingate):: Mr. Speaker, speaking about the free trade agreement, and as the finishing touches are being put to the economic marriage between Canada and the United States, we find that the Government's fiance to the south is now charging us with unfair trade practices in exporting salmon and herring. What caused this prenuptial nastiness on the part of the United States? We have already given away too much in the dowry to the United States. Is it possible that we now have to give away the right to process our own fish?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, may I point out that this is a decision of the GATT which has been leaked during a period of consultation. We have received the report. We are very conscious of the number of jobs involved in this industry on both our coasts. We are looking at what options are available to us in consultation with the unions involved, the industries involved, and the provinces involved.


GOVERNMENT POSITION
George Baker: Mr. Speaker, this rule to which the United States is now objecting was made in 1905-some 82 years ago. The fact of the matter is that the Government does not have the political will to protect Canada's position before the GATT and that the United States sees this weakness as an open sesame to seize control over our natural resources.
Will the Minister not admit, realize and agree that it is absolutely necessary for the East Coast fishery and the West Coast fishery to have absolute control over the procedure of actually being able to decide how fish will be processed? If the Government does not rebuff this American attack it will have disastrous effects on the future of the fishery in Canada right from Newfoundland to British Columbia.


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, it is only fair to point out that this attack on the GATT by the Liberal Party is in direct violation of the Leader of the Party who upholds the GATT as the only way in which we should settle these international disputes. Why do members of that Party not get their act together with respect to their position on the GATT?


GATT RULING-CANADIAN POSITION
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade. Since the jobs of between 6,000 and 8,000 Canadian shore workers have been placed in jeopardy by the preliminary GATT ruling against Canada's prohibition on the export of
Oral Questions
unprocessed salmon or herring, and since the trade agreement with the United States very clearly states that "both parties have agreed that they will not maintain or introduce import or export restrictions except in accordance with the GATT or as modified by the agreement", will the Minister tell us why the Government has bargained away Canada's option to accept or to reject the GATT ruling and with it the right of Canada to control its own resources in the best interests of the Canadian people?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I do not understand why the NDP, those great upholders of the GATT, those great upholders of the international global system, who, as long as it is protectionist are in favour of it-


John Edward Broadbent: Answer the question!


Pat Carney: -are taking a stand in terms of a GATT panel which concludes that we are totally guilty as charged. It does not allow any option for us to defend ourselves, to negotiate a settlement, to seek solutions, and to find an acceptable option which we can follow. They do not want to do that. They want us to say that we are guilty. They want us to just give away the fishing industry.


TERMS OF CANADA-UNITED STATES AGREEMENT
James Douglas Manly: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Minister this. If that clause does not mean anything then why did the United States insist on putting it in and why did Canada accept it? I would like the Minister to confirm that this agreement will allow the processing of Canadian fish in plants in Bellingham or Seattle by American workers and that Canadian workers will be sitting on a dock in the bay whistling "The Free Trade Blues".


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I should point out to Hon. Members that should they choose to read the "Elements of the Agreement" they will find that from the very beginning and throughout the entire document we are promising on both sides as partners to this agreement to operate within the spirit of the GATT. In fact the free trade agreement itself is provided for under Section 24 of the GATT. Why they would expect us to deny our GATT obligations is beyond all reason.
In respect to this fishing dispute, I have indicated that we are concerned about the impact on the workers. We are seeking solutions-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh, boy!


Pat Carney: "Oh, boy" says the Leader of the NDP. They do not care about the effect on workers. That is why they are against the free trade agreement.

November 17, 1987
Oral Questions


RELIGIOUS PERSECUTION
Mr. Bill Attewell (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. I want to say that the Baha'i community of Canada is aware of the consistent support which the Government has rendered to the international efforts to halt the persecution of the Baha'i community in Iran. Indeed, we just co-sponsored a resolution condemning the violation of human rights in that country.
In view of the deteriorating and life-threatening situation in Iran and the continuing arrests of many of the leaders of the Baha'i community, what additional steps can the Government take regarding the 17 specifically named individuals of the Baha'i community who are imprisoned and whose lives are in imminent danger?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for his question. I know that his interest in the Baha'i generally and in the 17 individuals in particular is shared by other Members of the House. We have made and will continue to be making representations as strongly as we can in Iran.
In addition, we have, as the Hon. Member has mentioned, co-sponsored a resolution in the United Nations which will be coming to a vote very shortly with respect to Iran and which we hope will have some effect upon its attitude toward the 17 individuals the Hon. Member mentions.


TAX REFORM
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. In its report, the Finance and Economic Affairs Committee confirmed what several groups had stated about the Conservative Government's tax reform and three budgets to the effect that they are unfair to Canadian families, especially large families.
Could the Minister give Canadian families the assurance that he will correct these inequities before the Holiday season by awarding the third child twice the amount of the child tax credit, that is $130 instead of $65, and that this money will be converted into a refundable tax credit for the poorest families in Canada? Could the Minister give Canadian families the assurance that these changes will be made before the Holiday season?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think the Hon. Member is aware of the changes that we have made during the course of the lifetime of this Government, such as increasing the Child Tax Credit, accelerating the payment of the Child Tax Credit, introducing the refundable Sales Tax Credit. These measures help people with large families.
I indicated yesterday that I was not prepared to comment specifically on a number of recommendations in what 1 thought was a very good report on the part of the Finance Committee. I take his statements today as further representations.


CHILD TAX CREDIT AND YOUTH OLDER THAN 18 YEARS OF AGE-INQUIRY WHETHER ADDITIONAL FUNDS WILL BE PROVIDED
Jean-Claude Malépart: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary question. Yesterday, in reply to the hon. Member for Laval-des-Rapides concerning a minimum margin tax on all major banks, the Minister was not quite clear whether this would be acceptable to big business. I should like to ask the Minister why he would have no hesitation in indexing family allowances or in reducing the incomes of our poorest families while being afraid to tax the corporate sector. Could the Minister answer that immediately? The people are sick and tired of waiting. After three years, could the Minister indicate whether he will put forward the additional money for child tax credit purposes as well as for children over 18 years of age?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is the same as my answer to the first question.
If I could, let me comment on some of the elements of the Hon. Member's preamble. If he wishes to look carefully at what has been proposed in the White Paper on Tax Reform, he will see on page 67 that there are a number of proposals to increase the taxes that are paid by financial institutions, including banks and insurance companies. If the Hon. Member adds them all up he will find that they are in combination the most significant part of the increase in taxation of the corporate sector.
Clearly the objective of the Government is to ensure that the financial institutions do pay their fair share of tax, and do see their effective tax rate increase quite substantially over what it has been in recent years. I agree with what the Hon. Member and other Members have stated that this has been too low a level of taxation; but that has been the objective, so our objectives are shared. We now have to discuss the means of achieving that objective, and that is what we will be studying between now and the tabling of the Ways and Means Motion.
November 17, 1987


FARM INCOME-ACCRUAL ACCOUNTING SYSTEM
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to direct a question to the Minister of Finance.
Yesterday the Minister claimed that the recommendations made by the Finance Committee were just little changes over his White Paper proposal. However, I wish to inform the Minister that a number of those so-called "little" changes, if adopted, will have a dramatic effect on the way farmers do their business.
I wish to ask the Minister through you, Mr. Speaker, if he is now prepared to accept the committee's recommendation and abandon his unfair and costly proposal for a modified accrual accounting system.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I am going to give the Hon. Member the same answer as I have given to other questioners.
The Finance Committee, of which he is a member, has spent a good deal of time reviewing the White Paper and coming up with a series of recommendations that have benefited from consultation with a wide number of people in the country.
I think it would be quite inappropriate for me to comment individually on each question on a specific item as they come up, but rather to provide the House with a blanket response at the time that the Ways and Means Motion is tabled in December.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Simon Leendert de Jong: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the Minister that many farmers are experiencing a tremendous amount of insecurity. The Minister's proposals found in the White Paper created further insecurity and confusion.
I urge the Minister to correct this uncertainty and confusion that exist out there in order that farmers can start planning their activities for next year, come clean and clear to them and announce as soon as possible that he will not proceed with those silly proposals that came out of the Department of Finance that make no sense at all to the farmers of our country.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I think that all I can say is that I take what the Hon. Member has said as a representation in support of the proposals in the committee report. I have stated that I will be making my response in December.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


NEW BRUNSWICK POTATO GROWERS-REQUEST FOR STABILIZATION PAYMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture.
In the House on August 14 I asked the Minister what progress had been made on the issue of an equalization payment for the 1985 potato crop. At that time the Minister assured me that he would likely be in a position in the near future to make a positive announcement.
The near future has come and gone, and the New Brunswick potato farmers are still waiting for action from the Government. What positive news can the Minister deliver to potato farmers today?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: Mr. Speaker, I certainly appreciate the continuing efforts and representations made on behalf of the potato producers of this country by my colleague from Fundy-Royal.
I ask the Hon. Member to appreciate the fact that, because of the income situation of Canadian farmers, it has been necessary for the Government to increase its funding to my Department and to the farmers of Canada by 350 or 400 per cent.
It is not always possible to have all the money when it is wanted. But I do wish to assure the Hon. Member and the potato farmers of Canada that it is still a priority on my mind, and I hope to be in a position at some reasonable point in the future to respond, and to respond positively.


EDUCATION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State.
This morning the Canadian Federation of Students told us that a top priority with them was the establishment of a national advisory council on post-secondary education. This issue is supported by the Canadian university teachers, the Canadian Treachers' Federation, the Association of Universities & Colleges and it has widespread support from the business community. Indeed, I would say that a majority of the Ministers of Education in the country support the idea.
I wish to ask the Minister, will he move beyond the spirit of Saskatoon, will he now call together the partners, give us a ray of hope from Saskatoon, and create a national advisory council as the Canadian Federation of Students has requested?

November 17, 1987
Oral Questions


Hon. David Crombie (Secretary of State of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, allow me to first of all thank the Hon. Member for his question, and to congratulate him for the motion which he now has before the House with respect to the establishment of that council.
In response to the Hon. Member's question, I would simply like to say that yesterday the Chairman of the National Forum on Post-Secondary Education, Dr. Brian Segal, appeared before the standing committee of Parliament and asked us specifically to move in a way which was consistent with the cooperation from the provinces. In doing so, we will be able to build upon that for the future programs with respect to postsecondary education.
Within the spirit of the National Forum in Saskatoon, and also at the request of the Chairman of the National Forum, Dr. Brian Segal, I would hope that the Hon. Member would refer his Bill to the parliamentary committee so it would have the appropriate action, which I know that the Hon. Member is looking for.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Bill Rompkey: Mr. Speaker, it seems to me that there was a clear call coming out of Saskatoon for action on a national basis, recognizing provincial jurisdiction, but also recognizing national need.
My question is the following. If the provinces, the students, the teachers, and the federal Government came together in Saskatoon for three days, why can they not come together again? Why should it stop in Saskatoon? Why can we not have it for three years or thirty years? Will the Minister move in that direction and establish a national advisory council on post-secondary education?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, with great consideration to my hon. friend, it is not national unless people agree to it. The provinces have indicated that in their meeting in February they will be willing to consider all such matters.
I say to the Hon. Member that if he is really interested in building something national instead of something only federal, then he would please accede to the wishes of many people who wish to see us move beyond where we have been on postsecondary education.
The only way that we can do so is with co-operation in this country, and not single-minded propositions from one side of the fence. That is why I implore the Hon. Member, please do not divide this issue, come together with the provinces and those people who want to co-operate on post-secondary education.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PASSAGE OF PROPOSED LEGISLATION-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Howard McCurdy (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also directed to the Secretary of State who has asked my colleague to present his Bill to the Secretary of State's committee.
My question to the Secretary of State is very simple. If he wishes that Bill to go to committee, will his Government support the Bill on second reading so that it will go to committee?


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, first, it is not my committee, it is the House's committee. It is the standing committee of the House of Commons to which the Bill in question would be sent.
Second, I would say to the Hon. Member that the important thing is to have the subject matter before the committee. By the way, that is the request of the chairman of the forum in Saskatoon. Dr. Brian Segal, the President of Ryerson, speaking on behalf of the spirit of Saskatoon, has asked that that be done. I would suggest that the Hon. Member quit playing politics with it and accede to that request.


Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, I find that to be an extraordinary, unusual rebuttal from the Secretary of State. It is completely out of character and somewhat more political than I would have thought him capable of.


REQUEST THAT GOVERNMENT SUPPORT PROPOSED LEGISLATION
Howard Douglas McCurdy: Mr. Speaker, let me put the question to him in a straightforward manner. By the way, I was at the committee meeting yesterday and I do not need to be advised about what Mr. Segal said. The Canadian Federation of Students, the AUCC, and just about everybody concerned about post-secondary education have supported an advisory council.
My question to the Minister is a simple one. Will his side of the House support the Bill? That support in principle would be a signal to the whole community that the Bill go to committee as he would suggest.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, of course the character of my response was dictated by the spirit of Saskatoon, which is why I spoke with that kind of heat.
I want to say to the Hon. Member and to his colleague in the other Party that of course everybody wants the same thing. The difference is this: if we want to accomplish it in order to build for the future, I implore the other two Parties to work with me and the provinces and we will do something. If we simply want to sail off on our own to win the day, that will not be of benefit to post-secondary students. I ask them to please
November 17, 1987

do what the forum asks, and I can assure the Hon. Member that that will be to the benefit of post-secondary students across the country and into the future.


REQUEST FOR IMPROVED STUDENT LOANS PROGRAM
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Secretary of State. As the Minister knows, university students are now graduating from university with almost impossible debt loads. According to his own figures, nearly 20 per cent of students are graduating with debts of over $10,000.
Since education and skill training are supposed to be a national priority, when will the Minister take steps to give us an improved student loans program and new financial assistance programs for students? Will he make a commitment on that today so that students can start planning for the next semester?
David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, last February for the first time in the country I established an intergovernmental committee with the provinces to make policy recommendations in respect to the future of student aid.
In September we established an advisory committee of all users, from student organizations and part-time student organizations, to handicapped student organizations and so on, in order to make recommendations to the federal Government and to the provinces, which will come forward in February, 1988.
The intergovernmental committee is meeting in January. The advisory committee is meeting in December. They will make their recommendations known, so that we can come forward with recommendations following the meeting in February, 1988.


Mr. Allmand:: We look forward to those reports and the action to be taken by the Government on them.


STUDENT SUMMER EMPLOYMENT PROGRAMS
[Stage Direction]
Hon. Warren Allmand (Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine
East): Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Will the Minister take steps to improve our student summer employment programs so that more students can earn sufficient moneys in the summer and will not get into these debt situations?
Instead of cutting back these programs, as has been done over the last two years, will the Minister give a higher priority to student summer employment so that they will avoid the debts to which we have referred?
Hon. Jean J. Charest (Minister of State (Youth)):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure where the Hon. Member has been for the last three years. That is exactly what we have done. We have produced a better student summer program called
Oral Questions
Challenge '88, which provided for the best summer ever for all students last summer.


TAX REFORM
Mr. Mike Cassidy (Ottawa-Centre):: Mr Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance who apparently has decided to ignore the report of the Standing Committee on Finance and Economic Affairs concerning his tax reform proposal.
Now that the Minister has rejected the Committee's recommendations for a minimum tax on financial institutions, could he tell us what his position is on the Committee's recommendations in support of Canadian families? Will those recommendations be accepted or will the White Paper's inequities to families be perpetuated, in view of the fact the Minister will not collect adequate taxes from the banks?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it is possible for me to ignore the recommendations of the Finance Committee. Knowing as well as I do the chairman of that committee, it would be quite impossible for me to ignore it.
Let me give the Hon. Member the same answer as the one I have given to previous questioners. I appreciate the comments and the statements which he made about certain aspects of the White Paper. However, I am sure he would understand that if I responded to each one as they came up, in response to questions in the House, it would be inappropriate. I would be clearly indicating that I was not giving the degree of consideration that he would want me to give to the recommendations.
On that basis I would have to say to him that he will have to wait until the Ways and Means Motion comes down in December, at which time I will make a statement.


MINISTER'S POSITION
Michael Morris Cassidy: Mr. Speaker, is the Minister not aware that he has already given a clear signal about his approach to the committee's work, that is, that the committee might as well have taken the summer off rather than worked as hard as it did to come up with a concrete and coherent set of proposals in respect of tax reform?
First the Minister says no to the minimum tax, then he says to questioners from the two opposition Parties that he is not prepared to budge in terms of an accrual system of accounting for farmers in relation to tax, and then he says it is inappropriate to reply specifically.

November 17, 1987
Oral Questions
Is this not a clear signal that the Minister is not prepared to listen to anybody except his friends on Bay Street and St. James Street?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, the committee has made a number of recommendations. I have not commented specifically, one way or the other, on any of the recommendations. I do not propose to make any statements or any specific comments one way or the other.
The Hon. Member may have drawn some conclusions. I would suggest to him that he may have drawn some improper conclusions from the comments I have made. I will be quite clear, though, sometime in December when the Ways and Means Motion is tabled.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister. It concerns the allegations of toll-gating in the riding of Trois-Rivieres. Yesterday I asked the Prime Minister when the Prime Minister's office received the tape of the Chastenay-Levasseur conversation, and the Government refused to answer.
Did the Office of the Prime Minister telephone or otherwise contact Mr. Chastenay after receiving the tape recording and, if it made such a phone call, what was the purpose of the communication?


Hon. James Kelleher (Solicitor General of Canada):: Mr. Speaker, as I advised the House yesterday and as the Hon. Member well knows, this matter is under active investigation by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, and it would be quite improper for us to comment on any facets or matters involving this investigation.


Don Boudria: I do not know if I heard correctly but I was asking about a phone call. Surely the Minister is not telling us that the Prime Minister's phone calls are under criminal investigation. I want to ask a question of the Deputy Prime Minister.
[ Translation]


QUERY WHEN GOVERNMENT WILL TABLE TEXT OF NEW CONFLICT OF INTEREST GUIDELINES
Don Boudria: Mr. Speaker, the Deputy Prime Minister who is responsible for public morality, always in connection with the allegations of kickbacks in the constituency of Trois-Rivieres ... In view of the difficulties, and even the scandals surrounding the Government, when does the Deputy Prime Minister intend to table in this House the new guidelines on conflicts of interest
that were promised in the last Throne speech? In addition, will he tell us what other steps he intends to take in order to clean up this Conservative Government's act?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Deputy Prime Minister, President of the Privy Council and President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, if there are any changes, they will be announced in the usual manner.


TAX ON LUMBER EXPORTS
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister for International Trade who will know that Canada's lumber producers are again being victimized by American competition. In an exact reversal of the situation that her 15 per cent export tax was intended to correct, American producers are now taking Canadian sales in Canadian markets because they have been able to reduce their unit costs by increasing production.
Since this is de facto dumping and obviously contrary to the spirit of the free trade agreement, what will the Minister do to attempt to ensure that her tax is not costing Canadian lumber producers Canadian markets?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I think it is a very timely question considering that the Member is from a Party which said that the softwood lumber industry would be facing doom and gloom with the imposition of an export tax designed to keep the money in Canada and out of Washington.
I can point out to the Hon. Member that Canadian softwood lumber production throughout the country has set new records throughout 1987 and that many of the firms are having a record profit year. In British Columbia, the forest products industry is on its way to a record breaking profit year. The allegations the Member has made about the loss of markets in Canada cannot be substantiated by our figures.


IMPORTS OF UNITED STATES LUMBER
John Edmund Parry: Mr. Speaker, by way of a supplementary question which I will address to the Minister who appears willing deliberately to confuse price and volume-


Some Hon. Members:: Order.


John Edmund Parry: -I would like to point out that industry spokesmen have said that this market loss is taking place because American producers are now able to sell into Canada at $20 per thousand board feet less than Canadian producers
November 17, 1987

can. Since we have given up the possibility of maintaining our share of the American market, what is the Government prepared to do to ensure we have our share of the Canadian market?


Pat Carney: Mr. Speaker, I want to point out to the Hon. Member that we are selling record amounts of lumber to the domestic market. We have record production and we are selling record amounts to the Canadian domestic market. I think that is a record about which we can be pretty proud.


Mr. Speaker:: I would like to advise Hon. Members that this will be the last question for Question Period. The Hon. Member for Westmorland-Kent.


ATLANTIC CANADA OPPORTUNITIES AGENCY
Mr. Fernand Robichaud (Westmorland-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister. Six months have already passed since the Atlantic Opportunities Agency was announced, and this agency according to the Prime Minister was to receive new funds, new moneys-$200 million a year-which were to be applied to regional development. Six months have now gone by. No money is forthcoming. So what is going on? Where is the money? People in the Atlantic area are concerned and we are wondering whether we are not being taken for a ride, as happened on the issue of the CN Shops, concerning which this Minister promised there would be no massive layouts ever. So what is the Government doing with that agency? Where is the money?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I can confirm to the Hon. Member, and I wish to assure him, that the money being allocated under the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency has in fact been allocated. It is new money and it is in addition to the other programs that are in place.
There has been some delay in the setting up of the approval process and the advisory board, but I can assure the Hon. Member that the Atlantic Canada Opportunities Agency is open for business and we hope that the enterprising spirit of Atlantic Canada will prevail. The Government will be there to help and to facilitate things in every way possible.


Mr. Speaker:: The Hon. Member, a short question.
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata


APPARENT CONTRADICTION BETWEEN MINISTERS AND CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF ATLANTIC CAUCUS
Fernand Robichaud: Mr. Speaker, on the one hand the Minister is telling us this is new money, the Prime Minister is also telling us this is new money, but on the other hand we hear Conservative Party Atlantic caucus Members say they are still fighting to make sure this is indeed new money. So how come this contradiction between Ministers and Members of the Atlantic Conservative caucus?


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, I think the contradiction is in the mind of the Hon. Member whom I respect very much.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I bring to the attention of Hon. Members that I am now ready to give my ruling on a matter raised by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston (Mr. Nunziata) on Monday, October 26. I wish to thank both him and Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) for their co-operation in assisting the Chair in arriving at a decision.
Hon. Members who were able to hear the argument will recognize that the facts are as follows. The office of the Member for York South-Weston received a phone call from a constituent whose husband was an inmate at the time in the Joyceville Medium Security Penitentiary. She indicated her husband, head of the inmates' committee, wished to speak to the Hon. Member and to his assistant, a certain Mr. Pratt. The Member's assistant contacted the inmate and reported to the Hon. Member. Mr. Pratt received further instructions and again contacted the inmate who, in turn, according to the Hon. Member for York South-Weston "relayed a list of concerns with regard to the situation at Joyceville".

The Hon. Member then told the House: "As a result of this conversation the inmate was transferred to the maximum security penitentiary at Millhaven and put in segregation."

At no time did the Hon. Member for York South-Weston meet or speak directly with the inmate.
The Solicitor General is in basic agreement with the statement of facts outlined by the Hon. Member for York South-Weston, but added that the phone and room used by the inmate in Joyceville had the following sign clearly displayed:

November 17, 1987
Privilege-Mr. Nunziata
All activities, including conversations and telephone communications in this area, are subject to monitoring and may be recorded.
The Solicitor General also told the House that a Correctional Services officer was in the room with the inmate. Upon overhearing what the inmate said to Mr. Pratt, the officer reported to the warden of Joyceville and he, in turn, reported to his superiors. The inmate was subsequently transferred to another institution, Millhaven.

The grievance expressed by the Hon. Member for York South (Mr. Nunziata) was ably supported by the Hon. Member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell (Mr. Boudria), the Hon. Member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), and the Hon. Member for Windsor West (Mr. Gray); the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) and the Minister of State also helped the Chair. I thank all Hon. Members for their very useful contributions.
The request of the Hon. Member that the matter be ruled to be a prima facie breach of privilege raises several points. I will now consider them one by one.

Members will have heard the definition of parliamentary privilege before but it bears repetition. May's 20th Edition, at page 70, sets out the classic definition. Beauchesne's Fifth Edition repeats that definition at page 11 in Citation 16:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by Members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual Members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its Members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
Maingot, in Parliamentary Privilege in Canada, at page 12, gives further but similar definitions. I should add that Canadian Speakers have put such definitions on the record many times.

Apart from the definitions, we must consider the fact that the House cannot create new privileges. On this point 1 would refer Hon. Members to page 75 of May's 20th edition. Similar views can be found in all authoritative parliamentary texts. On April 29, 1971, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux said in that respect:

Privilege is that which sets Hon. Members apart from other citizens giving them rights which the public do not possess. I suggest we should be careful in construing any particular circumstance which might add to the privileges which have been recognized over the years and perhaps over the centuries as belonging to Members of the House of Commons. In my view, parliamentary privilege does not go much beyond the right of free speech in the House of Commons and the right of a Member to discharge his duties in the House as a Member of the House of Commons.
On February 20, 1975, Speaker Jerome cited that ruling with approval stating that "-improvement upon it is impossible and-unnecessary". Speaker Jerome continued and made the following comment:
The consequences of extending that definition (of Mr. Speaker Lamou-reaux) to innumerable areas outside this Chamber into which the work of an MP might carry him, and particularly to the great number of grievances he might encounter in the course of that work, would run contrary to the basic concept of privilege.

The Chair was unable to find in these various definitions and quotations anything which would extend parliamentary privilege to the actions of a member of the staff of an Hon. Member of this House.
That being said, I am sure Hon. Members will appreciate that this matter does not fall within the restricted scope of the concept of parliamentary privilege.

Indeed, I can go further and state that even without the direct involvement of the staff person and with the direct involvement of the Member himself, I could not find that a prima facie case of privilege exists. Let me explain by quoting Speaker Jerome again.
In 1975, in ruling on an alleged warning given by the National Harbours Board to its staff against communicating with Members of Parliament, Mr. Speaker Jerome clearly stated:
-the classic definition of a question of privilege does not fit circumstances in which a Member in his duties outside this House finds that his scope is being restricted or attempts are being made to restrict his scope of intervention and effective work on behalf of not only his own constituents but his point of view as a member of the federal Parliament.
He continued:
-1 feel absolutely certain that the classic definition of a question of privilege as we know it does not fit because it does not affect the right of speech of the Hon. Member in this House. Indeed, his right of speech in this House to complain and to raise this grievance is unquestioned.
That statement of Speaker Jerome is very clear indeed.
As to the assertion made by several Hon. Members that an opposition critic has some special privileges, the short answer is obviously that while they certainly have some extra responsibilities and obligations, they do not have any special privileges. Critics receive, and certainly should receive, every courtesy to assist them in their duties, but they have no privileges above those of any other Member.
Mr. Speaker Lamoureaux made a ruling on April 29, 1971, which may be helpful to honourable Members in this connection and I commend it to them.
I want to assure all Members that the Chair recognizes the importance of this matter and the seriousness of the situation brought to our attention by the Hon. Member for York
November 17, 1987

South-Weston, but I regret that under the circumstances it should not and cannot be dealt with as a question of privilege.
I can only say that I hope that having given the Elon. Member a chance to raise this serious matter in this Chamber may have assisted the Hon. Member and others to find some satisfactory resolution to the situation which the Hon. Member has brought to the attention of the House. I thank the Hon. Member for his intervention and for bringing this matter to our attention.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, it is my privilege today to rise to speak on behalf of the constituents of Kenora-Rainy River about the replacement of the infamous War Measures Act.
With Bill C-77, the House of Commons is finally considering replacing the War Measures Act, seventeen years after the last time it was invoked. In discussing this Bill, I would like to recall some of my own experiences at the time when the War Measures Act was last used in Canada.
I came to Montreal in July 1970 and the War Measures Act was invoked the following October. I therefore have intimate knowledge about the effects of this piece of legislation.
Madam Speaker, if I may say so, it was one of my most instructive experiences as a new immigrant to Canada. This was finally one of the factors which led me to the New Democratic Party because, at my arrival in Canada, I had had the impression that the Liberal Party was a progressive party, the party of renewal, the socialist party, as 1 then saw it, which Canada needed. However, finally, it was the position taken by the then leader of the New Democratic Party, Mr. Douglas, that convinced me that there were other factors to consider in choosing my party in the context of a democratic federal system.
Madam Speaker, 1 remember well the sad day of the funeral of Mr. Pierre Laporte. My office at the Bank of Montreal headquarters were directly opposite the Notre-Dame church in Montreal. I also remember quite clearly seeing soldiers in the streets of Montreal and the often very emotional interaction between the citizens and these soldiers, most of whom were unilingual anglophones. My experience in Montreal at the
Emergencies Act
time, when the War Measures Act was invoked, convinced me that it would eventually be necessary to replace it.
1 am grateful that it is the Conservative Government which has finally introduced this replacement legislation in the House of Commons, even though the Liberals were in power for nearly 14 years and could have introduced their own piece of legislation. We had to wait for a change of Government to set a new Act.
We have to admit, Madam Speaker, that this Bill is clearly an improvement over the Act it replaces, but as members of the Opposition, it is our duty to see the defects in the legislation proposed by the Government.

In general terms, Bill C-77 sets out the general obligations of the Government for the safety and security of individuals, for the protection of the values of our society, and for the preservation of the orderly democratic function of the Canadian federal state. It says that there may be situations, although it does not adequately define or describe them, in which those functions of Government may be threatened by a form of national emergency which would imperil our collective wellbeing, either right across the country or in parts of the country, and might be beyond the power of the Government or, indeed, governments of the provinces, to address without additional powers provided for in this law.
While it would be easy for me to spend a considerable length of time reviewing the functions of a state, the philosophical and ideological underpinnings for the governments which we have at the municipal, provincial, and federal levels, I think 1 will content myself with a brief historical conspectus, simply to set the context for Bill C-77.
The theory of the state, of course, arose in Greece and was developed somewhat in Rome. The theory and practice of the city-state-for such the original states of Greece were-gave rise to the development of a philosophy of politics. Indeed, of course, the word does come from the Greek. In this philosophy of politics it was recognized that because the state was a collective value and supposedly served all members of the state, it owed not only itself but also the citizens a duty to preserve itself as the state it was.
We have progressed beyond the Greek models, but I think it is instructive to observe that for many centuries, indeed, perhaps almost two millennia, the question of the reserve powers of a state when faced with either an internal or external threat was rarely discussed. The powers were virtually taken for granted. After all, it was an era when fundamental political debate had fallen out of fashion. Indeed, the development of the theory of what the state was saw little progress between the time of the coming of Christ and the writings of Machiavelli.

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
With the development of rational and modernist philosophy into the eighteenth century, the nature of the state began again to be called into question. There was one stream of thought that tended to the development of anarchism. There was also another stream of thought which tended toward a critical examination of the nature of the state and the powers that the state should hold.
Of course, this debate has extended into our own age and continues today. It may not be in as abstract or intellectual a form, because there exists of course much more opportunity in today's society for the very existence of a state to be challenged. However, we live today in a society that is highly technologized and highly independent. Therefore, the nature of possible disruptions of the functions of government and the functions of the state has expanded exponentially. I believe it would be fair to say that while we have the education, the communications, and the legal and even coercive instruments to completely outclass any other age in human history, nevertheless by the nature and the way in which society functions today, in many cases the state can be as vulnerable as it ever was.
It is in that context of vulnerability that I cannot let some features of this law pass, because it seems to me that in one aspect, at least, the law is inviting the sort of vulnerability that we would like to see it in fact address. Of course, that is the conferring of additional powers on the Senate through Bill C-77.
Presently, the Senate is acting in direct defiance of a democratically elected government. While it is a government that I happen to oppose and disagree with in broad terms, and even passionately in respect of some legislation that has been rejected by the Senate, it is nevertheless being subjected to conduct by the unelected Senate that really is capable of provoking an emergency, if we are to accept the very undefined nature of those emergencies that the law is supposed to address. Indeed, the present conduct of the unelected Canadian Senate could virtually be condemned as being treasonous to the philosophy and practice of democracy. Yet Bill C-77 has the potential for the Senate to act independent of the House of Commons.
While I appreciate that the Government has to produce legislation which is capable of passing in the Senate, given the present obstructive mood of the Senate, it seems to me that if one accepts the premises of the act on the nature of potential public order emergencies, there is a real potential for the Senate itself to provoke a public welfare emergency by some form of obstruction.
Whenever any government in this place, whether it be Conservative, New Democratic or Liberal, presents its borrowing bills, it seems to me that the very capacity for the Senate to abuse its power by excessive delay has the potential to provoke one of the types of emergencies that this Bill is indeed addressing. That may be cause for the Government to address directly with the Senate what its powers would be. I
would simply enjoin the Government to ensure that the powers conferred upon the Canadian Senate in this Bill are the absolute minimum, to ensure that the Bill is able to function as a piece of legislation.
There is a real challenge in the framing of emergency powers legislation within the context of a federal state, and within the context of a federal state as large as Canada. The fact is that we have regional interests within Canada that in many ways are apparently opposed to the interests of other regions. Let us be very careful about what we seek to define as the national interest within the context of a federal state and within the context of very different and very diverse regions.
For example, are we to say that the existence of a separatist party in one province or one region of the country is in some way itself an indication of a potential emergency that might have to be addressed under this law? I hope that we never have to make that sort of qualification or judgment because I believe that the separatist parties that this country has seen have generally conducted themselves responsibly in the context of a federal state and within the context of a Canadian Confederation.
However, let us also not forget that one woman's or one man's unity is another person's bondage. In particular, those who are close to the centres of powers and influence, the centres of economic production, are very prone to adopt unrealistic and profoundly unfair assumptions about the lives, the opinions and the attitudes of those who are living on the periphery of those centres of power.
Let us examine what this could mean in practical terms. When two Members of the Progressive Conservative Party of the Province of Saskatchewan defected to set up a party dedicated to the union of western Canada with the United States, was that an example of something that could have turned into a public order emergency? I would not think so, on the face of it. Of course, we did not see any form of public support for that sort of motive, but we must be careful in the framing of emergency powers legislation to acknowledge that there is a possibility for this sort of movement to adopt positions that could be inimical to what the rest of the country would perceive as the national interest. Therefore, the necessity exists and must be recognized for the maintenance of a very careful and sensitive, indeed, very understanding balance of what is seen as the national interest and what is recognized as legitimate interests of various parts of this country.
Another defect of the legislation I should point out is the way in which it generally does not contemplate a role for the court system. The court system has its own problems. It moves at a speed which has been subject to a lot of condemnation. Yet the court system certainly has some strengths within Canada. We see in the brief of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, for example, recommendations that the court
November 17, 1987

system be better integrated in the administration of emergency powers legislation, that there be provisions for court review of such legislation, and that there be more provisions for the appeal of certain parts of the legislation, certain orders under the legislation, to the court system. This is certainly something I would commend to the legislative committee as well as to the Government for study.
The recommendation for the indemnification of agents and servants of the Government for individual responsibility is that the Government should assume all individual responsibilities as part of its collective responsibility when its agents, servants or officers are charged with the carrying out of certain functions under emergency powers legislation.
Finally, let me refer to the proposals on the definition of international emergencies. I can understand the difficulty in which the Government must have found itself in framing this part of the legislation. It is something of a strange hybrid in a country as large as ours that an international emergency other than a war emergency, involving a direct threat of organized military force against the country, should be contemplated. Indeed, the provision for the consultation of provinces, while it is, of course very Canadian, and I think would be widely supported throughout the country, is one that within the context of international emergency should at least give cause for thought. Over-all, as I mentioned earlier, there can be no doubt that Bill C-77 is an improvement over the Bill it is intended to replace.
Parliamentary oversight and review of the invocation of emergencies legislation will be much greater under this Bill than under its predecessor. Both pieces of legislation have provision for the parliamentary revocation of a declaration of emergency, but on any comparative analysis, it could be seen that under Bill C-77 it would come much sooner.
Finally, another strength of this particular Bill is that the provisions for compensation and redress of damages are much more comprehensive than those in the War Measures Act. Over-all, we have a piece of legislation that, from the most complimentary assessment, is a good first-cut in improving on the old War Measures Act. I would commend to the Government the task of further improving it.


Derek Nigel Ernest Blackburn: Madam Speaker, I have one question I would like to put to my colleague. It is listed as one of the recommendations of the Canadian Civil Liberties Association in its brief to the Minister. It is an excellent brief, I might add, one which I hope the Government will look at very closely. I know the Minister will. I think it is certainly worthy of very close scrutiny, and I would hope that the Canadian Civil Liberties Association would be one of the first witnesses to come before the legislative committee. The thirteenth recommendation of the association reads as follows:
The elimination of the power to prohibit and regulate public assemblies
during public order emergencies.
Emergencies Act
A public order emergency, of course, would be a similar situation to the October crisis of 1970. This is the section of the Bill which gives, I would think, the most problems at this point because we would not be at war, there would be no international crisis. It would be a domestic issue here at home.
I would like to ask the Hon. Member if he not only agrees with this recommendation, but to what extent does he consider the prohibition and regulation of public assemblies during an internal disorder in the country? It seems to me that it is the very essence of denying our freedom of assembly and freedom of speech, even though there may be an internal disorder, to prohibit or to regulate the free association of citizens during that kind of crisis.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I would like to thank my colleague for that question. Indeed, he brings to light, as does the Canadian Civil Liberties Association, perhaps the single most repugnant aspect of this legislation, the ability to prohibit and regulate public assembly during public order emergencies.
I think that in today's society it is really quite an unnecessary power and one, I believe, most Canadians would find to be quite repugnant. The purpose, of course, of forbidding freedom of assembly has historically been to prevent the contagion of ideas and information spreading throughout the populace, though in fact the only form of contagion that I think could be adequately prevented would be some form of plague situation.
I believe, first, that the power is unnecessary in an age when the dissemination of information through a literate populace is so easy. I am not sure what could possibly be accomplished in terms of preventing information from spreading. In so far as the other purpose of assembly is concerned, which, obviously, is to discuss and to generate sentiment for some form of action, 1 would question under what circumstances that would ever be a legitimate objective of the Government.
My belief is that the common law system over the centuries has proven to be an instrument of great effectiveness and flexibility in addressing those situations which are seen as a threat to society or to the state. History records that the Riot Act of the United Kingdom was introduced in response to assemblies of Chartists who were basically working-class democrats seeking a reordering of British society. If memory serves me correctly, at least until recently, there was a Canadian equivalent of the Riot Act on the books. One of the things that gave me great amusement when I was Mayor of Sioux Lookout was the thought that someday I might have to read the Riot Act to a populace which had presumably become dissatisfied with some activity of the municipal Government.
It seems to me that the common law and the Criminal Code of Canada adequately control the sort of actions which might flow from any form of assembly. If an assembly takes it into its head to damage property, the sanctions of the Criminal Code apply. If an assembly takes it into its head to pursue, harass or attack individuals, the common law provides a remedy for that. Therefore, I am not really apprised of what legitimate Canadian purpose the Government would hope to accomplish

November 17, 1987
Adjournment Motion
by the inclusion in Bill C-77 of that power to prohibit and regulate public assemblies during public order emergencies.
Public assembly is another interesting concept, one that should be looked at. For example, when the Government assembles people for a meeting, can that be seen as a public assembly? Indeed, could the Government find that it was violating its own orders and then be subjected to some sanction through the court system?
One of the favourite arenas of protest now in Iran, which has one of the most horrendously oppressive and anti-human rights regimes in the entire world, is the soccer match. In that country a soccer match is not seen to be a public assembly. Those who are discontented with the regime's terrible oppression of people of different faiths or different political beliefs frequently congregate at soccer matches and take on from the soccer match to protest against some particularly repugnant act of that Government.
Would worship be defined as a public assembly? Could members of a church gathering on a Sunday morning, in ignorance of something having happened on the Saturday night, assembling for an outdoor service find themselves subjected to some form of control? By meeting outdoors they could be considered a public assembly. Even by meeting indoors they could be considered a public assembly. I believe that the Government would serve the public interest and its own interests better by discarding that provision.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Hon. Member who just spoke a question, one which I put to the Conservative Member who spoke last and who did not answer the question. As the Hon. Member knows, in 1960 the Diefenbaker Government brought in its Bill of Rights. After glorying in the publicity surrounding the Bill of Rights it then decided that it would not apply to the War Measures Act. If the Bill of Rights had applied to the War Measures Act over the years there would have been that very definite restraint built into the legislation.
Would the Hon. Member comment as to why the Diefenbaker Government would think of removing the War Measures Act as a piece of legislation that was affected by the Bill of Rights? Why would it not let the Bill of Rights take its way if, indeed, it was to be a meaningful Bill of Rights for the country?


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I can understand the previous recipient of the question not answering it. Indeed, the Hon. Member for Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke (Mr. Hopkins) may find after I have responded that he would like to ask the question of another.
Of course, I cannot speak for the Diefenbaker Government. I can only say that every Government since the Diefenbaker Government of 1960 surely bears equal responsibility for the continued non-application of the Canadian Bill of Rights to
the War Measures Act. Therefore, I would assume that it was not only the Diefenbaker Government in introducing the Bill of Rights which said it did not apply to the War Measures Act but every subsequent Government that did not make the Bill of Rights apply to it. Those Governments are equally responsible for the decision since, of course, not to decide is to decide.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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 Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow)-Science and Technology-Funding of research and development / Consortium's application for financial assistance; the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap)-External Affairs-El Savador-Discovery of headless body of agricultural workers' representative / Canadian aid to El Savador; the Hon. Member for Montreal-Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart)- Regional Economic Development-City of Montreal- Request for $25 million grant-Government position / Aid-Government position.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Beatty that Bill C-77, an Act to authorize the taking of special temporary measures to ensure safety and security during national emergencies and to amend other Acts in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to a legislative committee.
Mr. Joe Reid (St. Catharines):: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) on his reasoned approach to this Bill. He pointed out that this Bill far surpasses the War Measures Act in its approach to civil rights and in keeping a balance between emergencies, national disasters, wars or international occasions, and the Charter of Rights and Freedoms, the Bill of Rights, and the 1967 International Code enacted by the United Nations with respect to political and civil rights. Therefore, I expect the Hon. Member to support this Bill when it comes to a vote.
I am delighted to have this opportunity to speak to a Bill from a rather long record, good or bad, of local government administration where planning and preparedness with respect
November 17, 1987

to any kind of an emergency was an absolute necessity. We all went through the hurricane Hazel of 1967, the year of the snow white-out in the Niagara Peninsula. At that time children were in schools for as long as three days. We had to mobilize the ham radio people and people with snowmobiles to provide emergency services so that those persons might continue to live.
1 feel that the Government has taken a strong, bold step forward in the area of planning and preparedness for a wide range of emergencies. The Government made a commitment and, as the preamble to the Bill states, it is a commitment to ensure safety and security during national emergencies-any kind of emergency. The Bill is divided in parts to cover that wide range of emergencies and what kinds of declarations would have to accompany each.
This commitment was fulfilled with the introduction of the Emergency Preparedness Act. We know that Bill C-77 is a complementary Bill to Bill C-76 which Bill provided for the revocation of the Emergency Planning Order passed in 1981. This order was criticized by practically all Parties in the House as a source of numerous misunderstandings and for its legal basis. It is based inappropriately and on a Crown prerogative rather than on statute law of the land. This means that to date the role, the responsibilities and the mandate of emergency preparedness in Canada has not yet been defined by statute or by an Act of Parliament. The proposal then to make Emergency Preparedness Canada an independent agency with a mandate to co-ordinate emergency planning at the federal level is viewed favourably by provincial Governments. In fact, they encourage the passage of such legislation.
This initiative is also an indication of the federal Government's desire to be ready and able to respond appropriately to such an emergency when it should arise in the protection and the security of Canadians and in a global environment that is becoming increasingly complex.
The establishment of Emergency Preparedness Canada as an independent agency with a mandate defined by statute is intended, first, to increase the Government's ability to prepare for and deal with emergencies. Second, it is to clarify the respective responsibilities of the federal and provincial Governments with a view to closer co-operation, co-ordination and preparedness for action. Third, it is to improve the coordination of the emergency measures and the emergency preparedness of both federal Departments and agencies.
This change in the status of Emergency Preparedness Canada will not affect its primary role or its mandate as the co-ordinator of federal emergency preparedness. The responsibilities of the various Ministers for emergency planning within their respective sectors of statutory responsibility remain unchanged. The transformation of Emergency Preparedness Canada into a independent agency will not require the commitment of any additional human or financial resources. The proposal will make it possible for Parliament to control the normal procedures-
Emergencies Act


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I hesitate to interrupt my hon. friend opposite, but we are debating Bill C-77 and Emergency Preparedness Canada is Bill C-76. I think that the Hon. Member is delivering the wrong speech. He should be on Bill C-77, emergency measures.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, as I indicated, Bill C-76 is complementary; it is a sister Bill to Bill C-77. Emergency Preparedness Canada is an integral part of the operation of Bill C-77. That is why I am putting it before this House, in order that Members on both sides of the House will be able to look at the whole approach by the Government to emergency measures. I ask the Hon. Member opposite to keep in mind the purpose and the existence of Emergency Preparedness Canada.
The transformation of Emergency Preparedness Canada into this independent agency with a statutory background of approval will not require the commitment of any additional human and financial resources. The proposal will make it possible for Parliament to control, through normal procedures, the operation of a government agency that has existed and operated for a number of years without a mandate from Parliament.
Emergency Preparedness Canada will benefit greatly from its new status; its ability to prepare to respond to emergencies will no longer be linked to fluctuations in the interest of the public or of the Government. The advantages of those two Bills proposed for second reading are self-evident.
What is proposed is the repeal of an unjust, inhuman, obsolete statute, and of an ambiguous order, and replacement by two Acts that provide for coherent measured preparedness as a response to various types of emergencies. In addition, two Acts will offer a single, integrated federal approach to emergency preparedness.
Of course, all Acts can be improved upon. That is what my hon. friend from Kenora-Rainy River was referring to. While he indicated that this two-Act approach was a great improvement over the existing War Measures Act, there may be further improvements, but we must pass this improvement now.
However, they have been prepared with the interest of the general community of Canada in mind, with the aim of safeguarding their freedoms and civil rights to the maximum extent possible. This proposed legislation includes an extensive set of specific safeguards that would probably be neglected in the event of ad hoc legislation brought forth by a Government under the pressure of a time of crisis.
The interests of the provinces will also be protected effectively in emergencies, because there has been that consultation and co-operation in the approach to the legislation. The consultative mechanisms provided for in the Bills are without precedent in Canadian constitutional history. They guarantee

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
to the provinces an important role before any declaration of an emergency has been or will be made.
The legislation about to be enacted will protect all Canadians more effectively in the future. The establishment of Emergency Preparedness Canada as an independent agency, at no additional expense, will have that effect.
For this reason, I support the Bill and urge all Members to hasten its passage by giving it their support as a bold step forward in the protection of civil liberties and civil rights in time of emergency.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I wonder if the Hon. Member would explain if there is any change between Bill C-77 and the current War Measures Act? When I look at Clause 4 of the Bill it states, "When the Governor in Council is of the opinion that-" and it goes on to permit it to declare an emergency after consultation with the provinces, and so on.
Being aware that a similar process did occur in the October crisis in 1970 when the Government of the day, in consultation with the Province of Quebec, and apparently also the City of Montreal, which would not be necessary in this Bill, was of the opinion that an emergency was imminent. What would be different in this Bill as opposed to the old War Measures Act which permitted the same things to happen?
Is not the crucial part of this Bill and the existing War Measures Act the key phrase "the opinion of the Government"? Does the Hon. Member not think that there should be some strengthening of the wording in order that the Government's opinions be more restricted and guided by certain events having unfolded, or at least proof that certain events were in fact imminent, and that those reasons be given for implementing the emergency powers rather than to leave it as open as this Bill does? We feel that it is a criticism of the previous Act. I am sure that the Hon. Member went through the 1970 emergency and had those same criticisms of the existing War Measures Act.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: I am delighted to have the opportunity to respond again for the purpose of enlightening my colleague. Bill C-77, as the Hon. Member knows, is in four separate parts. It deals with emergencies of different types and natures, the last two of which are international crises. The last one to which he refers, Part IV, deals with times of war.
The Hon. Member will know that the encroachment on civil rights and liberties will vary as one type of emergency moves into another. The Hon. Member will also know that whereas the War Measures Act was introduced in a time of war for war purposes, not for a critical situation as existed in 1970 to be adopted holus-bolus for application all across the country where it was a regional matter, this Bill provides for an application enacted and supported by a Parliament to deal with the situation and the emergency as it exists and of the type and nature that does exist. That is the difference, the statute background and statute application.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I wished to make it clear to the Hon. Member that I was speaking of Clause 4 of this Bill which is under Part I. I was quoting from the clause relating to "Declaration of a public welfare emergency". It seems to be quite dependent upon the opinion of the federal Government of the day, the Governor in Council, and a shared opinion between the federal Government of whatever stripe, and a particular province. As long as there is agreement between the province and the existing federal Government, and they are of the opinion that such an emergency exists, it would be called.
I am wondering if the Hon. Member, being a lawyer, might not agree with the Civil Liberties Association. It indicated that there are ways of tightening up that wording so that government, meaning the federal Government and the provincial Governments in this case, would not have quite so much discretion to use the powers of the Act to create a situation where it would appear that something was happening in the rest of the country which was not in fact the case. History has shown that that is what went on with the stronger powers of the War Measures Act being used in the Province of Quebec.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I apologize if I misunderstood the Hon. Member in the first instance.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I should have said it better.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: If he is talking about Clause 4, it applies to a public welfare emergency. This make it even less comparable with the War Measures Act to which he compared it.
The Bill itself describes what is a public welfare emergency. It talks about fire, flood, drought, storm, and earthquake. There is nothing there about an international crisis nor about a war situation.
In this instance the application of Clause 4 would give to the Governor in Council the right of immediate and quick action to remedy a situation where the people of a particular area, probably an isolated area, need quick action. That possibility will be there.


Leonard Donald Hopkins: Madam Speaker, the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry) said that nothing was done by succeeding Governments after 1960. I would point out to him that in 1982 the Charter of Rights was brought in to take precedence over the War Measures Act. I think that should go on record because he said that nothing was done by succeeding Governments.
I would like to ask a question of the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid) for whom I have the greatest respect. Does he feel that the compensation part, Part V of the Bill, is fair in that there is really no appeal beyond the Federal Court level and that the Government has the right to set levels of compensation? Even if persons are not satisfied and feel that they have been injured, or not properly paid for damages done to them, there is really no appeal for them to go beyond that
November 17, 1987

and get what they feel is a just decision. I think it is the final paragraph which simply states that there shall be no appeal except through Section 28 of the Federal Court Act.
Does the Hon. Member not feel that there should be an appeal to the senior courts of the land? Since we are dealing with Canadian citizens, should they not have the right to the court system as it exists in Canada as opposed to the Government of the day setting what standards of court procedures will be used to handle legitimate complaints by Canadian citizens?
I know the Hon. Member is very fair, and I think he will have an answer.


Joseph Lloyd Reid: Madam Speaker, I had the advantage of being present while the Hon. Member opposite asked that question earlier. 1 do not agree with him when he says that there is no right of appeal. Compensation varies according to circumstances, the nature of the emergency, and the nature of the liability. His objection is really that there is no right of appeal to the courts. I think that is what he is talking about now.
There is a right of appeal in the legislation to a Federal Court judge, one of the senior judges of the land appointed to hear an appeal and to make an assessment. That person has the right to disallow, add to, or whatever, just as an arbitrator would do under similar circumstances.
If I might, I heard the Hon. Member say earlier that he did not have any legal training so this was rather strange to him. However, there is a trend or a movement away from the high cost court system to arbitration courts. Real estate or the expropriation of properties would be one example. They move to someone not necessarily cloaked in the great rigidness of a court room but into an informal setting where evidence can be heard in a more casual way and where they get down to the nitty-gritty of the situation much more readily and at less expense.
However, the nitty-gritty of the situation is that we have a judicially trained person to hear the appeal, and I am satisfied that we will come up with the right result.


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, the legislation currently before the House, Bill C-77, deals with issues that are of profound concern in a country which values democracy and civil liberties. Indeed, it is for that reason that my colleagues and I intend to debate in all seriousness and at the length that this legislation requires the important issues which arise from Bill C-77.
Certainly it is long, long overdue that Parliament address itself to the repeal of the War Measures Act. This repugnant piece of legislation has been the vehicle of terrible abuses of civil liberties in Canada from the date that it was first passed with a minimum of debate in 1914. I believe it was about half an hour of debate.
In fact, two of the most fundamental and Draconian instances of the abuse of the civil liberties of Canadians
Emergencies Act
occurred under the provisions and under the authority of the War Measures Act. I say without hesitation that we welcome the long overdue repeal of the Act.
In speaking of the two very serious abuses, I refer to the internment of Canadians of Japanese origin and the confiscation of their property in the 1940s. Because of the limitation on time I will not dwell at length on the terrible violation which occurred at that time. However, it was in February, 1942 that Japanese Canadians were divested of all human rights and freedoms and were effectively branded as enemy aliens by the Government of Canada. During the seven years which followed, from 1942 to 1949, the Canadian Government forced 21,000 people of Japanese origin from their homes; confined most of them in detention camps, many in the interior of my own Province of British Columbia; sold off all their real and personal property; and forced them to scatter across Canada or, in some cases, to be shipped to Japan. Of those 21,000 Canadians over 17,000 were citizens of the country. They were claimed to be a threat to the security of our land. We know, of course, that that was false and that that treatment was motivated by political opportunism and racism.
Some 40 years later, Japanese Canadians, victims of this terrible abuse of their rights, are still seeking redress. They are still seeking not only an apology from the Government, from the Parliament of Canada, but they seek as well a recognition that they are entitled to individual compensation. It is not possible to quantify in all cases a wrong of this magnitude. Nevertheless, certainly the principle of individual compensation to those Canadians who are so abused, so victimized, whose dignity was assaulted in such a way, is long overdue.
I remember the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Mulroney), then the Leader of the Official Opposition, standing in his place on this side of the House asking former Prime Minister Trudeau why he would not accept that principle of the right of Canadians of Japanese origin to be compensated individually. Three years later that same Prime Minister and that same Government have refused to implement that principle. This is interesting, particularly in light of the recent decision of the United States Congress to provide not only for an apology but for individual compensation in the amount of $25,000 U.S. to those who were victims. But we see a Canadian Minister saying with respect to this compensation that the people will not get it. It is right to apologize but the wrong cannot be bought by an amount of cash. "We are not talking money".
In the context of legislation that would repeal the War Measures Act, surely the Government should reconsider that decision and recognize its obligation to those who are victims of that same legislation which is now being repealed and provide for that long overdue compensation. Similarly-
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, there were other victims of the War Measures Act, and I am referring now to the 469 Canadian

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
men and women living in Quebec who were sent to prison and stayed there during the October 1970 crisis. Again, it was under the War Measures Act that 435 persons were jailed, 234 of them without warrants. Only 5 of these Quebec men and women were sentenced following their incarcerations.
Madam Speaker, it was under former Prime Minister Pierre Trudeau, and his Minister of Justice that the War Measures Act was first proclaimed in time of peace. We are referring today to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Turner) who was Minister of Justice at the time and who tried to justify this massive violation of the rights of Canadian men and women living both in Quebec and elsewhere. So far, Madam Speaker, this former Minister of Justice and present Leader of the Liberal Party has refused to admit that this was a fundamental error. Even yesterday, we heard the Hon. Member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan), the Justice critic for the Liberal Party, declare in the House:
"The use of the War Measures Act in 1970 has been challenged. I was a member of the Party that introduced it, and subsequently a member of the Government that defended it." And the spokesman for the Liberal Party is saying today: "I defend it today".
Madam Speaker, that is the position of the Liberal Party. Today still it continues to defend the proclamation of the War Measures Act in 1970. It is unbelievable! It is shameful! I she the Hon. Member is now entering the House, perhaps he might try to clear up that point.
On October 19, 1976, only 16 Members voted against the proclamation of the War Measures Act. Among these 16 Members were the Hon. Member for Oshawa (Mr. Broad-bent), now leader of the NDP, the Hon. Member for York-ton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) who is still a Member of the House, the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow) who is still a Member of the House, and the then leader of the NDP, Mr. Tommy Douglas; this had to be one of the proudest moments for all New Democrats in Canada. Madam Speaker, I hope that men and women in Quebec did not forget that it was the NDP and the NDP alone-not the Conservative Party, not the Libera! Party-which was prepared to say no, which was prepared to say that, even though 88 per cent of Canadians had supported the proclamation of the War Measures Act, it was unacceptable. And, Madam Speaker, it is unacceptable today that such bad legislation should remain in our statute books.

Those were two of the gravest abuses of the War Measures Act, the problem of Canadians of Japanese origin and la Proclamation en 1970, but there have been many others. I know my colleague, the Hon. Member for Spadina (Mr. Heap), will be speaking of some of the other abuses that have occurred under the War Measures Act.
Indeed, the Conservative Government, the Diefenbaker Government of 1960, in bringing forward the Canadian Bill of
Rights decided to allow the War Measures Act explicitly to override the fundamental protections inherent in the Bill of Rights. Certainly that was a decision that we differed with fundamentally in 1960 and we differ with today.
What is the position today with respect to the provisions of the War Measures Act, Madam Speaker? In 1982, Parliament adopted a Charter of Rights and Freedoms. It is true that the War Measures Act and all other federal Acts are subject to challenge under the provisions of the Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Despite that safeguard which we recognize, despite our knowledge that some of the worst abuses of the War Measures Act in 1970 and in the 1940s would very likely no longer be possible today because of the right to appeal to the judiciary under the provisions of the Charter, nevertheless, we welcome as long, long overdue the repeal of this odious statute from our law books. But in saying that, and in recognizing the accomplishment of the Government in moving at least to repeal this repugnant statute once and for all from our statute books, we must examine with care the Bill which is presented to this House to replace the War Measures Act.
As the Canadian Civil Liberties Association has clearly and persuasively documented, Bill C-77 contains vague definitions, over broad powers and inadequate safeguards. It goes on to state that there is too little effort to link the powers it would create with the perils for which they are designed, that there is too little effort to achieve proportionality between available powers and anticipated perils. The Civil Liberties Association suggests that before we proceed any further with this legislation the Government should clarify to Canadians and to Parliament exactly what kind of emergencies the legislation seeks to address, precisely which powers the Government seeks to deal with those emergencies, and why the current legislation on the statute books cannot deal with those concerns.
I note that legislation providing for these sweeping powers in times of peace does not exist in the United States of America or in the United Kingdom. Indeed, the McDonald Commission, in making recommendations to the Government on this subject, stated that it opposed the granting of special powers in a Bill of this nature. The commission suggested that the Government should seek the approval of Parliament for special legislation to deal with the particular concerns at hand.
What are some of the major weaknesses of the new legislation? My colleagues, and in particular my colleague the Member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn), have set out very clearly and forcefully our major concerns with respect to this legislation. I will touch on only two or three of them in the few minutes that remain.
The reference to public welfare emergency in Clause 3 of the legislation gives rise to serious concern. What is a public welfare emergency? Indeed, what is an emergency for that matter? Nowhere in this legislation is there a very clear definition of "emergency".
November 17, 1987

With regard to a public welfare emergency there is reference to a breakdown in the flow of essential goods, services or resources. As my colleague from Brant has pointed out, this legislation could be invoked to interfere in a dispute between management and labour. The Minister of National Defence (Mr. Beatty) who is responsible for this legislation said yesterday that we should not worry, that there is no problem, that this will not in fact be used. However, his words should be read with care because he stated that this Act is not intended to be used to settle a legitimate dispute between an employer and employees.
What does that mean? Does it mean that if the Government believes that there is an illegitimate dispute, an illegal work stoppage for example, it can use the provisions of this legislation? This is no safeguard whatsoever. For the Minister to come before the House and suggest that an amendment of that nature constitutes a safeguard is rejected by the New Democratic Party.
Similarly, there are concerns raised by other provisions. The fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled that the right to strike is not protected by the Charter is another reason for making it very clear in this legislation that it should not apply to any withdrawal of labour, be that legitimate or, in the eyes of the Government, illegitimate.
Concerns have also been raised with respect to the definition in Clause 3(b) of a public welfare emergency with respect to "disease in human beings, animals or plants". This instrument, in the wrong hands, could be used to bring forward Draconian provisions to deal with AIDS in Canada. Indeed, we have seen proposals for quarantine legislation in the Province of British Columbia from the ideological soul mates of this Government at the provincial level in British Columbia. We should be very careful before according similar powers to the federal Government.
Similarly, the definition of public order emergency incorporates the definition of threats to the security of Canada from Section 2 of the Canadian Security Intelligence Service Act. We know that that definition is far too broad and far too sweeping. We know that under the guise of investigating threats to the security of Canada the security service itself is a profound threat to the security of Canada. Under the guise of that definition it has investigated the labour movement, the peace movement, and legal political Parties in Canada. This Government would incorporate that definition in a way which would allow it to prohibit public assembly in Canada. That constitutes a shocking potential abuse of civil liberties.
In response to that the Minister says:
I would remind Members of the House that the definition of "threats to the
security of Canada" received exhaustive scrutiny by Parliament in 1983 ....
The language-has, therefore, already received Parliament's blessing.
The Minister has a rather selective memory. It was the Conservative Party that joined with the New Democratic Party in condemning that very definition and suggesting that that definition constituted a grave threat to the civil liberties of
Emergencies Act
Canada. Now, four years later, a Minister from that Party is saying that as Parliament adopted that definition there is nothing wrong with it and the Government is going to use it as a basis for its emergency legislation. Obviously that is totally unacceptable.
It is also unacceptable because, as I understand, the special committee struck by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kelleher) under Gordon Osbaldeston will be telling the Government that that definition is in fact far too broad and should be narrowed substantially.
Finally, we have serious concerns about the definition of international emergency. It is far too sweeping to say, "Any threat to the economic well-being of any ally of Canada". In conclusion, I would like to draw to the attention of the House perhaps the most dangerous provision of all, that being the provision in Clause 38 with respect to war emergencies, which states:
While a declaration of a war emergency is in effect, the Governor in Council
may make such orders or regulations as, in the opinion of the Governor in
Council, are reasonably necessary or advisable for dealing with the emergency.
That is the War Measures Act all over again, Madam Speaker. It provides for no control and total government discretion. I call upon the Government to recognize that while the time has come to repeal the War Measures Act, this Draconian piece of legislation, which continues to constitute a massive assault on the civil liberties and rights of Canadians, must be firmly rejected by this Parliament. It should go back to the drawing board.


Mr. Heap:: Madam Speaker, I am very grateful to the Hon. Member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) for laying out so many of the important aspects of this Bill and the problems which it presents. He seems to be of the opinion that in some ways this Bill may even be worse than its predecessor.
Without going into that, Madam Speaker, I would be interested to hear the Hon. Member explain a little more clearly the point he made in connection with the concept of a public order emergency and the threat to the security of Canada. He said that at that time the then Conservative opposition caucus agreed with the NDP caucus that the definition contained in the CSIS Act was unsatisfactory. He pointed out that they have now flip-flopped and said that it is satisfactory.
I know that the Hon. Member gave that matter very careful attention at the time. I would be interested to hear him remind us what the unsatisfactory aspects of the definition were considered to be at that time. If he can recall, what were the points upon which the Conservative caucus expressed its agreement with the criticism made by the NDP which the Member put forward as our critic? It is important that the public be reminded of the positions which the present Ministers and other members of the Government held four years ago on this matter in order that the public can evaluate their reliability when they make promises now, when they say that they would not use this legislation against a legitimate strike.

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
How changeable are they? Would it be four years before they reversed themselves again, or might they reverse themselves in one year? 1 think the public needs a chance to compare what they said four years ago with what they are saying now. Could the Hon. Member for Burnaby give us some examples?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I thank the Hon. Member for Spadina for that question. It gives me an opportunity to elaborate on what was the position of the Conservative Party in 1983 and 1984. I might say that I recall well the exceptional work and contribution made by the Member for Spadina during the debate on that particular legislation creating CSIS.
At the time this legislation was before the House, the Conservative Party was in opposition and it raised vigorous objections to the Liberal Government's proposed definition of threats to the security of Canada. Conservative Members voted against the definition and supported amendments which I proposed. Indeed, they proposed amendments themselves that would narrow the definition.
There are a number of examples, including subsection (c) of the definition in the CSIS Act which states: "Activities within or relating to Canada, directed toward or in support of the threat or use of acts of serious violence against persons or property for the purpose of achieving a political objective within Canada or a foreign state".
It was pointed out, for example, that a church group which wanted to support the African National Congress or a liberation movement in Central America by holding a rummage sale to send funds to that particular group would be deemed under this definition to be a threat to the security of Canada. Clearly that is a dangerous definition and one which gives far too much power to CSIS.
As well, there is the whole question of "foreign influenced activities within or relating to Canada that are detrimental to the interests of Canada". That provision has been used by CSIS to attack the peace movement in Canada.
The Conservatives spoke in the House and spoke in committee, saying this definition must be changed because it is a threat to the civil liberties of Canadians. They also said that we need a safeguard in the Bill, and parliamentary oversight of CSIS, with a parliamentary committee similar to the congressional committees in the United States. They called for that parliamentary oversight.
The Conservatives have been in Government for over three years. We now see the sorry spectacle of a Conservative Minister standing up and defending that Liberal legislation, which the same Minister was attacking when he was an opposition Member. That is a sorry spectacle and one of which I think Canadians should be well aware as they evaluate this legislation.
The Conservatives are effectively asking Canadians to trust them. They are asking Canadians to trust that these powers will not be abused. I do not believe that their record warrants that kind of trust. On the contrary, the labour movement in Canada, for example, has every reason for profound mistrust of the record of the Government when it comes to intervention in a heavy-handed and undemocratic manner.
I want to close my response by referring to the report of the Security Intelligence Review Committee on this question. The committee has stated that CSIS too readily accepts the foreign policy objectives of the United States as our own and it neglects Canadian policy. It states that CSIS is expanding money and effort on too many counter subversion targets and intruding on the lives and activities of too many Canadians in this area.
Instead of bringing forward legislation that would grant even more powers to deny civil liberties, as this legislation would do, I suggest that the Government should be moving forward to limit the sweeping mandate of CSIS, to ensure that law abiding Canadians are not subject to the abuse of their rights and civil liberties as they are today by this agency of the Conservative Government.


James Douglas Manly: Madam Speaker, I was interested in the Hon. Member's reference to the shameful internment of the Japanese and the expropriation of their property. He pointed out that this was motivated on the one hand by political expediency and by racism on the other. Ken Adachi in his book entitled The Enemy That Never Was provides some very vivid testimony from Mackenzie King's diaries as to both those points. He points out that at the time of Pearl Harbour Mackenzie King wrote in his diary that the Government had considered at some length the fact that it believed the Japanese nationals and Canadian born Japanese were loyal and did not constitute a threat. That was the belief of the Government at that time. It subsequently acted in a very expedient way, giving way to the kind of hysteria that prevailed in some parts of Canada later on.
As far as the racism is concerned, later on in Mackenzie King's diary he expressed his gratitude that the atomic bomb was dropped on the Japanese rather than on the white races of Europe. That shameful part of Canadian history is something that all Members of this House want to repudiate.
Given the wide powers that we have in Clause 38 of the Bill, is it possible that if it were in place in the 1940s, even with the reference to the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, that kind of shameful event would have taken place in Canadian history?


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, unfortunately, the answer to that question is yes, it is possible that that kind of abuse could occur. Indeed, the issue of compensation is another element of the legislation that raises very serious questions. In effect, the compensation will be determined by the federal Government. There is no appeal process other than to an
November 17, 1987

assessor who is a judge of the Federal Court. The assessor cannot in effect exceed the limits which are established by the Minister.
I come back to the fundamental principle. The legislation as it is presently worded would in fact permit much of the same abuses that occurred in the 1940s to Canadians of Japanese origin-

-to occur in 1970 in Quebec.

I come back to the fundamental point with respect to compensation. In May, 1984, the Prime Minister said: "I feel very strongly that Canadian citizens whose rights were abused and violated and trampled upon should be compensated". We have waited three years. How much longer must we wait before the Prime Minister fulfils the solemn undertaking he made to Canadians in 1984?


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to have the honour to be able to speak against this emergencies Bill. I believe that if this Bill goes through and becomes law in anything like its present form, Canadians in the future will regret it greatly.
I stand on the side of those who point out that while it is a good thing to repeal the War Measures Act, there are some ways in which this present Bill may even be worse. If there are some ways in which it is better, they are at least closely balanced by ways in which it is worse.
It is true that many people now have very little way of knowing what the War Measures Act was about, except those who were in Quebec at the time of the 1970 crisis or those whose liberties were interfered with in other parts of Canada, on the excuse of the 1970 crisis which was focused on Montreal. Many Canadians at that time were not directly touched by the extraordinary action of the police, and many Canadians now of voting age, of course, do not remember 1970, but it is good to have some recollection of what was done.
I recently had the opportunity to read a study by an academic at the University of York, Mr. Reg Whitaker in the magazine Labour/le Travail, a learned journal. His article is "The Official Repression of Communism During World War II". He points out that as the war began, and we were fighting a fascist power, the Canadian Government took the occasion to act more strongly against communists than against fascists in Canada on the pretext, of course, that the Soviet Union and Germany had established a non-aggression pact. That did not explain why it was more harsh against communists than against fascists. There were other reasons behind that. However, even that pretext became rather ridiculous when Germany invaded the Soviet Union and when Britain and the United States found themselves in the position of declaring an alliance with the Soviet Union against Germany, and Canada
Emergencies Act
of course followed suit. Yet, throughout the war and for several years after the war, Canada maintained that the Communist Party of Canada was an illegal Party. Britain and the United States did not do that, but Canada decided to be more repressive than either our mentor Britain or our neighbour the United States.
In fact, as Mr. Whitaker points out, "Canada was the only allied nation to maintain a ban on its local Communist Party throughout the course of its wartime alliance with the U.S.S.R." That is the kind of silly position we were put into by the then Liberal Government.
This repression of communism did not stop with communists. It was also directed against unions, and not necessarily against unions which had communist officers or leaders. There was, of course, the attempt to destroy the Canadian Seamen's Union in its infancy, which failed. However, it grew because it had a democratic structure and the support of a great many of the seamen. There were other attempts. For example, Mr. Whitaker records, and it is written elsewhere as well, that:
-Charles Murray, organizer for the Canadian Fishermen and Food Handlers Union of Nova Scotia ... received a letter from the Nova Scotia Minister of Labour informing him that: "we have stood about all we intend to stand from troublemakers like you-and I am warning you now that we will tolerate it no longer. .. Your conduct will from now on be very carefully watched and examined and if I find that you do not quit this sort of business, then it will certainly be the worse for you".
This is how a Minister of Labour talked to a labour organizer. The article continues:
In fall of 1940, Murray was seized by the RCMP on a Sunday just as he was about to rush his pregnant wife to the hospital. While his wife was left to her devices, Murray was interned for two years.
Mr. Whitaker gives many other examples of how trade unionists were harassed, arrested, charged and sometimes imprisoned or interned, not for any political activity or any anti-war activity but simply for doing what before then and since then has been regarded as the legal work of trade unionists. But it was the War Measures Act to which the Government appealed to do those things.
We certainly need to get rid of the War Measures Act. However, as I have said, this Bill is in some ways worse than the War Measures Act. My reason for saying that is, first, this Bill is much more easily triggered. It has been suggested by the previous Conservative speaker, the Hon. Member for St. Catharines (Mr. Reid), that it is a good thing that it can be used more widely than the War Measures Act. But when one considers the powers given in its wide use, and I will come to that later, it is not at all clear that it is a good thing to use it so widely.
The powers to be given, furthermore, are, in the opinion of many people, including the respected Canadian Civil Liberties Association, dangerously wide. The powers of compensation for error which are a useful and just addition to what the War Measures Act provided or did not provide, do not go far enough to satisfy ordinary Canadian standards of law.

November 17, 1987
Emergencies Act
Finally, there is something that is quite surprising, and that is, the gratuitous donation to the Senate of an increase in its power. This was not asked for by those who wanted a repeal of the War Measures Act. In fact, it comes as quite a surprise, given the Prime Minister's occasional rages against the Senate when it interferes with what he wants to do. To have him give this Christmas present to the Senate is really quite a surprise.
1 want to go into the matter of triggering, the circumstances which might trigger the use of the War Measures Act. The problem lies chiefly in the vagueness of the word "emergency" and the fact that the Act fails to define it. We are told that it is there in the preamble and that we therefore should not worry. We are also given good advice by civil liberties experts that defining it in the preamble of the Act does not necessarily protect us because what the Act says is, "When in the opinion of a Governor in Council there is an emergency". It does not really bind the Government or limit it any further than that. If it says it is an emergency, it is an emergency.
We may well find that the courts will declare that they cannot go behind the decision of the Governor in Council as to what constitutes an emergency. Usually, when the Governor in Council acts in cases like that, they tell the public: "We cannot give you all the facts. There are secret things. If you knew about them, you would agree with us, so just trust us". We have had enough of this business of "just trust us". In fact, what this seems to be is a kind of legislating of rule by Order in Council.
The Conservative Party six years ago in this House was very angry at the then Liberal Government for establishing an Order in Council that would provide for government powers in an emergency. The Conservatives said it should be legislated. Now they have legislated, but what they have done is to legislate the power of the Government to do almost anything it wants in the case of war, and not anything it wants but far more than it has to justify, in smaller emergencies.
There ought to be a definition in the law which shows what it is that is happening that goes beyond the ordinary means of the Government to control. We have the criminal law. We have other laws empowering the Government to take action for the public welfare. To suggest that we should have the power to conscript labour for a plague emergency or a flood emergency, really is rather bizarre. Yet that is what we have here. It would give the Government the power to direct any person to perform an essential service. It does not say what is essential. Whatever the Government thinks is essential, apparently would be essential.
We are told to trust the Government because it may bring in some amendments or it may permit some amendments which would remove the danger of this being used simply as a union busting or strike busting tool. However, the attraction for this Government of having a thing put into action without having to debate it in Parliament is very dangerous. The Government would not at all be adverse to deciding that a cessation of services was a cessation of an essential service and, therefore,
order people to provide those services. I think that would not only be very damaging where it was applied, but very damaging as a threat to the labour movement of Canada.
What is being urged by the Canadian Civil Liberties Association is that there should be much more limited powers prescribed in the emergencies Bill and that other emergencies should be dealt with by Parliament at the time, that is, by Parliament being requested to adopt a specific piece of legislation. If the Government believes that it cannot wait for Parliament to do that, then it should be obliged, and this Bill should oblige it, to show why it cannot wait. What is it that would require an action by the Government without legislation by Parliament? Why can the Government not handle this so-called emergency by appealing to Parliament? It should be required to do that.
My colleague from Burnaby has spoken about the danger and the folly of using the very vague definition that CSIS gave us in regard to "threat to public order". Certainly, the conduct of CSIS throughout the course of this year in sending disrupters into unions, and in sending spies into the peace movement makes it very clear that it does not understand well enough the difference between legitimate public criticism and subversion. It spends the public's money trying to disrupt criticism and at times it appears not to be alert enough to stop a serious matter such as the bombing of an aircraft.
A public order emergency, or for that matter an international emergency, ought to be defined. As the Civil Liberties Association suggests, "the Government could invoke emergency power at the point at which it could reasonably anticipate the outbreak of illegal violence so intense, so widespread and so continuous that the Government itself would be overthrown or be rendered powerless to govern".
What I am concerned about is that under some of these emergencies the Government takes onto itself not only the power to conscript labour with or without payment but to take away a person's right to say yes or no to work. I do not believe the Government will conscript doctors or lawyers. It does not do that now. Now it conscripts trade unionists with back-to-work laws, even laws that threaten to tell union members that their officers will have to be subject to approval by the Government under certain circumstances.
As has been mentioned, there is also the threat to prohibit public assembly. Public assembly is often regarded as the foundation of liberty in our kind of democracy. Yet the Government is likely willing to take it away. However, the most ridiculous part of this Bill is the concept of an international emergency. I refer to Clause 25 of the Bill. If somebody from the public or if the Government had put forward such a statement in a White Paper, which it was urged to do, it would have been laughed out of court. However, we now have it proposed as law with a straight face. I quote:
November 17, 1987

"international emergency" means an emergency involving Canada and one or more other countries that arises from acts of intimidation or coercion or the real or imminent use of serious force or violence-
That is pretty wide. If someone thinks that there is a threat of violence then they can invoke this measure. The clause continues, "-and that directly threatens the sovereignty, securityor territorial integrity of Canada-There is no problem there. We have to act if Canada is threatened. But the clause goes on:
-or any of its allies or any other country in which the political, economic or security interests of Canada or any of its allies are involved.
I do not think that there is a country in the word in which some ally of Canada does not have economic, political or security interests. This means that at any time that there is a disturbance anywhere in the world the Canadian Government might use this law as the basis for declaring an international emergency. If President Reagan wakes up in the middle of the night tonight and says, "The Sandinistas are going to raid Texas," he will phone and ask us to declare an emergency. Fortunately, the law has not been passed. At the moment it would not be quite legal to do that. I hope that the Government will not try to do that.
This is what might happen if President Reagan decided that his country's economic interests were being threatened in the huge nation of Nicaragua, a nation of 2.5 million people. The Government could appropriate, control or forfeit the use and disposition of property or services. It could control or regulate any specified industry or service, including its equipment, facilities and inventory. It could authorize or direct any person or any class of persons to render essential services of a type that that person or person of that class is competent to provide. It could regulate or prohibit travel outside Canada by Canadian citizens or by permanent residents. It could remove from Canada persons other than Canadian citizens or permanent residents. There are about ten more powers that are given.
What I am saying is that it is far too wide in the scope in which it can be used. It is far too wide in the powers that can be used. Unfortunately, there is inadequate legislation to provide for compensation of people who are unjustly harmed by the action of the Bill. It gives the Senate a new power that even the Meech Lake Accord did not give it, or which the Constitution does not give it. It gives the Senate the power under certain circumstances to insist on the continuation of a state of emergency. If there is a debate in the House of Commons on a motion to revoke a state of emergency and if it is passed by the House but defeated by the Senate then the state of emergency will continue. It is very unfortunate that that power should be given to the Senate.
What this provision does is to damage very much the rule of law in Canada. We are told that the Charter of Rights applies, as does the Bill of Rights and so on. But it sometimes takes years to bring a matter before the Supreme Court to seek relief under the Charter of Rights or the Bill of Rights. Therefore, it is not wise, fair or reasonable to give powers to the Government which can only be corrected or may be corrected years
Softwood Lumber Exports
after through an action in the Supreme Court. These powers must be restricted much more than they are or else this Bill ought to be defeated.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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-MOTIONS   TRADE SUGGESTED MARITIME EXEMPTION FROM DUTY ON SOFTWOOD LUMBER EXPORTS
Robert Alfred Corbett: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of enacting the provisions of Section 15(1) and (2) of Bill C-37, an Act respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood lumber products, of the Second Session of the Thirty-third Parliament, to allow for the incorporation of a Maritime regional exemption from the 15 per cent export duty on softwood lumber exports destined for the United States.
He said: Madam Speaker, I have taken this opportunity to move this motion in an effort to motivate the Government to take action to initiate those provisions of Bill C-37 which would grant an exemption from the softwood export tax to all Maritime softwood lumber producers.
Canada has had the right and ability to seek an exemption since the Memorandum of Understanding was signed last December. That memorandum clearly states that the Government of Canada may reduce or eliminate the export charge on the basis of increased stumpage or other charges by provinces on softwood lumber production. The Government of Canada and the Government of the United States will consult semiannually and otherwise at the request of either Government regarding any matter concerning this understanding.
I am pleased to have been made aware that the Government has made some effort to incorporate Clause 15(1) and (2) of Bill C-37, and that there have been negotiations and talks going on in Washington with reference to this matter. However, I think it is extremely critical and important, particularly now that apparently the housing market is off, housing starts are down, and it is obvious that there will be some considerable changes in the market-place for Maritime and other softwood lumber producers in the country. Indeed, now we should be moving to correct the anomalies that do exist in the agreement, and recognize that there are certain sectors and regions of this country that should be excluded and exempted from the 15 per cent tax.
As I mentioned, a similar provision was provided for under Clause 15. That was an Act that came into effect last year

November 17, 1987
Softwood Lumber Exports
respecting the imposition of a charge on the export of certain softwood products. It states that the Government may:
(a)	conditionally or unconditionally, and either generally or in respect of a particular transaction, exempt any softwood lumber products from the charge imposed thereon under this Act or exempt any person from the requirement to pay such a charge;
(b)	conditionally or unconditionally, and either generally or in respect of a particular trade level or transaction or in respect of a particular province or any area thereof, remove or reduce any charge imposed on softwood lumber products under this Act;
Clause 15(2) provides for a retroactive effect from January 7, 1987. Quite clearly the Memorandum of Understanding and Bill C-37 provide the opportunity for the Government to negotiate a regional exemption.
I wish to state from the outset that the Maritime softwood producers, and myself along with other colleagues in the House, are not the only ones who have called for a regional exemption. I refer to the House of Commons legislative committee of March 24, 1987 which was studying this Bill, at which time they stated in their conclusions that the committee direct the Chairman to convey to the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) its desire to have several items dealt with in its negotiations with the United States as soon as possible. Item two of those items was "that those corporations which meet the criteria originally set out be added to the exempt list". There is no question or doubt that the Maritime softwood lumber producers meet this criteria for exemption.
On May 5, 1987, the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce wrote in its conclusions and recommendations that the Memorandum of Understanding of December 30, 1986, contains serious deficiencies which must be addressed. The committee specifically noted that negotiators must continue to press for a negotiated regional exclusion for the Maritime producers. That is two bodies of this Parliament, aside from the House of Commons, that have called for the Government to take action to ensure that the Maritime softwood lumber producers are exempted.
As the softwood lumber industry in the Maritimes has acted in accordance with the provisions of the Memorandum of Understanding, and respected the provisions of the law which up to this point had been acting to their detriment, I believe that the Government should initiate and take the course of action that it apparently has taken in the past few days to implement a fairer agreement that reflects the issue of the stumpage realities.
The amount of Maritime lumber exported to the United States affected by this tax is not a great deal of product within the national scope, but within the regional picture of the maritime provinces it certainly has its impact. The decision to impose a national export duty crippled the competitive position of many Maritime producers, as they are now required to pay not only the 15 per cent export tax, but also the highest stumpage rates in Canada. I would suggest that this is a classic example of the old double whammy. It is a fact that when the Memorandum of Understanding was concluded, even at that
time stumpage rates in the Maritimes were the highest in Canada. Since that Memorandum of Understanding has been signed, stumpage rates in New Brunswick have been increased 27 per cent, and stumpage rates in Nova Scotia have been increased by 10 per cent. To give a comparison, at the time that the Memorandum of Understanding was signed, stumpage rates extended from $1.05 to $15 in British Columbia, and to $8 in Quebec. As I mentioned, at the time New Brunswick and Nova Scotia had the highest stumpage rates of any province in the country. In New Brunswick it is currently at $57, and in Nova Scotia it is $46. What that amounts to is that stumpage rates in the Maritimes were six to eight times higher than in the four provinces that were specifically mentioned by the American producers to be of concern to the American softwood lumber producers.
Maritime softwood lumber producers rightly feel that this is not fair, and it certainly eliminates their competitive position. They are being penalized by a decision that was reached to rectify a problem that they did not participate in, nor did they aggravate. The U.S. countervail action specifically stated, "that provincial softwood stumpage programs in Ontario, Quebec, British Columbia, and Alberta are subsidies". At no time during the countervailing duty proceedings were the Maritime stumpage fees regarded as a problem or a concern by either the U.S. wood producers or the U.S. Commerce Department.
It is the general feeling among Maritime softwood producers that indeed at that time the Americans would have been agreeable to exclude Maritime softwood under the countervailing duty action. As most people are aware, what happened as a result of that was that five Maritime producers were among a number of Canadian producers that were included in the group that made application to the U.S. and were exempted.
It is generally feared that the inclusion of all Maritime lumber producers with the exception of those five could have a considerable negative effect on the Maritime lumber industry. To date, that has been minimal because of the strength of the market. However, as I mentioned at the outset, there is good reason to believe that this strength will not last.
During the debate on the softwood export tax, much was made of the fact that there were five New Brunswick companies that were included in the exclusion, and that indeed of the wood that is shipped from New Brunswick to the U.S., these five producers account for some 92 per cent. While this is beneficial to the industry, I cannot help but believe that the impact of both high stumpage rates and the 15 per cent tax will in the long run have some very detrimental effects on the industry in the Maritimes should it not be addressed.
The lumber industry in the Maritimes is certainly an integral and vigorous part of our industrial base. It is one that is pervasive throughout our entire economic and social structure. There are 123 mills in Nova Scotia and 93 mills in
November 17, 1987

New Brunswick. Of that total, 40 mills are the only major industries in their communities. If the record were checked, I believe it would show that none of the 40 mills were among the five exempted from the tax. They certainly comprise some of the largest employers in the area.
There are 22,000 jobs in the lumber industry in the Mari-times. Some 6,000 of them are in New Brunswick and directly depend upon a healthy and competitive industry. The jobs in spin-off businesses and related industries are undetermined. However, there is certainly no question-and I say that with assurance-that they would be subject to the domino theory and that there would be substantial economic consequences if indeed there were serious implications on the future of the lumber industry.
It is imperative that the policies and initiatives which we put into place as a Government-and indeed it has been the track record of the Government-do not result in job loss or the loss of a competitive position, particularly in the Atlantic region. The result would be continued and deepened regional disparity, if that were to take to place. Economic security can certainly be assisted and would be greatly boosted if regional exemptions for all softwood producers were negotiated successfully by the Government.
Industry predictions indicate that if the Maritimes softwood lumber industry is not provided a blanket exemption, more than 4,000 jobs could be adversely affected and indeed lost to a region which is already suffering from chronic unemployment. In a region which is struggling to create jobs and to build a strong economic base this primary sector should be and must be assisted by policies that encourage, not discourage, risktaking and expansion.
The Maritimes softwood lumber industry indicates that the export tax could have several long-term debilitating effects on the sector. Obviously unexempted softwood producers will lose the American market when the market becomes soft, which it inevitably will, because the tax will render their product uncompetitive.
There is also a great concern among producers in the Maritimes that producers west of the Maritimes, that is, from Quebec westward, could flood the market with their products in an effort to avoid the 15 per cent tax and when markets south of the border start to dry up. This could reasonably result in the loss of local markets for producers in the Maritimes as they are swamped by lumber from western producers.
Apparently that is taking place in Ontario at this time in that it is cheaper to bring in product through British Columbia from the United States to Ontario than it is to import directly from British Columbia forests. This is because the implications of the tax have caused American producers to gear up and to produce more lumber now. Their markets are drying up, so they are shipping lumber north of the border. As a result, we are seeing a negative impact.
Softwood Lumber Exports
We also recognize that European producers are agitating for a similar situation.
I believe, as do many others, that producers in the Maritimes are entitled to a regional exemption for the following reasons. First, they are already paying higher stumpage rates than those required in a negotiated settlement. Second, New Brunswick has raised its Crown stumpage fees by 27 per cent and Nova Scotia by 10 per cent since the countervailing duty assessment came into effect. Third, as a matter of law, the Maritimes can claim exclusion from the export tax based on the conditions of the Memorandum of Understanding.
In recent days, representations from Quebec and British Columbia have been made to the federal Government on the basis that those provinces have now increased their stumpage fees. They feel that they should now be exempted under the Memorandum of Understanding in subclauses 15(1) and 15(2) of Bill C-37 from the 15 per cent. Indeed, they probably should be exempted. The federal Government has recognized this and has responded positively in so much as it has agreed to take the matter to Washington to have it decided.
Why, in all the hype and talk which have been going on, has the situation as far as Maritimes softwood lumber producers are concerned not been addressed? Why is the following not recognized? We were not only paying high stumpage rates to begin with and were not part of the problem, but since that time we have increased stumpage rates to the point that we will be paying rates above those about which the Provinces of Quebec and British Columbia have been talking.
We should now be talking positively at the federal government level about lumber producers in the Maritimes as well as those in our sister provinces of Quebec and British Columbia.
I brought this issue to the attention of the House of Commons a number of months ago. I believe the Government is committed to eliminating regional disparity and has taken a perceptive look at what initiatives are needed to help Maritim-ers to help themselves. Initiatives such as the Atlantic Opportunities Program directed by Atlantic Canadians for the success of Atlantic Canada are great. We applaud them. Economic progress fostered by those who live and work in the region is welcome. We want a fair and equal opportunity for economic growth. We are not looking for hand-outs or for charity. We want to be able to survive. The failure to achieve a regional exemption under the memorandum is difficult for those individuals in communities penalized by this punitive tax to understand.
When I raised the issues a few months ago, we heard great accolades from members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Official Opposition. They asked where we had been and why we had not talked about it before. They attacked me personally because it was the first time I had raised it in the House. There is no doubt that there will be a response from them today, so I ask where on earth they have been all this time. They give all kinds of lip service to the type of things we

November 17, 1987
Softwood Lumber Exports
should be doing, but they have had every opportunity, as we have had on this side of the House, to raise the matter.
We have brought the matter to the attention of the Government time and time again. I just hope that we have some positive input rather than carping about what the Government has not done or what the Government should be doing and Members trying to credit themselves with creating the initiatives which we have taken as regional representatives and as members of the Progressive Conservative Party.
A wonderful thing about our Party is that we can rise as Members in our places and bring these matters to the attention of the House.


Some Hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Alfred Corbett: A provision in Bill C-37 would allow the Government of Canada to rectify an inequity which, in my opinion, should never have been installed in the agreement to begin with. A great many producers, and those whose livelihoods depend on a thriving softwood industry, strongly urge the Government to take action to implement Clause 15 of Bill C-37 and to negotiate a regional exemption for the Maritimes.


B. Keith Penner: Madam Speaker, I want to begin by assuring the Hon. Member for Fundy- Royal (Mr. Corbett) that I have no intention of attacking what he has done today in bringing the motion before the House of Commons. On the contrary, I wish to commend him most heartily for what he has done.
He is to be commended, although I am sure that in bringing this motion to the attention of the House for a second time he is something of a burr on the saddles of the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines (Mr. Merrithew), the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney), and the Government in general. I think the Hon. Member exemplifies something that ought to occur more frequently in this House. There ought to be more alliances on important regional sectoral issues. For example, in the House at this very moment there is the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) and myself from northern Ontario. Each of us knows, although we represent three different political Parties, that the 15 per cent export tax on softwood lumber has been counterproductive for our region. In my own constituency a number of sawmills have closed down and jobs have been lost. It is quite true, as the Minister of State for Forestry and Mines said in a committee meeting not so long ago, that those operations tended to be marginal. They were not big money makers. That is true, they were not, but the export tax was just enough to put them under. Jobs have been lost and they are not very easily recovered. When you come from a resource region, there is great difficulty and enormous capital costs to create a few jobs. When jobs are lost, you cannot find replacements very quickly or easily.
The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal indicates that the maritime producers of softwood lumber had not been fairly dealt with in the Memorandum of Understanding. They ought not, he argues, to have been subjected to the 15 per cent export tax. His argument is a very compelling one to which he has brought important facts calling for an exemption.
I want to remind the House again, in case there are Hon. Members who have forgotten or did not know why we got this export tax in the first place on our exports of softwood lumber to the United States-


Mr. St. Germain:: It would not have happened if we had had a free trade agreement.


B. Keith Penner: We got it because we were circumventing the threat of countervail action from the United States Department of Commerce, an action that had been launched by the coalition for fair lumber trade in the United States of America. I must repeat once again-I cannot let this opportunity go by-that I believe a serious error was made in imposing on ourselves an export tax on our products going into the U.S. What was the alternative? Clearly it was to fight the action through the International Trade Commission and the International Trade Administration as we had done before. We had won on the previous occasion. I remember the action very well because a distinguished constituent of mine, now a Minister in the new Government in Ontario, was at that time head of the Ontario Lumber Manufacturers' Association. He played a key role, along with legal counsel, in Washington in fighting that action. It was expensive for the Ontario producers and for the other producers across the country. It was time consuming but we won and the U.S. Commerce Department declared at that time in its decision that there was no substantial evidence of subsidization.
This time the Government decided not to join the industry and to fight with it. Instead we put a tax on our own exports. The argument made by important spokesmen in the Government like the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) and others was that we were at least keeping the money in the country. By imposing a tax on ourselves we were not allowing the United States to collect the countervail duty, which money would go into the U.S. Treasury. We now have this tax and we are stuck with it. The tax imposed on us by way of a Memorandum of Understanding signed with the Americans and then translated into Bill C-37 passed by this House is now with us. It is part of the new Canada-U.S. trade agreement that is likely to go into effect in the near future, although with strong misgivings from myself and many others. That tax can be revoked under Clause 15(1) and (2) of Bill C-37 provided certain other actions take place, that is, if stumpage fees are raised sufficiently high that the Americans agree the tax is no longer required. But there must be that American agreement.
November 17, 1987

Those discussions and negotiations are presently going on. They are going on with respect to British Columbia and with respect to Quebec. The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal is becoming impatient. He is dissatisfied, as are the producers in the maritime region, that their particular situation is not being looked at but is being delayed. I suppose more emphasis has been given to the British Columbia situation. British Columbia has paid an enormous amount in that export tax. It has paid some $220 million already. That is what is getting priority. You must be aware, Madam Speaker, that in order to move to revoke the tax there has to be a meeting of minds. The American and Canadian negotiators must agree to sit down. They have to have a timetable that is mutually acceptable.
I started to say something earlier about the situation in northern Ontario. Although we are talking about the maritime region, we are talking about the same tax. The coalition of American lumber producers, in their strong desire to see some kind of countervail action or export tax, constantly forget that in a region like northern Ontario the costs of harvesting wood, of getting the trees out to a place where you can add value to them either by making lumber and then taking the chips to a pulp and paper mill or getting the wood from the bush to the mill or to the plant, are extremely high. The costs are extraordinarily high. It may be that the stumpage fees are not equal to what they are in the maritime provinces, certainly not equal to what they are at the present time in British Columbia, but they are sufficiently high, and when you couple that with the costs of extraction, you are looking at very expensive wood costs.
There are distances to take into consideration as well. Those who harvest wood are having to go farther and farther all the time to get it. Sometimes the wood is harvested in very difficult terrain. In the spring of the year when there is breakup you cannot get into areas and there is a delay in getting the wood out. There are other seasons of the year, for instance, the dry season when you have forest fires and much of the harvesting operation has to be set aside. During the winter we can have extremely adverse weather conditions, and that adds to the cost as well.
The Member from Fundy-Royal in talking about his region mentioned a point that ought not to escape our attention. In the preliminary affirmative countervailing duty determination, which is the full title for the action of the U.S. Commerce Department, the maritime provinces were not mentioned at all. Ontario, Alberta, Quebec and B.C. were mentioned. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia were not included because they already had stumpage fees that are sufficiently high. They have since been raised; the Member mentioned figures of 27 per cent in New Brunswick, another 10 per cent in Nova Scotia, and that is true. The maritime provinces really ought to have been left out at that time. I raised that matter with the Minister of International Trade and she said:
I can assure you that, during the negotiations leading up to the Memorandum of Understanding, we pressed for additional exclusions, by company,
Softwood Lumber Exports
product, and region. This did not prove to be negotiable and we could expect
the U.S. to insist on a quid pro quo were we to reopen the agreement at this
time with the objective of excluding the province's remaining exports.
I mention that because I want to tell you, Madam Speaker, and the House that at that moment the Americans had us in a very vulnerable position. They pressed their case, and as a result we have an additional regional disparity for the reasons given by the Member for Fundy-Royal. I would argue that there are also reasons why this adds to the disparity of a region such as northern Ontario.


Mr. John A. MacDougall (Timiskaming):: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak to the motion of my colleague, the Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), with regard to the softwood lumber surtax. Last year I had the opportunity to be a member of the legislative committee and listened to the numerous groups from across the country which came before it.
I come from northern Ontario and have been involved with the forestry industry there for many years. Seventy per cent of employment in the forestry sector in the Province of Ontario is in the North. The total value of forest product shipments from northern Ontario in 1980 was $7.3 billion. Eighty per cent of the lumber produced in northern Ontario is exported to the United States. Sixty-five per cent of the pulp and paper produced in northern Ontario is exported to the United States. Seventeen of the 22 pulp mills in the province are in northern Ontario, as are 40 of the 53 largest sawmills, 12 of the 13 particle board and wafer board mills, and 12 of the 20 veneer plants.
Bill C-37 certainly was important to northern Ontario. We had a choice to make, that being whether the tax to be paid should go into the American Treasury or into ours. In the Province of Ontario, $22,345 million of revenue was collected under the 15 per cent surtax from January to September, 1987. Will those revenues which are now in the provincial coffers be put back into reforestation and infrastructure for the sawmills and pulp and paper mills in northern Ontario? These questions have not been answered by the province and I, as a Member for northern Ontario, would be very interested in knowing what will happen in the upcoming weeks with regard to that money.
The Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) said that there has been doom and gloom in the sawmill industry in northern Ontario. The last eight months have been one of the greatest periods in the sawmill industry in northern Ontario with regard to construction. Over 220,000 homes have been built in the last year. Exports have been moving on a regular basis.
It is interesting that the Hon. Member would have preferred the Americans to make a ruling last October which would have been against northern Ontario, which would not have enabled

November 17, 1987
Softwood Lumber Exports
us to collect the revenue from the surtax which the Government has ensured will be spent in northern Ontario and other parts of the country.
There are negotiations going on under Clause 15. I hope that northern Ontario is part of those negotiations. Another round of negotiations began last week between our federal government representatives and industry representatives and the U.S. Department of Commerce to address the issue of replacement measures with regard to the 15 per cent surtax. These negotiations will continue this week and early next week and it is hoped that we will see a positive resolution of this problem.
I would like to go over a few of the strong points of the Atlantic lumber industry in the past eight months. The Atlantic region is experiencing the same up-beat market as is the rest of the country. Although non-excluded companies in the Maritimes are not shipping as much lumber to the U.S. as in the past years, the strength of the local market has more than offset the effects of the 15 per cent tax.
The offshore market has also been very strong. According to the Maritime Lumber Bureau report of August, 1987, "inquiries from offshore exceeded supply and the European agents are surprised that more Maritime shippers are not taking advantage of a firm demand".
It is also worthwhile to point out that Maritime fears of lumber from other provinces flooding the Maritimes have not been fulfilled. This was also a concern of Ontario with regard to shipments from the West and was brought up during the hearings on Bill C-37. This has not occurred either. It is not likely to occur as the major producers, the Provinces of Quebec and British Columbia, have raised their stumpage rates significantly as compared to the rates prior to Bill C-37. For the maritime producers this is good news as it is for other provinces as well. The region has participated in the Canadian housing boom of close to 202,000 units.
One of our greatest concerns, which the Government has been addressing, is to have the borders opened. My colleagues must realize that free trade is the only way in which regions such as northern Ontario will have the opportunity for growth. I say that because we are very reliant upon resource base. It is very easy for the Leader of the NDP to say that we really do not need trade. He comes from Oshawa where General Motors is located which has the greatest trade between two countries and has an unemployment rate of zero per cent. He does not understand the concerns of regions such as northern Ontario.
My colleague from Cochrane-Superior and other Members from northern Ontario should be joining together to ensure the future of northern Ontario with regard to trading dollars. It is unfortunate that sometimes political beliefs come before the stability and the future of the regions.
I believe that the presentation made earlier this year by the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) and the Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) will enhance the future of
northern Ontario. It will enhance the future of our children, our grandchildren, and our great grandchildren. We will have an opportunity to build on the softwood lumber sector, the mining sector, tourism and agriculture. I call on each Member from northern Ontario to stand firm to ensure that this trade agreement gives us strength for the future. That is why it is important to ensure that this trade agreement is ratified. Hopefully this will have positive results for my colleague, the Member for Fundy-Royal.


John Edmund Parry: Madam Speaker, I am pleased to speak on the motion of the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett). Indeed, let me begin by extending my thanks to him. I feel that any opportunity we have in the House to debate the present state and the future of Canada's largest industry is one that should be seized upon. Indeed, I am glad to see that we have a relatively large attendance for Private Members' Hour. I am grateful to all my colleagues for their interest.
I also want to thank the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal for his detailed and I believe highly informed exposition of the nature of things in the regional forest products industry in Nova Scotia and New Brunswick particularly. In extending that compliment, I also have to caution him that the forest products industry and the forest industry in this country are of such diversity and variation between provinces and even within provinces that we should never assume, in examining the management, the taxation, the fee, and processing regimes from province to province and even region to region, that what is sauce for the New Brunswick goose is necessarily good for the gander of northern Ontario.
Indeed, stumpage rates are a case in point. The stumpage rates were already high in the two principal maritime producing provinces of New Brunswick and Nova Scotia and indeed have been increased since. However, the stumpage rate that is applicable in a province the size of New Brunswick, which is somewhat smaller than my constituency, may not be the stumpage rate that would be appropriate to another province.
The management regimes, the ownership of lands from which wood is harvested, varies very radically from province to province. For example, there is a very active and I believe progressive federation of woodlot owners in New Brunswick, which has no real parallel in northern Ontario where almost all wood is cut upon Crown lands under licence from the Ministry of Natural Resources or under forest management agreements. The situation that pertains in New Brunswick is different again.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior made reference to the length of some log hauls in northern Ontario. I would point out to the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal that some log haul distances in northern Ontario would be the same as the distance covered by a log being taken from the New
November 17, 1987

Brunswick coast, clear across the province, through Maine and into Quebec.
We know that there are sound reasons for varying stumpage rates even within the province. For example, there is legislation in the Province of Quebec where rates are increasingly being set by a type of forest management agreement, and which also depend on the use made of the particular log and the value added that the log will undergo in its transformation to a final product for sale.
The Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal made a very persuasive case for the exemption of the maritime provinces from this 15 per cent softwood lumber export tax. It is a persuasive case but one that I regret to say is impractical. The key word the Hon. Member used, and which all of us must remember in debating this particular topic, is the word "negotiate". The Hon. Member himself referred to the fact that there never was a case within the United States for the imposition of the softwood lumber export tax on the maritime provinces based on the stumpage rates that pertained then and certainly not on those that pertain now.
The Minister for International Trade (Miss Carney) was quoted as saying that it was not practical to move the maritime producers off the negotiating table. It is that key negotiation phase on which, unfortunately, the Hon. Member's motion appears to be doomed to failure.
The Hon. Member made the arguments for the New Democratic Party very well. He mentioned that the American transportation routes are now being used to ship British Columbia lumber into Ontario markets. I was not at all surprised to hear the Hon. Member taking rhetorical swipes at the Opposition. For example, he asked where we were all summer when his caucus has been on top of this issue. I was not at all surprised to hear those rhetorical swipes because I think the Hon. Member realized how thoroughly and effectively he had demolished the Government's case for this over-all 15 per cent lumber tax and that he had better retrieve his position with his own caucus.
As he said, the Maritimes should never have been included in the agreement. I am sure it comes as no surprise to the Hon. Member that no Ministers are here to hear him excoriate the agreement in those terms.
We know that the Prime Minister (Mr. Mulroney) held out the promise of the repeal of the 15 per cent softwood lumber tax under a free trade agreement. We hope and expect the Government to be successful in achieving that, and we look to it to make it happen.
I believe it is worth repeating some comments made by informed professionals and analysts within the industry. It was said that we were taken to the cleaners. In an article in the Ottawa Citizen on January 10, an expert was quoted as saying:
If I were an American producer, my position would be that we've softened
up the Canadians. If Canada felt it was necessary to rush in and negotiate in
this case, it's possible they could file a petition in another industry and hope we
would do the same thing.
Softwood Lumber Exports
In an article in the Ottawa Citizen on November 7, detailed examples were given by the President of the Green Forest Lumber Corporation of the ways in which this 15 per cent tax is having invidious effects upon the Canadian industry.
I disagree with the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall)-whose riding in northern Ontario is closer to New Brunswick than it is to my riding of Kenora-Rainy River-when he said that the industry is not suffering in northern Ontario. Indeed, it is.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior did not list those mills in his riding that have closed, so I will mention them. They include the Terrace Bay mill, the Longlac mill, Kimberley- Clark at Nakina. Surely the Hon. Member for Timiskaming should be aware of the wafer board operation at Smooth Rock Falls having closed down as well. There was the recent but fortunately short shut-down of the Hudson Mill in my riding.
In effect, this 15 per cent softwood lumber export tax has facilitated the dumping of American product into the Canadian market, with no possible means of redress because it is Canadian measures that are making it possible. The imposition of the 15 per cent softwood lumber export tax essentially limited Canadian access to the U.S. market by raising the price of the Canadian product-be it British Columbia, Ontario or a maritime province product-in the U.S. market. Of course, this reduced the demand for Canadian lumber and a good year in residential construction in the United States increased the output of American mills. The Americans have lowered their unit costs and now have lumber that is surplus to their own requirements. Naturally, they are looking for a market and are able to sell with impunity into the Canadian market, undercut Canadian producers and thus essentially use our softwood lumber export tax to which the federal Government agreed, not only to deprive us of access to the American market but to deprive us of access to our own market. That is why the tax should be repealed, not only for the Maritimes but, indeed, for the whole of the industry in this country.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Madam
Speaker,first, I would like to draw to the attention of the House that contrary to the remarks made by opposition speakers to this moment in time, recognizing the difficulty which it faced and the inequity of the proposed application by all of those who were lobbying in the United States to get a much, much higher level of duty than that presently imposed as tax in Canada, the Maritime Lumber Bureau was very satisfied that the Government of Canada had in fact driven the best deal it possibly could for the maritime lumber industry. Probably it would have been much worse had the only impact upon that duty been the declaration of the rate of duty by the American Department of Trade and Commerce as influenced by the lobbyists in the United States. Anyone who feels on experience of application of former such duties that this was a bad deal, had better examine some of the other deals.

November 17, 1987
Softwood Lumber Exports
I will very briefly discuss another subject matter with which I am very familiar. They made equally strong representations on behalf of duty on potatoes shipped from Canada to the United States, and when the duty was levied, it was levied on individual shippers. Unfortunately, the American Department of Trade and Commerce has neither the manpower nor the time or capability to determine what duty should be charged on individual shippers on the basis of their law.
In the case of two particular people, both of whom are personal friends of mine and I am very familiar with their business, one person in the potato industry was subject to no duty for shipment of potatoes to the United States and the other, identical, I repeat, in the modus operandi of the business, was levied at 40 per cent. One has to have some knowledge of how these things work when they are imposed by the United States.
I submit that the last two speakers, the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) and the Hon. Member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Parry), do not have the personal familiarity with the system and how it works and how very prejudicial it can be. I repeat again that the lumber bureau was pleased that it got a deal, which is only a 15 per cent deal, and it has never said anything else before the committee of the House of Commons or in public. Therefore, I think we have to start from there. I support the Hon. Member for Timiskaming (Mr. MacDougall) when he says that lumber costs in New Brunswick are very high. The amount of wood is small. The expense of product from the sawmill is very high. The final finished product, as a result of the size of the timbers we have to use, puts us in a position of disadvantage with almost any other lumbering area of Canada. I submit that both on the basis of the cost of the operation in New Brunswick and on the basis of the cost of stumpage, as was so very well outlined by my colleague, the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett), we are in every way qualified for exemption from that tax, which was the ultimate decision of international negotiations.
I would also like to point out that it has been said today that in the markets which exist, the industry has been able to survive and to profit in spite of the tax. I agree with that. But normal markets will be down the road and this was not a normal demand. It was not a normal market. It happened to be at the peak of the cycle. Those people who were shipping lumber under those circumstances did in fact find they could survive and prosper to a limited degree, limited by the amount of the tax, of course. Yes, they have not been put out of business as we initially feared they might be. No, there has not been the abnormal trans-shipment of lumber to different areas of Canada as a result of a restriction of flow from Atlantic Canada to the United States market. Nevertheless, we do need to be relieved of that tax at the earliest possible date.
I am very pleased to know that the Government of Canada is in fact putting the issue forward. It is not correct to say that it was never put forward in the negotiations because it was. It is not correct to say that negotiations have not been taking
place in the period of time since the introduction of the Bill which opposed the tax. They have been and are promoting to get rid of that tax as far as Atlantic Canada is concerned. I think the Government has acted in an extremely responsible way.
I compliment the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal for his motion, for the research he did and the presentation he made in his usual dedicated fashion on behalf of Atlantic Canada. He should be commended for that presentation. But let us not spread false rumour around this country that this was not a good piece of legislation, that it was not a good deal for the lumber industry. We found ourselves in a cycle of market in which we survived in spite of it. All the negotiations which can possibly take place should be encouraged by virtue of this motion and by virtue of the interest of the lumber industry of Canada to negotiate our way out of it. But we got off as a result of very astute, careful and deliberate negotiations with much, much less duty than otherwise would have been imposed had we not had the influence we had and had we not been treated in the good faith with which we were treated in Washington. Had the lobbyists had their way in a clear field, the duty they would have imposed would have crippled us. We did negotiate ourselves into a sustainable position on an economic basis for the lumber industry of Canada, including Atlantic Canada, but we do need to negotiate our way out of it. That is what this motion is intended to encourage.


Mr. Felix Holtmann (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam
Speaker, I realize I only have about three minutes, but I would like to commend the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain) who brought to the attention of this House quite clearly that not only the Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior (Mr. Penner) but the Hon. Member for Kenora- Rainy River (Mr. Parry) really have it all wrong. If we go back to the very creation of the lumber dispute with which the Hon. Member opposite is very familiar, it was the present Liberal Premier of Ontario who in fact said that the problem clearly was that stumpage was not adequate in Quebec and in fact in British Columbia. He admitted there was clearly a problem and it should be addressed.
The Hon. Member for Cochrane-Superior suggested we should have let it fall through the normal trade negotiations and dispute mechanisms we presently have. Does he realize that the countervailing duty on hogs by the United States went through the normal channels, through the Commerce Department of the United States, and we are living with it today? Having a free trade agreement rather than having to go to some other foreign mechanism to settle this dispute, which we would clearly like to negotiate back to a normal situation we had, is really what the exercise is about.
My hon colleague, the Hon. Member for Fundy-Royal, brings an important point to the debate by indicating that stumpage in the Maritimes was always high, perhaps almost on a level playing field with the American stumpage charges in different parts of the United States. However, as a country,
November 17, 1987

and as a national program, it was looked at. Even today, the Hon. Member for Carleton-Charlotte indicated that if we look at the Memorandum of Understanding, it explicitly provides for the reduction or elimination of export charges on the basis of increased stumpage or other charges by provinces in softwood lumber production. I do not think that we have a tremendous problem, but clearly Canada is heading in the right direction to bring about an end to this charge.
[Translation\


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of Private Members' Business has now expired. Pursuant to Standing Order 42(1), the order shall be dropped from the Order Paper.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 66 is deemed to have been moved.
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY-FUNDING OF RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT/CONSORTIUM'S APPLICATION FOR FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE
['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).']
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, last June I asked the then Minister of State for Science and Technology why, when the Conservative Party had been in opposition it had promised to double support for scientific research and development, we now find that the expenditures for scientific research and development are running at only 1.35 per cent of Gross National Product. The Minister replied that spending has increased significantly but that it took time to reorganize the apparatus of government in line with the Government's plans.
I point out that Canada is the only major industrialized country with trade deficits in all the major high technology groups, including aerospace, data processing, machines, drugs and electronic equipment. One of the major reasons for this low level of sales is because there is a very low level of research and development undertaken in Canada. To deal with the problem the Government has adopted an approach to scientific research and development under which government funding will not increase. In fact, funding for research in government laboratories and universities might decrease. Programs and institutions such as the National Research Council have already been eliminated or scaled down.
The Government expected that the increased effort and expenditures for scientific research and development would come from the private sector. This raises important and serious questions which have not even been considered let alone answered by the Government.
Adjournment Debate
For example, will the private sector increase its efforts and expenditures by the very large amounts needed if we are ever to reach the goal of 2.5 per cent of GNP devoted to scientific research and development, a figure at which most other industrialized countries aim? Or will the private sector invest in the kinds of basic research which have been done in government laboratories and in our universities which, according to most scientists is absolutely essential, as has been emphasized so clearly by both our Nobel prize scientists, Dr. Herzberg and Dr. Polanyi? Or will its efforts be directed at its particular interests in the development part of scientific research and development for its specific benefits?
My second question to the Minister was why had the Government which looked to the private sector not approved the proposal for start-up assistance made by Pre-Carn Associates, a consortium of 31 member companies including Inco, Stelco, Hydro Quebec and Ontario Hydro, to mention just a few. Dr. McNabb, the former head of NSERC, plays a leading role in this organization.
It was last June that I asked these questions. We checked again today and were told the following. Some 31 member companies have identified areas of research that they would like to pursue. The technical advisory committee has met a number of times. In the new year it will be putting out a call for proposals on research projects. It has not heard a single word from the federal Government with regard to its application for financial assistance to start up its organization. It understands that the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Oberle) is preparing a memo for Cabinet.
It seems obvious to us that the Department has been terribly slow in responding. Yet, it splashed grants around this summer for numerous high tech companies. We have to ask ourselves why a government which puts so much store in the private sector, a government which believes that the private sector can do most things and certainly do scientific research and development better than government laboratories and universities, has been so slow to fund this organization. Why can it not do something for basic research, which this organization proposes to foster, and come through with the grants for this organization which is dedicated to working on basic research in co-operation and conjunction with some of the major industrial companies in this country?
I call upon the Government to deal with this application quickly, and to deal with the whole question of scientific research and development in a serious manner, which it has not done up until now.


Mrs. Suzanne Duplessis (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Science and Technology)):: Madam Speaker, I welcome the opportunity I am given this evening to respond to the Hon. Member for Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), the science and technology critic for the New

November 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
Democratic Party. I can inform the Hon. Member that first of all, our gross expenditures on research and development have increased by an annual 4.1 percent in 1985-1986 and an estimated 4 percent in 1986-1987. At a time when the pressure on both corporate and government budgets is tremendous, these figures demonstrate the emphasis placed by government and the private sector on research and development as instruments of economic growth.
Granted, gross domestic spending on research and development as a percentage of GNP went down in 1986. However, the actual figure is not important, statistically speaking. What is important is that economic growth has been enhanced by our policies, and that the Government has managed to rein in inflation, lower interest rates, reduce the massive deficit we inherited from our predecessors and increase spending on research and development. To me this proves that our emphasis on research and development as instruments of economic growth is justified.
I may remind the Hon. Member that gross domestic expenditures on research and development as a percentage of GNP are merely statistics and should be interpreted only as performance indicators. We cannot use these performance indicators to compare directly our R and D performance with other OECD countries. No other OECD member, except perhaps Australia, has a combination of primary and secondary industries similar to ours, with a substantial percentage of its industrial capacity belonging to foreign interests and a relatively low commitment to military research and development.
Nevertheless, we do engage in world-class research. By restructuring and concentrating our resources, we will make it possible for our researchers to emulate the achievements of Dr. Polanyi, Bell Northern, Mitel and all those who helped to develop the Canadarm. We have a national science and technology policy that has been accepted by all the provinces, a carefully selected group of science and technology advisers and a national advisory council on science and technology. We also have a space program and a micro-electronics program under which $90 million is available to participating industries. We supported the Canadian Institute for Advanced Research.
Finally, we launched InnovAction, a program that will help all Canadians realize the importance of science and technology in their lives. As the Economic Council of Canada stated in its report "Making Technology Work", published last June, all Canadians must openly embrace the new technologies and realize there is no alternative. Our Government has made science and technology its priority and will continue to do so.

EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-EL SALVADOR-DISCOVERY OF HEADLESS BODY OF AGRICULTURAL WORKERS' REPRESENTATIVE/CANADIAN AID TO EL SALVADOR


Daniel James Macdonnell Heap: Madam Speaker, on May 29 I asked the Hon. Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) a question regarding El Salvador. In part, my question was, "Will the Minister indicate to the President-" that is, of El Salvador, "that Canada's decision to extend that aid was based on an expectation that the President would be willing and able to control human rights violations of this sort-" and I was referring to the recent murder of another trade union leader by the death squads in El Salvador, "-and that the continuation of the aid is conditional on progress in that matter?"
The Minister said:
I do not want to make any general comment that might make that delicate situation more difficult. However, I will certainly look into the information which the Member has provided and will take whatever action is appropriate.
The Minister made no protest to the Government of El Salvador about its continuing murders of trade unionists, which is what I had asked in my first question. He gave me no answer as he promised to my second question after he looked into it. The only action he took was to signal earlier this year the renewal in the next phase of bilateral aid to the Duarte Government.
We have in a story in The Globe and Mail the description of the futility of aid controlled by a Government which is itself controlled by a murderous or Fascist army. An article in the October 27 edition of The Globe and Mail written on the murder of Herbert Anaya, the President of the Salvadoran Human Rights Commission, in front of his family as he prepared to take two of his six children to school, reads in part:
The killing appears to be part of a recent increase in death-squad murders and disappearances apparently linked, analysts say, to the rise in antiGovernment and anti-army protests.
It refers to the gruesome amnesty offered by the Government to those killers, that is, the death squad murderers. Also, referring to the amnesty, it indicates:
It pardons all political crimes, including more than 50,000 political killings during the past seven years. Most of those were clearly committed by death squads linked to the military and security forces.
The Minister was quite mistaken to declare El Salvador democratic in any sense when it is controlled by such a Fascist army, when the army even ignores the cease-fire order of the President of El Salvador. They laugh at him.
He was equally mistaken to give aid to the Duarte Government. The Minister claims that he gives aid not to the Government but to poor people, but that is not true. The Duarte Government controls the distribution of Canadian aid money through the Minister of Planning. This was told to me by the Vice-Minister of Planning who explained that the list should be vetted ahead of time before it is shown to the Minister, so that there might be no embarrassment of a name on there that the Minister might not wish to see.
What we have is what The Globe and Mail aptly calls "dirty wars" in El Salvador and "dirty wars", in Guatemala. For example, its October 28 editorial reads:
November 17, 1987

The situation is no different in Guatemala, where tens of thousands of Indians have been killed in the past decade for a presumed association with the country's guerrillas, and where human rights crimes continue under the civilian government of President Vinicio Cerezo Arevalo.
In today's edition of The Toronto Star we have the same. People have noticed that disappearances have continued since Guatemala returned to civilian rule, and some have noticed that death squad activity is on the rise again. The American Embassy in the spring indicated that death squads this year had doubled the rate of the death squads last year under the same President.
The Minister is also mistaken to call Guatemala a democratic country when that Government is also controlled by the army, by a Fascistic murderous army. The Minister has no basis for saying as quoted in today's The Citizen:
The election of Vinicio Cerezo as president of the country has resulted in the beginning of a democratic process.
He has no basis for saying:
Consequently, and in keeping with our conviction that the root causes for instability and violence in Central America are economic and social in nature, we have decided to renew Canada's bilateral aid relationship with Guatemala. We believe that with care and imagination it will be possible to organize a program that benefits the poor.
That is simply not based on the real facts. The Minister has never given me his reasons for the decisions he has been considering for over a year and which he has now announced.
Human rights violations go unpunished. Whether they were a little less last year or a little more this year makes no difference in El Salvador or in Guatemala. When I visited Guatemala a year and a half ago I saw Canadian aid in the form of corn given through Canadian NGOs to Guatemalan NGOs. I saw the corn being distributed by a member of the civil patrols. In other words, Canada's money was going to help confirm the dictatorial power of the Guatemalan army.
I commend the Hon. Minister for his plan to visit Central America. I believe it will be a useful thing for him to do. I hope he will visit Central America and visit it more than once to learn at first hand what is going on. I hope he will reconsider his decision to aid Guatemala and not make the same mistake he made in El Salvador, and that he will not fund the army that controls Guatemala.


Mr. Jean-Guy Hudon (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, I have always felt the House of Commons was a tremendous forum, however one should exercize caution when making accusations. Clearly there has to be some facts behind the Hon. Member's comments, but they must be viewed within the general outlook and the general policy of the Government.
Human rights violations must be punished. I think that generally speaking, Madam Speaker, this may be said in this House but there is a lag between saying it and implementing
Adjournment Debate
it, and that lag indeed the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Clark) is attempting by every available diplomatic means to make sure that human rights are respected. We as a Government have very close links with all the agencies which deplore those facts and we are closely monitoring them. Our assistance program, Madam Speaker, are designed to reduce disparities. And it is my view that if we base our assistance program on human rights violations only, we might very well make mistakes that would prevent us from meeting that first goal of reducing inequalities.
That violations should be punished is a principle that can be stated but implementing it is a different story. Our programs are aimed at reducing those inequalities, and very soon, indeed next week, the Secretary of State for External Affairs will be touring those Central American countries to verify and I may say to verify and discuss with the authorities. This may be a way of doing things with which the Hon. Member may not entirely agree, but it is my view that in light of his visit, and it will be my privilege to also take part in that tour and discussions, but I think that in light of that visit and especially of those discussions with the Secretary of State, some points will be clearly established.
I have already attended similar meetings and on that I can state that there is a full range of means available. Rising in this House to violently condemn is one way. It solves nothing in San Salvador, Nicaragua or other countries. Ours is a very special forum that can be used sometimes, but I think there are other ways and we should not reduce our assistance on those grounds. Quite the opposite, our assistance is aimed at reducing inequalities. Examples such as those given by the Hon. Member may be true. There are examples in every country, including Canada, where people will attempt to abuse the system by every means. That is true. But for making diplomatic charges, voicing statements in this House with the sole purpose of stating that, we prefer solutions that are much more effective.



Jean-Claude Malépart: Madam Speaker, my intervention this evening follows a question I addressed to the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), who is supposedly responsible for economic development in the Montreal region. I should remind the House that, two years ago, after the announcement of the closing of Bombardier, Canadian Steel Wheel, Laforge, Daoust, La Parisette and Vickers, I established along with provincial and municipal political representatives, as well as the citizens and unions, a survival committee to avoid the loss of 5,000 jobs in East Montreal.
At the time, as this House will also recall, the Conservative Government had responded to our representations, and to the closing of the Gulf Refinery in East Montreal by annoncing

November 17, 1987
Adjournment Debate
the creation of two committees, in addition to the Picard committee. There were therefore three committees: the Ministerial Committee, presided by the Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion, the Picard Committee for the Montreal Region and the East Montreal Economic Recovery Committee presided by Mr. Pichette.
At the time, the Conservative Government did nothing to help the economy of East Montreal and to avoid the loss of thousands of jobs. Fortunately, the provincial Government led by Mr. Bourassa was able to save three quarters of the Gulf Refinery and three quarters of its employees. Bombardier was able to get contracts with the assistance of the provincial Government and to avoid closing down immediately. However, six months ago, the Picard Committee made public its 86 recommendations for the development of Greater Montreal, including the development of Montreal Harbour, the Space Agency, the International Banking Centre and so on, and for six months, the minister of Regional Industrial Expansion has been saying: "Yes, I shall announce decisions in due time." But nothing is being done. The Government keeps dragging its feet.
Two months ago, the East Montreal Development Committee, presided by Mr. Pichette, whose members include representatives of business, labour, the social-economic sector, Montreal, as well as federal and provincial representatives, unanimously recognized that, as pointed out in the study before me, while there has been economic recovery in Quebec, in Greater Montreal and throughout Canada, it had not yet happened in East Montreal. In fact, businesses were closing down, and at the time the report was published, early in September, Montreal East had 22,000 unemployed workers, 9,400 people on welfare, and if nothing was done, 3,000 jobs would be lost in the shipbuilding and rail transportation industries and at Angus.
Some of the recommendations were addressed to the authorities of the City of Montreal, and I must say that two weeks later, city authorities reacted quickly-they had taken part in the consultations with Mr. Pichette-and announced concrete measures to revitalize Montreal East and ensure there was a development plan for establishing new industries and providing the requisite infrastructure to attract new industry to Montreal East. Unfortunately, the federal Government is once again dragging its feet. There were five recommendations that were important for the development of Montreal East and were supported by the unions, including the metal workers. There was the question of a national procurement policy for the rail transportation industry. We all know that Bombardier, Angus, Canadian Steel Wheel and Laforge depend enormously on railway contracts, and as far as Vickers, the shipyards are concerned, they favoured preferential procurement in Canada for the shipbuilding industry, which would have been excellent both for Vickers in Montreal East as well as for the Sorel and Lauzon shipyards near Quebec City.
Madam Speaker, an important point was that that everyone agreed that contracts for refitting ferries and ships should be
given to the Vickers yards and that Montreal East should be designated under the adjustment program for older workers, so that these people who lost their jobs at the age of 55 or 57 and had worked 25 or 27 years in these sectors . . . unfortunately, the Conservative Government and the Minister of Labour (Mr. Cadieux) abolished the existing program, the adjustment program linked to unemployment insurance, before providing for a replacement.
So the people want the East end of Montreal to be a designated area for all the workers to become eligible.
Therefore the Federal Government was invited to inject $25 million, together with the Quebec Government, into the setting up of a bureau to help with the restructurisation and upgrading of large businesses and also to create a special fund for manpower training and retraining. It is clear that welders working on huge ships in marine shipbuilding yards need highly technical training; that is why a manpower training and retraining programme, together with a manpower skill updating programme for senior citizens as well as a development fund to attract industries to the East end of Montreal, would help solve the short-term problems there, so that the East end of Montreal could progress at the same pace as Greater Montreal.
Madam Speaker, two weeks ago marine shipyard workers- people now living on unemployment insurance benefits-had to organize a demonstration here in Ottawa simply to ask the federal Government to provide them with jobs by finding ships for them to repair. Neither the provincial nor the municipal governments are responsible for building or repairing ships, and it would be important for the federal Government. . .
I dare hope that the Parliamentary Secretary who will respond will be able to meet the expectations of the men and women living in the East end of Montreal, an area which is not only represented by Liberal Members, but also by three or four Conservative Members. The industries in dire straits are all located in ridings represented by Conservative Members. The welfare of these people would require a positive answer.


Mr. Michel Champagne (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister for External Relations):: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to correct something my honourable friend said about the POWA Program, or Program for Older Worker Adjustment. We are all aware that, in 1984, before we came to power, the Liberal Government had said that this program would be abolished and that, when our own Government came to power, it maintained this program for another year.
For the information of the Hon. Member and of older workers, I would like to point out that we are actively negotiating the terms of a new program with the Quebec Government.
As for the assistance that the federal Government could, should or did bring to East Montreal, I believe that it is important to point out to the Hon. Member and to the people
November 17, 1987

of Montreal, especially East Montreal, that the federal Government, through its Minister of Regional Industrial Expansion (Mr. de Cotret), did not hesitate one second to deal with these issues. As proof of this, we find that 73 business development projects were approved by the Department of Regional Industrial Expansion and that they have provided investments of nearly $200 million and the creation of 2 500 jobs, and another 2 000 jobs have also been saved.
Madam Speaker, what we must understand is that the federal Government, with the provincial Government, the city of Montreal and the businesses themselves, is now trying to find ways to improve the quality of life of workers. This is exactly what we are doing as evidenced by the fact that the rate of unemployment in the Montreal region has gone down from 10.6 to 9.6 per cent.
Adjournment Debate
If we forget any political ideology or philosophy, whether it be red,blue or green, we realize one thing: In real terms, the city of Montreal and the population of East Montreal have received positive assistance for the workers from the federal Government, and this is what we shall continue to work for in coming months and years in the hope that Bill C-22, which has been long awaited by the people and the workers of Montreal, will be supported and promoted by my colleague for Montreal-Sainte-Marie so that the Montreal region and the city of Montreal will finally receive their fair share of jobs and investments.


The Acting Speaker (Mrs. Champagne):: 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, November 18, 1987
[Stage Direction]
Prayers