1976-04-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion.
In view of the financial difficulties the provinces will encounter as a result of the passage of Bill C-68; in view of the danger of seeing the quality of medical services reduced; finally, in view of the forthcoming federal-provincial conference of health ministers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk):
That this House unanimously invite the responsible minister to delay the passage of Bill C-68 till after the proposed conference.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 43, this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent; the motion therefore cannot be put.


FISCAL ARRANGEMENTS ACT
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to deal with a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the strong possibility that the federal government will propose at its meetings this week with the provincial finance ministers that the inflation factor in the Fiscal Arrangements Act be removed, and in view of the disastrous effect this would have on the budgets of the provinces which are already faced with the necessity of increasing their taxes to meet their increased costs, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That the government be urged not to remove the inflation factor from the Fiscal Arrangements Act at this time.


Mr. Speaker:: Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Armani Caouette (Villeneuve):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering that the vast majority of Canadians favour upholding capital punishment in cases of premeditated deliberate murder, that the will of the majority must be respected in a democratic system, and that a referendum is the best way to let the majority express its views, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard):
That this House direct that a referendum on capital punishment be taken immediately across the country so that debates on the abolition of capital punishment take place in the light of the views clearly expressed by the Canadian people.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, the motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: As there is not unanimous consent, the motion cannot be put.


INDUSTRY
Hon. Stanley Haidasz (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I am sure that all hon. members of this House are saddened by an announcement made yesterday by the management of the Douglas Aircraft plant in Malton, Ontario, of the layoff of 150 workers. In view of this urgent and important matter, I seek unanimous consent under Standing Order 43

April 1, 1976
Bilingualism
to move the following motion, seconded by the hon. member for York South (Mrs. Appolloni):
That this House expresses its regret at the announced layoffs of 150 workers at Douglas Aircraft, Malton, and urges the federal government to continue negotiations to save the jobs of these workers and to increase the priority of the government's study to develop a sound policy for the Canadian aerospace industry.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Dean Whiteway (Selkirk):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the problems surrounding the financing of the Orion LRPA contract that are threatening the early commencement of this essential defence program, and in order to give the people of Canada and members of this House a better understanding of the government's decision, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon):
That the Minister of National Defence table immediately all documents of the alternative proposals to the Lockheed P3-LRPA that have been considered by the Department of National Defence including the Cp-107 Argus Refit program proposed by Canadair.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion cannot be presented without the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Hugh Poulin (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I, too, rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter which I consider to be of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the contents of the Fifth Annual Report of the Commissioner of Official languages, and since the government of Ontario is responsible for education in the Ottawa-Carleton area, I ask permission to move, seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis):
That this House instruct the government to enter into negotiations with the appropriate Ontario authorities in order to ensure the con-

tinuation of French immersion language training at the option of each of the four Ottawa-Carleton area school boards.


An hon. Member:: Cheap shot!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Under the provisions of Standing Order 43 unanimous consent is required before such a motion can be presented. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed!


Mr. Speaker:: For the purpose of the record, the House should know that the motion was put by the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Poulin) and seconded by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis).



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I hope the unanimity of the House with regard to that question will continue to prevail now. I should like to ask the President of the Privy Council-excuse me, I should have said "the President of the Treasury Board".


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I am not sure to whom I ought to apologize.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the President of the Treasury Board whether, following the timely and constructive suggestion made yesterday by the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont, the hon. gentleman is prepared to arrange for reference of the annual report of the Commissioner of Official Languages to a special committee of both Houses for early consideration.


Hon. Jean Chretien (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, Mr. Spicer's report refers to the bilingualism policy, and Mr. Spicer is basing his remarks on a report we will get soon. I have myself commissioned the Bibeau report on the effectiveness of the public servants training program. The Bibeau report should be submitted to the Treasury Board within a few weeks. We will find a lot of information in this report, and I hope that after we have received the Bibeau report, which I have undertaken to table in the House, we will be able to make a review of the whole problem. I would also like to point out to the House
April 1, 1976

that it is noted in the Spicer report that tremendous progress has been made in recent years with respect to bilingualism in the Public Service.


Charles Joseph Clark: I believe the House would be anxious to see the Bibeau report referred to a committee in addition to the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages, rather than merely being tabled here. Will the President of the Treasury Board give us a commitment that both of these reports will be referred to a committee either of this House or of the two Houses for consideration?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I have already been questioned on this subject this week before our Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates. I have answered many questions. I am ready to answer any question on those two reports, if necessary, and we will find whether it is necessary to take more specific action with regard to Messrs. Spicer's and Bibeau's reports.


Charles Joseph Clark: Members on this side of the House share with the hon. member for Maisonneuve-Rosemont the view that it is not enough simply to have the opportunity to question the minister on these matters. It is far preferable to have the reports themselves referred and become the subject of joint study. I hope that the minister might follow that bipartisan suggestion.


ALLEGED UNDER-UTILIZATION OF FRENCH BY EMPLOYEES GRADUATING FROM TRAINING SCHOOLS
Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the minister this question. Having regard to the reference in the report of the Commissioner of Official Languages to the fact that 83 per cent of Anglophone graduates from public service schools utilize French on the job less than 20 per cent of the time, is the minister prepared to make a full statement to the House regarding the serious allegation of an extraordinary under-utilization of bilingual graduates, as suggested by the Commissioner of Official Languages?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course it is very difficult to make the best use of the services in the other language of all those who work in Ottawa. The hon. Leader of the Opposition speaks French very well, but he does not have the opportunity to use it often, so we will have to get the whole system to use both languages as often as possible. I am glad to see that the hon. Leader of the Opposition wants French to be much more widely used in Ottawa.


IMPLEMENTATION OF RECOMMENDATION OF COMMISSIONER-CONSULTATIONS WITH PROVINCES ON LANGUAGE TEACHING
Mr. Claude Wagner (Saint-Hyacinthe):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a question of the leader of the government.
While recognizing that until now the bilingualism program has been reasonably successful, is the government
Oral Questions
giving serious consideration to the recommendations of the Commissioner of Official Languages which say that we should prepare a generation of bilingual Canadians before they enter the public service?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, of course we are considering that. It is not only a wish we have expressed, but also something we have told the provinces at various meetings, namely the ones on the constitution, when we were talking about bilingualism. As a matter of fact, many members on both sides of this House wish that the educational system of the provinces would give Canadians more fluency in both official languages. It is our wish, Mr. Speaker. I rather think that this recommendation is addressed to the provincial governments, which are primarily responsible for education.


Claude Wagner: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary and I thank the Prime Minister for his remarks.
While keeping in mind the question of jurisdiction, would the Prime Minister tell the House if, during the first ministers conference in May, he has the intention of discussing these new propositions concerning the teaching of languages to young Canadians with the heads of the provincial governments?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the agenda of that conference has yet to be established, but if the provinces want to discuss the subject I would be very anxious to do so myself. Generally speaking, however, such subjects are dealt with during meetings between the provincial ministers of education and the Secretary of State who has been appointed by the government to spend the funds for promoting the teaching of the other official language in each province.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. An announcement this morning indicated that the option on the Lockheed Orions had been extended for one month. Presumably, therefore, arrangements with respect to financing have not been worked out. The minister indicated to the House yesterday that the arrangements that are being proposed to Canadian banks do not mean a guarantee of any loans that those banks may put up to the Lockheed Corporation. In view of the importance of this matter would the minister advise the House specifically what it is that the government is proposing to Canadian banks and financial institutions to encourage them to take a risk which, in normal circumstances, they would not take?


Hon. James Richardson (Minister of National Defence):: Mr. Speaker, it is correct that my colleague the Minister of Supply and Services has done an excellent job in obtaining an option for the government to continue negotiations until April 30. The discussion with the banks

April 1, 1976
Oral Questions
are continuing. As I said on earlier occasions, until these discussions are complete I do not intend to discuss the details.
[DOT] (M20)


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, since the time of the premature announcement of the minister on November 27 concerning the agreement in principle to make this purchase, it is my understanding that some $20 million has been expended on the contract. Will the minister advise the House whether he has received a legal opinion from any source on the government's present legal status as a result of the November 27 announcement in order that the government can make a proper assessment of its position on the Lockheed matter, namely, to get out clean, to cut our losses and get out, or do we have to stay in because our commitment is so high we have no choice but to stay in? Will you answer regarding those three options?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, the legal aspects of the contract are the responsibility of the Minister of Supply and Services.


Mr. Alkenbrack:: He's the one who bought the oil and lost $14 million.


James Armstrong Richardson: As I have indicated, he and his department have done an excellent job of protecting the interests of the government. The figure of $20 million that was mentioned is too high, but the details of the legal aspects should be left to my colleague.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, perhaps I could turn to the minister's colleague, the Minister of Supply and Services, and ask him whether his department now, in terms of the negotiations he is continuing with the Lockheed Corporation, has a legal opinion from any source, whether the Department of Justice or private, about the legal commitment of the government in terms of the expenditure that Lockheed has already made? Is that a factor in the decision of the government to continue in the negotiations; that is, is the $20 million lost now and therefore we have to stay in because we cannot stand to take that loss? Would the minister answer that?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, it is true that Lockheed Aircraft Corporation Ltd. did some work before the contract signature. It is also true that Lockheed gave us a first delay until March 31 without any change in prices and in the economic advantages for Canada. This is in fact a provision of the letter of agreement we signed yesterday at midnight, to the effect that we are going to pay Lockheed for work done between January 5 and April 30, with a view to preserving the price we negotiated last December, preserving the production schedule which is advantageous for Canada, and preserving the economic impact which is evident for

this country since we sign a $614 million contract with Lockheed and we are going to have economic repercussions of about $580 million in Canada.
In consideration of all these advantages, we agreed with Lockheed to pay a maximum of $16 million in case we put an end to our negotiations between now and April 30. This being said, we do intend to sign the contract if possible, because these are the best conditions we can get for Canada to fulfill its role in NATO.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister.
A while ago he said with regard to bilingualism that it was left to the discretion of the provinces to have the second official language taught in the schools. The hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe told us that handing over the teaching of both languages to the provinces was a new suggestion.
I should like to draw to your attention, Mr. Speaker, the fact that for at least 10 years now I have been suggesting the teaching of both official languages in all Canadian schools, and I request the co-operation of the federal government in helping the provinces to do the job properly.
Now, Mr. Spicer said yesterday that teaching a second language to people of 50 or 60 was a waste of time and money. To force someone to learn a second language at 50 does not make sense, whereas by teaching it to children of five, six, seven and eight we would have a perfectly bilingual Canada, from the Pacific to the Atlantic, within five years.
If the provinces were to decide to do so, would the federal government be willing to spend as much money in helping them as it spent, for nothing, or almost, teaching both languages to the civil servants?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it is true that the hon. member has advocated for years the teaching of the second language in the schools. That is an opinion we all share. Naturally, we hope it can be done. However, the question is whether we can wait 25 years for results. That is the figure the hon. member mentioned-


An hon. Member:: Five years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Indeed 25 years is a little too long after 100 years of waiting-


An hon. Member:: No, he did say 5 years!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, the hon. member said 25 years. Mr. Speaker-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: He did say five years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He did? I am sorry, then. He said five years. It seems strange to me that if the two official
April 1, 1976

languages can be taught in elementary schools, within five years bilingual children will qualify as deputy ministers. That does not seem logical.
As for expenses, Mr. Speaker, the answer is that we already spend around $80 million a year-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: $125 million.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -$125 million, as the President of the Treasury Board has just mentioned, so that the provinces may teach the other official language within their jurisdictions. It is important for us and for all hon. members to ensure that those moneys are well spent. We now have a Social Credit government in British Columbia. I do hope it will heed the Socred leader and start teaching French in all the schools of that province.


GOVERNMENT INTENTION TO ACHIEVE NATIONAL UNITY BY TEACHING BOTH LANGUAGES
David Réal Caouette: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask a supplementary question.
The Prime Minister can be sure that in many areas it will be easier for him to convince the Socred premier from British Columbia than Mr. Bourassa from Quebec.
I want to draw the attention of the House to the possibility of financially assisting the provinces. I did not speak of a 25-year period, I said that if our youngsters were taught French or English or both from the first school years, in less than five years our young Canadians, both French and English speaking, would use the second language with a surprising flexibility, whereas our civil servants still cannot do so. We cannot blame them, for it is much easier to learn at age five or six than at sixty.
So is the federal government ready to spend, not $60 or $125 million, but the millions necessary to build up national unity through bilingualism?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I have mentioned $80 or $125 million earlier. Those sums are considerable. I do not know if the hon. member is suggesting that we should make more money available to the provinces and thereby deprive the official language program of the federal government of that money. I am prepared to consider specific proposals during the forthcoming discussions, but when the hon. member says that it will go faster in British Columbia, only the future will tell if he has succeeded in three days.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. Will the minister make a statement on motions today concerning LRPA and any decisions made by Canada and, if not, would he inform the House about the decisions reached with Mr. Wilson of Lockheed last night. Other than the decision which the minister made to give himself 30 days
Oral Questions
grace on making a decision on the contract and deciding to pay our just debts, what decisions were made?


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, I think that in view of the fact that I have always believed that the hon. member for Victoria was a supporter of the Canadian armed forces, I will confine my statement to reading his words, as recorded on October 24. He said this problem has plagued the department for many years, that is, too low a percentage of the defence budget being used for capital equipment. He has been an advocate of new equipment for the Canadian armed forces, and that is what we have been achieving in these negotiations.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister leaves me almost speechless with his attack.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I have been a supporter of equipment while this government has been procrastinating for eight years on this matter, and I still am,-but not at any price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-REQUEST FOR TABLING OF LETTER FROM MR. HEPPE-REASON FOR FAILURE TO CHECK FINANCIAL ARRANGEMENTS
Allan Bruce McKinnon: Perhaps since the minister is unwilling to answer the question I put to him he will answer this supplementary. Yesterday the minister showed the press a letter from Mr. R. R. Heppe of Lockheed indicating that there was a financing problem which arose last summer. Would the minister table the letter from Mr. Heppe, and would he explain to the House why, given the implied warning in Mr. Heppe's letter, he did not check the financial arrangements again until late December? Why was he aware of a minor problem in midsummer and unaware of the enormous problem in November?


James Armstrong Richardson: The letter in question has not been discussed in the House and therefore does not need to be tabled.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Just give it to the press.


James Armstrong Richardson: The department was fully aware of the problems of financing early in the year and toward the completion of the contract. I have explained many times that we were given a very clear impression that Lockheed could assist. I think I will read from that letter, and therefore I will be obliged to table it. I think this will answer once and for all whether the Lockheed company was in fact-


An hon. Member:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the House appreciates the willingness of the minister to table the letter.

April 1, 1976
Oral Questions
However, if I am to exercise some restraint on the length of questions which ought to be put, I equally have to exercise some restraint on the length of answers during the question period. I ask the minister to conclude his answer very briefly.


James Armstrong Richardson: I will be brief and read only one short paragraph from the letter as follows:
If Lockheed were to finance the shortfall as suggested in item (c), it is estimated that the financial impact would be approximately $800,000. Such an arrangement would, however, be contingent upon Lockheed's ability to secure approval for additional financing with lending banks and would further be subject to approval by the Emergency Loan Guarantee Board.
I ask members of the opposition to listen to the next sentence. This is from a Lockheed vice president.
Some hort. Members: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: We are listening.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order. If the letter is important enough to be quoted at length in this House, it is equally important that it be tabled in total.


Some hon. Members:: Right now.


Mr. Speaker:: The minister has indicated his willingness to table the letter.


Walter David Baker: Then let's not ruin the question period.


Charles Joseph Clark: The question period will be over before he finishes reading.


James Armstrong Richardson: The letter went on to say the following:
We believe this approach...
That is, the approach to the banks and to the emergency loan guarantee board.
... has merit and after due consideration would receive a positive response.
In fairness to the Lockheed company I think I should say that this letter was related to a financing shortfall in the summer which was not of the proportions which we discussed in December. I want to underline that and make it clear. However, in fairness to my personnel and to my officials I also think that this letter is a very clear indication of the willingness of the Lockheed company to assist us with the financing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-DATE OF CABINET DECISION ON SIGNING
Allan Bruce McKinnon: The minister has given no indication that he will make a statement on motions. I wonder if he could indicate to the House, in a general sense, when the cabinet will make a final decision on this contentious problem and decide either to sign the contract or not to sign it.


James Armstrong Richardson: Surely, the hon. member has heard that the government now has an option which is good until the end of April, so that presumably before that date or on that date a decision will be reached.


Mr. Speaker:: The Minister of National Defence, during the course of his answer to the second last question, made reference to a letter which he is prepared to table. Under the circumstances he is at liberty, I think, without the leave of the House, to table it either now or during tabling of documents. Perhaps it might be more orderly for the minister to table the document forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, in light of what we have just heard, I should like to direct a supplementary question to the Minister of Supply and Services. It has to do with the money which has been spent up to this point by Lockheed in the develo-ment of engineering work ups and design-to accommodate other user departments' requirements, I might add. On what authority has money been expended up to this point in time? What parliamentary authority, what governor in council authority or under what aspect of the Financial Administration Act has the $10 million or $12 million been spent up to this point in time?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, everybody knows that we have indicated to Lockheed Aircraft Coporation Ltd. our intention to enter into a contract with them which is nothing but normal if we are to preserve the advantages I stated to this House; it is normal, for the time being that we pay Lockheed for the works done so far, and also to protect the government's interest that we place a limit to the amount to be spent from now to April 30. I believe that it is a good business deal.


LOCKHEED CONTRACT-POSSIBLE RECOVERY FROM OTHER DEPARTMENTS OF A SHARE OF THE COST OF THE &quot;ORION&quot;
J. Michael Forrestall: The
minister has not answered the question at all. We can only assume that there has been no authorization other than a requisition from the Department of Supply and Services for the expenditure of funds or a telephone call or some conversation, in the absence of a contract. Because of the substantial proportions of this $59 million or probably up to $70 million we are going to pay per aircraft, could the minister indicate whether the cabinet committee responsible sought from the other user departments their share or pro rated share of the capital cost of this equipment? I am referring to the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, the Department of Fisheries and other govern-
April 1, 1976

ment departments which will use the Orion. The basic cost of the Orion will be from $30 million to $60 million. Are the other user departments going to contribute their share of the capital cost in order to give the Minister of National Defence and his department access to the funds which parliament has granted for defence spending?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will understand that I am not responsible for the general administration of the government. I think the question should be addressed to the President of the Treasury Board.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board has left the chamber, but because the Minister of National Defence is completely and totally uninterested in this question-


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


J. Michael Forrestall: I shall direct my question to the President of the Treasury Board in the interests of national defence because the Minister of National Defence does not seem to be too concerned about the availability of funds for spending on capital acquisition.
Has any initiative been taken by the President of the Treasury Board to secure from other government departments who will use the Orion aircraft their share of the capital cost of this program? Judging from other world prices the cost of this aircraft is some $60 million, and 50 per cent of that is attributable to the requirements of departments other than the Department of National Defence. Is there any sharing sought?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, when we prepared the budgetary program dealing with the capital investments for the Department of National Defence, we spread our requirements over a period of several years in the estimates of the Department of National Defence, because I do not think it would be very practical, in the case of a project like this, to divide the capital between three or four departments. If we had done so, the hon. member would probably be inclined to blame us and would say that we are trying to create a state of confusion.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the Secretary of State a question. In
Oral Questions
the light of the motion that the hon. member for Ottawa Centre managed to have adopted by the House today, could the Secretary of State widen the rather narrow scope of the talks with the province of Ontario in order to include any provincial government of good will which shows that it is sincerely willing to make language courses available to the greatest number of Canadians, thus avoiding the creation of new linguistic disparities in this country. [English]


Hon. James Hugh Faulkner (Secretary of State):: Yes, of course, Mr. Speaker, I discuss this question continuously with ministers of education of the provinces. There is a formula in place under which the federal government agrees to pay 9 per cent of the additional cost of any extended French language training program. That provision is available to any province which wishes to take advantage of it. Manitoba recently announced a major extension to that province's French language program. I discussed this matter with the minister of education of that province yesterday. The provinces can do this and we are prepared to respond through our program of financial assistance.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REQUEST FOR DETAILS OF AGREEMENT-DISPOSITION OF ATLANTIC RICHFIELD LEASES
Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Can the minister confirm if an agreement has been signed relating to the Syncrude project? If so, will he table that agreement? May I also ask, as one item in particular held up the signing of the agreement, what disposition is being made of the six Athabasca oil sand leases which were held by Atlantic Richfield? Are those leases to be turned over to Syncrude? If so, what price will be paid to Atlantic Richfield for those leases?


Hon. Alastair Gillespie (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, may I answer the second part of the question first? The leases are to be turned over. The Alberta government assured the participants that the leases will be turned over to them, that is, to the new participants. As to price, it will be done at no cost to those participants. As to the agreement itself, I must point out that it involved probably 90 documents, agreements and subagreements, etc. It is not one piece of paper that we discussed yesterday. We were trying to hammer out several of the remaining, major outstanding issues. I am pleased to announce that we did just that.


SYNCRUDE PROJECT-REASON FOR FAILURE TO STIPULATE IN AGREEMENT EMISSION STANDARDS FOR SULPHUR DIOXIDE
Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since the Department of the Environment found 287 long tons per day of sulphur dioxide emission unacceptable and said the emission should be reduced to 40 long tons per day, why is there no stipulation in the agreement for reducing progressively,

April 1, 1976
Oral Questions
over time, sulphur dioxide emissions? Or, are we to assume that the Department of the Environment is merely a public relations enterprise and that the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources intends to pay no attention to the Department of the Environment and ignore the commitment the Minister of the Environment made to this House on January 29 last?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure that the entire question should be directed to me. It must be clear to the hon. member that the federal government respects the jurisdiction of Alberta in environmental matters. It will be up to the province to set environmental standards.


UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE
Mr. Lincoln M. Alexander (Hamilton West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Manpower and Immigration. It relates to the recent report of the Economic Council of Canada which criticizes the inadequacy of the government's current programs and past performance. In its report released yesterday, the Economic Council says that much of the problems of abuse of unemployment insurance could be solved by two methods-by tightening administrative efforts to get persons back to work and creating jobs to absorb them. As these recommendations coincide with the very mandate of the Unemployment Insurance Commission, when will the minister rectify the serious discrepancy between the operation and the mandate of the Unemployment Insurance Commission? Will he make a statement in the near future, giving full details?


Hon. Robert K. Andras (Minister of Manpower and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, I do not agree with the premise of the question. The administration of unemployment insurance is efficient and tight.


REASON FOR FAILURE OF CLAIMANTS TO PURSUE JOB OPPORTUNITIES
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. With respect, the minister may not have read the report. It is a scathing indictment of ministers' programs and the government's attitude to people and jobs. As the report also indicates that 40 per cent of unemployment insurance claimants do not report to manpower centres to pursue job opportunities which present themselves, would the minister care to explain why UIC claimants are reluctant to take advantage of this service and why manpower centres are unable to encourage claimants to attend at the centres? I ask this as there is a problem in this regard.


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, many measures, with which the hon. member ought to be familiar by virtue of discussions in the standing committee, have been taken to increase the number of unemployment insurance claimants

registering with manpower offices. Indeed, these measures are increasingly successful. I do not agree with the 40 per cent figure the hon. gentleman quoted from the Economic Council's report.


ANTI-INFLATION BOARD PROPOSAL TO BRING PROPERTY AND CASUALTY INSURANCE COMPANIES UNDER BOARD-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question was to be directed to the Minister of Finance. In his understandable absence, since it deals with what the philosophy underlying the anti-inflation program can do to companies which operate at a loss, may I direct it to the Prime Minister? Will the right hon. gentleman say what is the government's response to the Anti-Inflation Board's proposal calling for all property and casualty insurance companies to be brought under the mandatory enforcement provisions of the Anti-Inflation Act? I ask this as these highly competitive companies collectively lost $400 million in the last two years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member will remember that in the policy paper published on October 13 it was indicated that, in cases where entities make a loss, they, of course, would not be bound by the strict application of the guidelines. To the extent that the hon. member asks a precise statistical question, I will take notice of it on behalf of the minister who is attending a federal-provincial conference of finance ministers.


Robert Jardine McCleave: A supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. Since, despite what the right hon. gentleman just said, the Anti-Inflation Board recommended that those companies should be brought under those provisions, is there not a serious conflict with the Prime Minister's philosophy?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. The philosophy I stated is as stated in the white paper. I suggested in the last part of my answer that this may be a particular circumstance of which I know nothing. I will look into the decision and refer it to the Minister of Finance for study.


MANPOWER
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Hastings):: Mr. Speaker, my question to the Minister of Manpower and Immigration is supplementary to that asked by the hon. member for Hamilton West. As the Economic Council recommended in its most recent review the putting together or amalgamation of manpower and employment offices, contrary to previous recommendations in which it advocated separation of these offices, will the minister now reverse his decision and integrate these two services under one jurisdiction, so that they may provide worth while service?
April 1, 1976


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I think I answered that question recently in the House.


ALLEGED INCREASES IN JOB VACANCIES AND NUMBER OF UNEMPLOYED-GOVERNMENT ACTION
Mr. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a supplementary question to the minister? As the report of the Economic Council of Canada tabled yesterday notes a new and unusual phenomenon, rising unemployment and increasing numbers of job vacancies-something which has come about despite the many assurances the minister gave to the manpower committee when he spoke of the various programs now in place for acquainting the unemployed with job opportunities-will the minister step up liaison with the private sector in order to direct Canadians to long-term jobs?


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, the situation is far more complex than that. The number of vacancies unfilled is, unfortunately, by no means the same as the number of people looking for jobs. As for liaison with the private sector, that has been considerably stepped up during the last two or three years through the job information centres and many other measures we introduced in the last two or three years.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. It is reported that mediation talks have broken down between the aircraft safety operations group and MOT and that a nationwide walk-out has been ordered by the union, leaving no safety supervision or procedure for reviewing pilots' licences. What measures will the minister be taking, since this will eventually ground all commercial air travel in Canada? I would point out to the minister that there are 11 Air Canada pilots whose licences have expired.


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, a certain number of steps were taken to extend licences when it was clear that that could be done without any hazard. That kind of action was a limited measure to delay the impact of any extended walkout. However, there is a limit to what can be done with regard to postponing the difficulties.
Oral Questions PUBLIC SERVICE


THREATENED STRIKE OF AIR SAFETY OPERATIONS GROUP-GOVERNMENT ACTION TO SETTLE
A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I will direct my supplementary question to the President of the Treasury Board if he will resume his seat. He has certainly been bouncing around today. The talks are over wages and the direct responsibility of Treasury Board. If the walkout is allowed to continue, within a few weeks there will be few licenced commercial pilots left in Canada, as their licences are expiring daily. Will the minister intervene, resume and speed up negotiations before commercial air travel is completely grounded in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, in that field the workers have the right to strike and it is a right given to them by Parliament.
However, this Parliament passed a legislation last October establishing guidelines within which bargaining must be conducted. We intend to negotiate within those guidelines and if the association concerned would understand our position, we could reach an agreement within those guidelines. The legislation does not allow us to exceed the guidelines.


INDUSTRY
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, I wish to ask the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce whether he is aware that the management of Douglas Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, announced yesterday its plan to lay off 150 workers, whether he will endeavour to take immediate steps to help save the jobs of these workers and also approach his cabinet colleagues to accelerate the federal government's study to develop a sound policy for the Canadian aerospace industry?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. I was advised of the plans by McDonnell-Douglas of Canada Limited. They followed a month of very intensive negotiations between myself and representatives of McDonnell-Douglas to see if there was a solution. We responded positively and with two specific proposals which McDonnell-Douglas did not feel they were in a position to accept. I understand that their statement yesterday with regard to the layoffs indicated that the Canadian government had done everything it possibly could in the circumstances, but that the business situation of the company was such that they could not in fact retain the employees any longer.

April 1, 1976
Oral Questions


COMMUNICATIONS
Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the Minister of Communications.
Last week her Quebec counterpart suggested in a public conference the setting up of a bipartite task force made up of officials of both governments whose terms of reference would be to determine the special demands of Quebec for which some constitutional clarifications might be useful. Is the minister willing to say whether she will comply with the wish expressed by her Quebec counterpart?


Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Minister of Communications):: have not yet received Mr. Hardy's suggestion. I read it in the papers like the hon. member, but I can say that I am in favour of the setting up of that committee and of frequent meetings between federal and provincial officials. However, I would wish, as I have already said, that the terms of reference of that committee were much broader so that we might consider all the problems dividing us presently.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the recent statements by the Director General of the Canadian Forestry Service, who is also a policy adviser to the Minister of the Environment, calling for the development of a national forest policy, saying that our forests are not well managed by even the most "permissive and charitable of yardsticks", can the Minister of the Environment inform the House whether he has within his jurisdiction the capacity to respond to these recommendations, and what particular agency will be made responsible to address itself to this challenge?


Hon. Jean Marchand (Minister of the Environment):: have no communication to that effect, Mr. Speaker.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the President of the Treasury Board. Last year the amount of money spent by this government on casual workers hired through personnel firms increased by 77 per cent. Treasury Board alone more than doubled the amount it spent through these private agencies from $209,000 to $492,000. Considering that these private firms rip-off anywhere from 20 to 50 per cent of the wages of these workers, my question then is why is the government using these private firms rather than using the existing facilities of the Canada Manpower Centres to save the government

money and prevent the exploitation of these casual workers?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, this is a mechanism used by many organizations to fill positions on a temporary basis. Every department can do it, but this does not create new jobs. The departments must use the money already appropriated for the number of man-years that they are allowed, and until now, we have found this mechanism rather effective. But we are now looking into this problem with the Public Service Commission to determine whether it would be possible to develop a somewhat similar mechanism within the public service that would not be more costly for the administration.


John R. Rodriguez: Was the use of temporary employees included in the announced austerity measures in December which stated that hiring would be held to a 1.5 per cent increase this year and, if they were not, can we then expect to see another doubling of the use of temporarys in the upcoming year?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the casual employees within the civil service are considered within the guidelines. That means if they are casual employees, they are included in the moneys allocated to every department. Therefore, that will not change the maximum of 1.5 set in the budget.


RESEARCH ON WIND RESOURCES-REQUEST FOR REPORT
Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Since the research on traditional oil resources has declined more quickly than the National Energy Board had expected, and because of the threat of an energy shortage in the near future, can the minister tell the House whether his department has developed research programs in the field of wind energy, and if so, can he report on the true potential of wind energy in Canada?


Alastair William Gillespie: Mr. Speaker, in an announcement that I made about two weeks ago, I indicated that the government was increasing its expenditures for research and development, including research and development in renewable resources, solar and wind energy. The National Research Council is the agency responsible for administering the wind energy program. I invite the hon. member to contact them for further information. If I can be of any assistance, I will be glad to provide it.
April 1, 1976


AGRICULTURE
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: Mr. Speaker, it is late in the day, but I would like to direct a question to the Minister of Agriculture. Has the minister received a letter of resignation from one of the members of the National Farm Products Marketing Council over a disagreement with the CEMA policy and alleged discrimination in the allocation of birds and quotas to take effect this weekend? If so, what is he going to do about it?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I am
going to accept his resignation, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Is the minister going to accept it today and rescind it tomorrow or is he going to accept it completely? What will the situation be, since the member who resigned is an ex-president of the Lambton-Kent Liberal Association and a political appointee of this political minister?


Eugene Whelan: As to the accusation the hon. member has made, I am sure he is not aware it is not factual or he would not have made it. The member he talks about was not appointed by this minister. He was recommended by the Ontario Federation of Agriculture to the minister at that time, who accepted the recommendation. He has a large farm, he has a young family; he has an obligation to them and he wants to return to his farm. Last year he wanted to resign but I suggested to him he should stay one year longer to serve his country and he did stay on to serve his country with distinction.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


James Armstrong Richardson: Mr. Speaker, at this time I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the national cadet rifle champions.
Some hon Members: Hear, hear!


James Armstrong Richardson: The Pickering high school cadet corps won the Ontario championship six weeks ago and last weekend went on to take the Canadian championship.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Business of the House MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE


Mr. Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate informing this House that the Senate has passed Bill S-33, an act respecting United Grain Growers Limited, to which the concurrence of this House is desired.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: The President of the Treasury Board on a point of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: In replying to a question put by the Leader of the Opposition earlier, I forgot to say that Mr. Keith Spicer will appear before the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates on April 29.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether the government House leader is in a position to announce the business for the balance of today, for tomorrow and for the first of next week.


Mr. Sharp:: Perhaps I ought to begin by saying it is the intention of the government that the Easter adjournment shall begin at the end of the day on Wednesday, April 14, and that we shall return on April 26. I say this by way of a preliminary statement before filling in the business for most of the time between now and then. Today, I hope that after disposing of the motion I intend to move, and of which I have given notice, for an allocation of time in respect of Bill C-83-


Mr. Paproski:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: Closure!


Mitchell William Sharp: -a motion which I hope we shall see agreed to more frequently by the opposition in the future in order to provide for the more orderly disposal of business, we shall then go on to consider the prisoners of war bill, C-92. Following that, in this order, for the remainder of today and tomorrow we shall take Bills C-92, S-32, C-88 and C-20. If the House agrees to the notice which is on notices of motions, we shall on Monday and Tuesday turn to the consideration of objections to the reports of the Redistribution Commissioners. After those have been disposed of, we shall return to the consideration, during the four days which will be provided in the allocation order, if it is accepted, of Bill C-83.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Mr. Speaker, on the same point of order, may I ask the government House leader this question: In view of the resignation of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, and in view of the fact that new laws to combat loan sharks and control business monopolies are now sitting in limbo, does the minister consider the situation is important enough to call for the announcement of

April 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Yewch.uk
the appointment of a new minister of consumer affairs in the near future?


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, the acting minister is one of the more vigorous members of this administration, and nothing which is in his hands can be described as being in limbo. He is a very active proponent of the principles embodied in that legislation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the government House leader whether he will include Bill C-81 in the bills to be dealt with before Easter, so that we can amend the legislation and make the freeze on our incomes complete?


Mitchell William Sharp: There would remain on the schedule which I have announced two days on which business has not been allocated. This is one of the possibilities. I trust we will have the wholehearted support of the hon. gentleman for the proposed law.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Athabasca on a question of privilege.


Mr. Paul Yewchuk (Athabasca):: I was always under the impression, Mr. Speaker, that a question of privilege superseded a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The hon. member will realize that every Thursday it is the practice of the House to clarify the business to be undertaken. The hon. member will understand that this is a general question which is of interest to everyone in the House and that it ought to take precedence in certain circumstances.


Paul Yewchuk: My question of privilege deals with the position of members of parliament who are medical doctors, and their right to sit on the health committee and examine any and all witnesses who come before the committee in a manner in keeping with their own judgment, free of any fear that their motives will be questioned by other members of parliament, by the press or by anyone else.
On March 25, representatives of the Canadian Medical Association appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs concerning the subject matter of Bill C-68. During that meeting, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) clearly attempted to impute motives to certain Conservative members of parliament by implying that they had a particular pecuniary self-interest to protect, thereby attempting to undermine their credibility as members of parliament and prejudice their right to speak freely in accordance with their conscience before the standing committee. The offending comments are reported on page 20 of issue No. 44 of the committee proceedings as follows:

It is remarkable from the other side how doctors do stick together. They praise this brief and I would like to say even over a dead body, but I say they are certainly getting together on a dead issue.
Even more offensive is the following comment, also by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway:
It is better that some people who get the service and who are paying for the service started asking a few questions and I am asking them on behalf of my constituents who seek the medical service and who are paying for it.
Clearly, in the second quotation, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is implying that she is suited to ask questions on behalf of her constituents, but that members of the official opposition who are MPs and physicians are not-that these members put a professional interest before their public duty. Personally, Mr. Speaker, I ceased active practice four years ago. I asked the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway to withdraw her comments which I felt were undermining my credibility as a member of parliament trying to do his job. She replied as follows:
My indication is that you were giving evidence as though you were witnesses over there.
In short, she refused to withdraw her comment. In regard to the CTV network and their employee, Eric Mailing, he stated the following day, March 26, on the "Canada AM" program at 8.20 a.m.:
The Conservative representation on the committee consisted of four doctors and a more shameless defence of the witnesses I have never seen. The way these doctors stick together you would think they had a sponge in a stiff-the entire lot of them.
Mr. Speaker, there is only one way, in my view, that that comment could be interpreted, and this is that doctor MPs on the Conservative side were not acting in the best interests of the public of Canada, but by sticking together were acting in their own self-interest or the interest of their former profession.
In committee, the chairman, on the question of privilege raised by myself that the member for Vancouver-Kingsway should withdraw her allegations, ruled, in effect, that there was no prejudice. The comment by Mr. Mailing occurred, of course, outside parliament and has not been dealt with in any way to date. What is required here, Mr. Speaker, is reaffirmation that doctor MPs are entitled to the same rights and privileges as all other MPs-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul Yewchuk: -regardless of their employment before they came to parliament as representatives of the people of Canada, as well as corrective action by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway and Mr. Mailing of the CTV network.
There are many examples of members of parliament sitting on committees related to their original employment-for example, farmer MPs speaking out vigorously on behalf of the rights and needs of Canada's farmers- without being placed under suspicion by other MPs for so doing. Members of Parliament who may have an interest in the fishing industry speak out on behalf of the fishing industry; indeed, any MP can speak of income tax laws, vote against income tax increases, and so on, and not be placed under the suspicion that he or she is acting in their
April 1, 1976

own self-interest. And finally, Mr. Speaker, this applies even to members of parliament voting upon and debating bills before the House dealing with salaries and services of members of parliament.
I move, therefore, that the subject matter of this question of privilege be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think there is at this point a very fundamental procedural difficulty in regard to the question raised by the hon. member. There seem to be other hon. members who wish to contribute by way of argument or debate to the intent of the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) which were referred to by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yew-chuk). However, the fact is that on the description of the hon. member for Athabasca, the events complained of took place in a standing committee of the House. Indeed, a remedy was sought, or at least according to the description of the hon. member for Athabasca a remedy was sought, in that standing committee and was in some way dealt with at the time by the standing committee.
It has been a very long-standing and clear practice of this House that at no time before any proceedings of a standing committee are reported does this House in any way appeal, examine or scrutinize events which have taken place or decisions or rulings made in a standing committee. Before other hon. members make any intervention in this regard, I would want to make it very clear that this has been a long-standing practice in the House, one from which this incumbent has no desire to depart. However, there may be other hon. members who wish to speak to this question of privilege.


Mr. P. B. Rynard (Simcoe North):: Mr. Speaker, my complaint is particularly in regard to the reporting of the CTV network representative, one Eric Mailing, who on March 26, on the "Canada AM" program made this statement which is completely false and unfounded. As a matter of fact, I will call as my witness the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) who stated, as reported at page 44:29 of the health, welfare and social affairs committee, line 28, that she found the hon. member for Simcoe North's evidence very interesting and constructive to the committee.


Mr. J. R. Holmes (Lambton-Kent):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. It was stated by Eric Mailing on CTV, March 26, 1976, that a conflict of interest arose when four Conservative MP physicians were in attendance at the meeting of the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs at which time the Canadian Medical Association presented their brief on Bill C-68. It is my contention that his statements were false and misrepresented my rights, responsibilities and obligations as a member of this parliament. I find his conclusions of the meeting not only unacceptable but illogical. If one is to accept his thesis regarding conflict of interest, then it would preclude farmers from serving on the agricultural committee, lawyers on the judiciary committee, businessmen on the industry, trade and commerce committee, and I could go on to give other examples.
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
I have been impressed with the board range of interest and knowledge displayed by members from all corners of the House. I am also impressed that each member offers a degree of expertise in various areas which contributes in a very positive way to the operation of the House and its standing committees. I respectfully submit that members of parliament who have been trained in and have practised medicine provide special expertise in questioning medical witnesses which can be invaluable when combined with the questioning of other interested members of the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: With respect to the standing committee meeting held on March 25 at which the Canadian Medical Association presented their brief, I must indicate that I did not have the opportunity to question the witnesses, as implied by Mr. Mailing. This is not to protest the manner in which the meeting was conducted by the chairman, since he was committed to a fixed time schedule. However, Mr. Speaker, I have no doubt that this incident was provoked either intentionally or unintentionally by the final questioner, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway. In retrospect, I believe that had time permitted additional questioning of the witnesses, the incident might have been defused and this question of privilege made unnecessary.
If the reporter in question had researched his subject matter, he would have found during the second reading debate of Bill C-68 that I made no reference to the Canadian Medical Association, no reference to physicians' salaries or incomes, but was concerned about the future of medicine in Canada and specifically about the quality of medical care. If that reporter had also taken the time to review the debate during private members' hour on May 29, 1975, he would have found that on that occasion I took a position opposed to the official policy of the Canadian Medical Association. Finally, if that reporter had taken the opportunity to read the health paper I had written before the national convention held in Ottawa in 1974, it would have been obvious that my questioning could have been constructive to the proceedings of that day.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: Mr. Speaker, I wish to make one or two brief comments-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I do not want unduly to restrict the hon. member, but I think he surely must realize that he has gone fairly far afield from the original question of privilege which was raised. I wonder whether he would return to it.


John Robert Holmes: May I make one or two brief comments, Mr. Speaker, regarding politics, development of public policy and the role of parliamentarians, which matters I think are extremely important in this instance. My mandate is to represent all the constituents in my riding of Lambton-Kent irrespective of their political persuasion, vocation, problems or interests. That has been, and will continue to be, my primary responsibility. For an individual to suggest or imply that my purpose is to represent a special interest group either reflects naivete or lack of understanding on their part of the duties and responsibilities of a member of
12360

April 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
parliament, or in the extreme must be construed as irresponsible reporting.
Sir, I have been impressed since my arrival in Ottawa in 1972 that the two principal academic disciplines used to prepare the would-be politicians are law and political science. Many students of political science go into the public service, becoming administrators of policy and advisers to those making decisions. Their training may best be described as the art of the possible, not concentrating on idealism but on the practicalities of the political system. The decisions, sir, are made by the legislators, many of whom have studied law on the general principle that-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Again, I do not wish to interrupt the hon. member. Much of what he is saying, of course, has value. It is not that these are not important observations on the role of a member of parliament, whether or not he is also a member of the medical profession, as in this particular case. However, the question the Chair has to decide at the moment is in respect of a rather narrow and confined question of privilege. On the one hand, hon. members are concerned about the proceedings of a standing committee and the remarks of another hon. member. There were certain procedural difficulties involved which I have already exposed. The second point has to do with the comments on the reporting of a journalist vis-a-vis the functions of the standing committee, or the motives of an hon. member of this House.
In both instances there is, and has been, a clear and unbroken line of precedents to the effect that neither constitutes a question of privilege. I am trying to extend to the hon. member as much leeway as possible in the matter, but there are several other members who seek the floor and I wonder if the hon. member might continue on that basis.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. If there has been a reflection on any member of this House by another member, there is a privilege. There was an incident not too long ago when this House took upon itself an examination of the very point, only it was regarding a different form of the media. It is important, sir, that this House not sit idly by, letting anyone play with its morals or standard. The duty is upon you, sir, to protect us by allowing members of parliament to speek their piece when they feel their reputations as members of this House have been challenged.


Mr. Basford:: Mr. Speaker, I want to make a very brief comment. I am sure the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) who has raised this issue has given the House a full, fair and responsible report of what happened in proceedings about which I know nothing. I have no intention of saying anything about the conduct of members or persons in this House or elsewhere, whether on CTV or otherwise, but I would ask that if Your Honour's ruling on this matter in any way relates to statements made by or the conduct of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Miss Holt), your decision be reserved so that she may,

depending on your intention in this matter, be heard by members of the House.


An hon. Member:: She knew it was coming up and that is why she is not here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Lambton-Kent (Mr. Holmes) was in the process of speaking.


John Robert Holmes: I have three or four short paragraphs, Mr. Speaker, but I will bow to the wishes of the Chair.


Mr. Speaker:: I want to make it perfectly clear that I was not trying to stop the hon. member for Lambton-Kent.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I simply want him to keep his remarks within the narrow confines of the question of privilege.


An hon. Member:: Sit down, then, and let him do so.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Robert Holmes: Thank you very much, Mr. Speaker. You are most gracious, under the circumstances. Perhaps I may just conclude. I was talking about the composition of parliaments and the predominance of lawyers and graduates of political science among those who make the decisions, as we see it. I think all we need do is look at the predominance of lawyers in the cabinet. The same is true of the international political scene, where a great many are trained in the arts of existing political life, which in effect is an adversary system. I want to suggest, in all seriousness, that the adversary system is not always productive and in today's society of turbulence such a system, I believe, in many instances is outmoded.
I am the first to recognize the effectiveness and importance of the academic disciplines to which I have referred in this House, and I know it is not necessary for me to defend their presence. However, many of the problems in today's society, touching not only the lives of Canadians but on all individuals within our global community, should be approached with reasoning and not confrontation and partisan politics. It is my opinion-I believe, shared by others-that there are times when adversary politics could be replaced by an intelligent, unemotional assessment of objective facts combined with a genuine concern for human beings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Robert Holmes: I would suggest to you, sir, that there are many members in this chamber who approach their duties in this manner, recognizing this may have minimal media appeal, but firm in the belief that such a role can be constructive in our political process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to say a few brief words on this question of privilege relating to the conduct of a committee. I would address my remarks specifically to the question regarding
April 1, 1976

the matter not being referred to the House. Standing Order 65(11) is the authority of the chairman in the committee, and it states that he-
-shall maintain order in the committees; deciding all questions of order subject to an appeal to the committee; but disorder in a committee can only be censured by the House-
The matter before us is not a matter of order, it is a question of privilege, and that is distinctly different from a question of order. Keeping in mind the constitution of our committees, I would suggest that committee chairmen do not have access to the expertise to which the Chair has access, nor do they possess the experience of the Chair. The clerk and the assistant clerks of the House have a great source of expertise instantly available to Mr. Speaker. The Speaker can consult with the clerks, who can research a decision and they can advise him at his elbow. That is not the quality of the clerks of committee, and I say that with the greatest respect. Regretfully, most of the clerks are not well versed in the rules and privileges of this chamber. Therefore, I do not think it is quite right, and I say, with the greatest respect to the Chair, that for Your Honour to suggest that a question of privilege can be disposed of summarily by a chairman of a committee, that being the end of the matter, is not proper.
Members' privileges can be infringed upon just as grievously, and sometimes even more so, in committee as in this House. Committees, being extensions of this House, I fail to see how the rights and privileges of hon. members can in any way be diminished or be less in a committee than in the House. It is my submission that on a fair reading of the Standing Order, part of which I quoted, a question of privilege arising in a committee should always be referable to the Speaker of this House.


Mr. Robert C. Coates (Cumberland-Colchester North):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) covered some of the points to which I should like to refer. I am not referring to what went on outside this House after something took place, but to what went on in this House in relation to something that transpired at the committee, a committee which I believe is a creature of this institution. You, sir, have been appointed as the guardian of our rules and privileges. We must refer matters that transpire to you, more or less as the chief justice of a court, just as we do when a lower court makes a decision which in our opinion is not fair and equitable. In this particular case, the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has attempted to appeal to you because he is not happy with the fairness or the end result of a decision rendered by the chairman of the committee of which he was a member. I think also, that all of us in the House must expect from our colleagues, regardless of our vocation before we came here, that they would respect what we say and what we do as being done without any particular vested interest, and that what we do is done on behalf of our constituents and, more especially, on behalf of the Canadian people at large.
We should learn not to gang-up in any way, in any type of clique, to try to put a point across. I believe that when any member endeavours to leave that impression, which might result in some newspaper commentator saying something which in effect mirrors what was said in the committee, was objected to and thrown out, then all of us here are in difficulties in trying to determine whether or not we
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
should censor what we say because someone might believe that what we say is associated with something we have done in the past.
We must be very careful to be fully protected against that kind of charge by anyone at any time, and I believe that the only person to whom we can look to give us that kind of protection is you, Mr. Speaker. It may be one of the more difficult responsibilities that you have to assume- but I believe you do have to assume that responsibility. If the precedents are not in our favour, then I say, sir, make new precedents to give us the protection because the law we have today is only the law we have today because judges at some time, somewhere, made a decision which was different from what previous judges said in certain areas.
I do not believe you can ignore the fact that the committee system is a creature of this parliament-and you, sir, whether you like it or not, are responsible for the committee system and for the protection of members within that system as much as you are our protector here in this chamber. I ask you, sir, to give us the same kind of justice in the committee system which you have been willing to provide us with in this chamber, and I think all members in the House would then be happy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I have a great deal of sympathy for the point raised by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). However, I recognize that the point you made with reference to the question of privilege being raised in committee is one that has been followed in the past. There has been no precedent whereby a question of privilege raised in committee has been referred to the House.
I would point out to the hon. gentleman opposite that presently there exists a committee of which Your Honour is the chairman, dealing with the rights and obligations of members of parliament. Surely that is a topic which should be dealt with by that committee, formed of responsible members from all the parties in the House, and the time of the House should not be spent further with that point, which seems to be the only point of interest before the House.


Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, once again the House of Commons has to deal with a problem of improper comments which are misinterpreted. This is not the first time, Mr. Speaker, that the House of Commons must deal with such a matter and I think that the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) has rightly raised a question of privilege.
Mr. Speaker, a committee of the House of Commons is an integral part of the House. Its power proceeds from the House. The committees have the same powers as the House itself from which its powers proceed. Mr. Speaker, the interpretation of statements is too serious a matter to be taken lightly. Recently, a minister tendered his resignation and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) accepted it. All this as the result of a statement made outside the House. It is
21804-21%

April 1, 1976
Privilege-Mr. Yewchuk
therefore an important matter. There has been in this House during the year 1975-76 a number of instances where a member on either side clashed with a newspaperman, was misquoted by him or gave him an indication that went beyond his thoughts.
Mr. Speaker, I submit our rules in this respect are definitely evasive, inadequate and outmoded. In this respect neither hon. members nor the Chair, if I may respectfully submit, can determine exactly what our privileges are. On the basis of what authority, either in Beauchesne or in May, can we define exactly the rights of the hon. member for Athabasca, or for Shefford (Mr. Rondeau), or Temisca-mingue (Mr. Caouette) or Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin)? The rules are very evasive, which leads to very unfortunate situations where for instance newspapermen gleefully report some remarks that seem to have been said in the heat of the discussion during our work.
Mr. Speaker, personally I am convinced of the integrity of the four Progressive Conservative members sitting on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. I believe these members work to the best of their ability. The fact they are MD's finally enhances the quality of that committee's work. We have no right to imply that kind of intentions or allegations. But referring to the Chair's earlier remarks, you will no doubt agree, Mr. Speaker, that on the basis of an evasive, inadequate and outmoded rule, as I said, you cannot intervene and efficiently protect the hon. members' rights.
This issue therefore is absolutely basic, because it imperils every member in this House under the heat of action, without practically giving him any protection. Mr. Speaker, in the name of my colleagues I wish that on the acceptability and value on merits of the extremely valid question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Athabasca, your ruling also include very positive propositions for the preparation in 1976 of a modern wording in which the rights of members would be clearly defined, so that we know where we stand once and for all. This would benefit newspapermen or other colleagues that may utter certain indications under the heat of discussion, which is only normal. We were elected to give our views. Let us have the means of expressing opinions.
Mr. Speaker, in conclusion I say this: we have had recently an experience with the former Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) who, in the heat of the debate, made a certain statement concerning some sugar companies and a certain judge. This has cost the minister his department and his case is still pending before the courts.
Again all this happened not because the minister was right or wrong, that does not matter to me. But what intrigues me and especially concerns me is the fact that today members of parliament, while doing their duty, if they go a little too far and if they do not accomplish their task, are once more censured by the people. Between the Standing Orders of this House which everyone refers to with great admiration, in the final analysis they do not protect the member, do not convey any kind of privilege since neither the Chair nor any member can spell out truly what these privileges are, how far we can go, what are our rights and our responsibilities.

Mr. Speaker, that is why I will conclude by saying that the Chair should take very seriously the question of privilege of the hon. member for Athabaska (Mr. Yewchuk) since it is only another problem that adds to all these incidents relating to privileges that have taken place for a year or so and because of which this House cannot properly carry out its business, is more or less effective in its proceedings and even less in its measures and, in particular is impeded at given times by the legal aspect.
Mr. Speaker, this matter has gone too far to be dealt with lightly. In view of the fact that the incident referred to by the hon. member for Athabaska happened in one of the creatures of the House of Commons, that is to say in a standing committee, I suggest that this House must not ignore it. It must assume its responsibilities and review the decisions made within one of its creatures, in this case a standing committee. Finally, it must take this opportunity to really determine the rights and privileges of hon. members so that they really be able to do the work for which they are paid.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton has already made a contribution to this question of privilege. Is he rising on the same question of privilege?


Walter David Baker: I was going to make a suggestion as to how we might proceed if no other hon. member wishes to contribute. I think the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) made an excellent suggestion. I think the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) ought to be given the opportunity to reflect on what she has said and perhaps done to affect this institution, and be given the opportunity to explain and, hopefully, withdraw remarks which by any stretch of the imagination are at least offensive.


Mr. Speaker:: The question of privilege is raised by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Yewchuk) further to the notice he gave the House yesterday. The hon. member raises three procedural questions: first, whether in fact the remarks of the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt) constitute a question of privilege, aside from the fact that they were made in committee; whether the remarks of the reporter referred to outside this House, or in fact any reporter's comments on the performance of any member of the House can, or, to be more specific-if it is possible-constitute a question of privilege, and whether the matter, having been dealt with in committee, the Chair ought to attempt-frankly, against all precedents-to sit in appeal on judgments of procedure made in standing committees. However, these questions are valid enough to be considered.
Furthermore, in respect to the first of the three questions, the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is not in the House at the moment, and it is clearly in the interests of a full understanding of the events which took place, or the events which have been described by the hon. member for Athabasca, and in keeping with one of the clear practices of the House, that in questions of privilege of this
April 1, 1976

sort, whether or not they technically amount to a question of privilege, pending such a decision it has always been the practice of the House, certainly whenever possible, to give an opportunity to the hon. members involved to expose their thinking and to make whatever explanations may be warranted in the circumstances.
Certainly, the Chair would be very reluctant to try to make a final decision on any of the three questions unless and until the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway has either had an opportunity to make an intervention or declines to do so. Accordingly, in the circumstances it would seem the best course for the moment would be for the Chair to reserve any decision, at least until that event takes place, and then after such intervention, if it does take place, further reservation of the matter may be warranted.
I conclude by saying that I think hon. members understand that it is not the desire of the Chair to in any way encourage either a relaxation of the protection of the privileges of any member or to downgrade the quality of respect which is owed by one member of the House to all other members. The practice of this House, in taking most seriously any imputation of motives to any of the members of the House in the conduct of their duties, is one which has been clearly followed in the past. In the eyes of the House an imputation of motives is clearly reprehensible. Whether or not it has constituted privilege, it certainly has been a reprehensible practice, and it is certainly not the desire of the Chair at this time to relax the vigil that the House has always maintained in that regard. However, it might be appropriate to hear from the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway before going any further.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order which arises from an answer which the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) gave this afternoon to my question regarding casual and part-time workers in the federal civil service. I am quite sure the minister did not mean intentionally to mislead the House, but he indicated that his announced austerity with respect to growth in the federal service of 1.5 per cent in man-hours involves all workers, including part-time and casual workers.
I spoke with officials in the minister's department prior to asking the question and I was assured by them that the 1.5 per cent growth in the federal civil service included only permanent and term employees, not those who are under contract or who are casual workers. I thought I ought to bring that to the attention of the House in the hope that the minister may be reading this before tomorrow and he may be able to clarify it within his department and to this House.


TRANSPORT AND COMMUNICATIONS
[Stage Direction]
Thirteenth report of Standing Committee on Transport and Communications-Mr. Campbell.
Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), on behalf of the Minister of Finance, I should
Electoral Boundaries
like to table, in both official languages, a statement made by the hon. Minister of Finance at the federal-provincial conference of ministers of finance on federal-provincial fiscal arrangements.


PROXY VOTING ACT (AIRMEN) MEASURE TO CLARIFY DEFINITIONS IN CANADA ELECTIONS ACT
J. Michael Forrestall: for leave to introduce Bill C-431, to amend the Canada Elections Act.


Some hon. Members:: Explain.


J. Michael Forrestall: Mr. Speaker, the purpose of this bill is to extend to those employees of commercial aircraft, mainline carriers, regional carriers and any other registered aircraft carriers the privileges which are extended to certain other categories during election time with respect to proxy voting. I commend the bill to hon. members of the House.


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

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to the notice of motion I gave yesterday, I should now like to move the motion under Standing Order 75C.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The House knows the terms of the motion, and the House is aware that pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 75C in respect of which the notice was given yesterday, a debate of to hours' duration may begin. There remain only any other motions which might be called pursuant to motions today and questions on the order paper. I wonder if hon. members might agree that it would be in order, before entering into such debate, simply to dispose of questions on the order paper and any other motions, if there are any, in order to complete routine proceedings before putting this motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Beaudoin:: We agree, Mr. Speaker.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, hopefully, I will have the agreement of the House to approve a motion which appears under notices of motions at page 13 of today's order paper as follows:
That, on Monday, April 5, 1976, the House shall continue to sit between 6.00 p.m. and 8.00 p.m.;
That, on Tuesday, April 6, 1976, the House shall not adjourn until the completion of the business provided for in this order;

April 1, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
That, on the aforementioned days, no private members business shall be taken up;
That, on the aforementioned days, the business taken up shall be the consideration of objections to reports of Electoral Boundaries Commissions;
That all objections to any given report be considered at the same time;
That the objections or groups of objections, as the case may be, be considered in the order in which the objection or first objection in the group, as the case may be, was laid upon the table; and
That during the consideration of any objection or group of objections, as the case may be, no member shall speak more than once, nor for more than twenty minutes.
Ordinarily, this would not come before the House until tomorrow. I have had discussions with representatives of the other parties, however, and I wonder whether there would be unanimous consent to deal with it today. I make this suggestion because I announced in the business of the House that on Monday and Tuesday we would deal with these distribution objections; but until we have approved this order the business of the House is a bit uncertain.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the government House leader has discussed the matter with me and we are prepared to consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Léonel Beaudoin: D'accord.


Mr. Penner:: Mr. Speaker, I wish to rise at this time on a point of order relating to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of Ontario which was laid before this House by Your Honour on February 27, 1976. I will explain why I am raising this point of order now. In view of the order referred to by the President of the Privy Council and the other House leaders relating to the debate which is to take place next week, and wishing to assure the President of the Privy Council and the other House leaders-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps there is a lesson to be learned here. If we attempt to depart from the traditional order of events, we may experience difficulty. Perhaps other hon. members will want to contribute to the point of order the hon. member for Thunder Bay wishes to raise. I do not know, as I would not gainsay such a possibility. As things now stand, the President of the Privy Council has proposed an order respecting Standing Order 75C. Questions remain on the order paper. If we depart from the proper order of business we could run into difficulty in attempting to dispose of the point of order now and in the hope that consent for the other matter may be given. I think the safest procedure would be to take matters as they come. I wonder if the House would care to provide some guidance on the point.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I do not think it would hurt if the government House leader were permitted to put his motion and we dealt with the point of order after that. If the point of order is found to be valid, could it not be dealt with in connection with the report concerning Ontario? I understand the hon. member's posi-

tion. I do not think it would be amiss, procedurally, if we dealt with it in that way.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would it not be more appropriate for the point of order to be raised when the first Ontario objections are dealt with on Monday? Surely the point of order does not apply to the passing of this procedural motion. Surely it ought to be raised when we consider the Ontario report.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All this shows the difficulties one can encounter when one tries to depart from the regular order of doing business.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, could we not deal with the matter this way: could we not go ahead with the motion proposing an allocation of time under Standing Order 75C? After that is disposed of, we could call this motion for the business on Monday and Tuesday. The point of order could be raised after the question is put, that is, after we have disposed of the motion under Standing Order 75C.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Questions on the order paper remain. I think we shall run into difficulty if we attempt to reorganize our program. We have called motions. The President of the Privy Council wishes to propose a motion pursuant to Standing Order 75C. Obviously, the simplest course is the direct one. We should proceed with the motion in its proper place in the proceedings of the day.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mitchell William Sharp: That, in relation to Bill C-83, an Act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, four sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and
That, on the fourth of the said days, at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then before the House, if required for the purpose of this order, and, shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the said bill.
He said: Mr. Speaker, Bill C-83 has now been before the House at the second reading stage on six days. There have been 29 members who have spoken in this debate and, quite clearly, many more also wish to put their views on the record.
The issues raised by this bill are great in number and in complexity. With such a bill there comes a time when general debate ceases to contribute to the resolution of such issues and a more detailed consideration is required. We on this side feel that that time is fast approaching with regard to Bill C-83. We feel that this bill should be referred to the standing committee in the very near future. In my discussions with my counterparts in the opposition I did not find, I think it is fair to say, disagreement with the proposition that the time to send the bill to committee was fast approaching. What we could not agree on, however,
April 1, 1976

was how fast that time was approaching. My counterparts were not in a position to agree to any arrangements for concluding the debate and sending the bill to committee. Therefore, the government had to take the responsibility.
It is important to note that this motion does not end discussion of the issues raised in Bill C-83. Far from it. This motion provides four additional days of debate at second reading. Then the bill will go to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, where witnesses may be heard and the bill will be given very thorough consideration. After committee, of course, there is the report stage, and after that there will be a very thorough debate at third reading. Thus, this motion is not so much intended to restrict discussion as to move it in an orderly fashion into a more satisfactory forum.
I think in the long run it is beneficial to members on all sides to know in advance how much time is to be given to various debates, and I hope that in the future it will be possible more often to fix the time for debates by agreement among the parties. As things now stand, open-ended debates at the early stages of measures such as this help neither their advocates nor their opponents. Members supporting a measure all too often hesitate to intervene in debate lest the time taken be unduly extended. Members opposing a measure tend, after a while, to repeat arguments and to lose thereby the attention of the media and the public. I might say that a strong advocate of this course was the former leader of the Progressive Conservative party who, like myself, felt that we should concentrate our efforts more in committee and on third reading than on second reading stage.


Steve Eugene Paproski: But he was not in favour of the muzzle at second reading.


Mitchell William Sharp: The legislative process is deliberately designed to provide opportunities for members not only to examine bills but also to stimulate public response. This particular bill raises issues that have been of public interest for many months. It was introduced late in February and will have received second reading by mid-April after being debated in the House on ten days. This does not seem to me to be an unreasonable amount of time either in terms of House time or of the over-all passage of time that is necessary to stimulate public response. Now it will go to committee where, as I have said, it will receive careful consideration. In due course it will be passed, but that will be many weeks from now. This time allocation motion does not end debate. We are attempting to make the legislative process an orderly one. We would prefer to do it by agreement. We hope that members will soon realize that parties do not have to agree on a bill in order to agree on how much time to spend on a given stage of the bill.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am always amused when the government House leader begins any discussion for making parliament more responsive with the introduction of a motion the effect of which is to muzzle parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mitchell William Sharp: Some muzzle! It's a ten-day muzzle.
Business of the House


Walter David Baker: The government does this when public response shows the government and the opposition that the public opposes this ill-conceived bill. The government can think of no better way of stopping public discussion than by limiting debate.


Steve Eugene Paproski: By muzzling parliament.


Walter David Baker: The government House leader decided to do just that. I can think of no better method of muzzling discussion on the bill than embarking on this bad procedure. What is really interesting about this government House leader is the kind of issue he chooses with respect to closure. First it was the anti-inflation program, Bill C-73, which by any measure in this country, prejudiced or unprejudiced, socialist, Conservative or Liberal, political or apolitical, is an absolute failure in terms of inflation. That was his first choice for closure.
The second choice was the abomination of Bill C-58, the Time and Reader's Digest bill. It started off as a marvellous piece of legislation to improve the publishing industry in this country. All of a sudden, with a little twist of the foot of the Minister of National Revenue, it became a piece of censorship legislation that no one could ever count on. It brought a degree of mystery and intrigue into the law, an ability to change legislation without referral to parliament the like of which we have never seen.
The third instance chosen to muzzle parliament and cut off debate for the government's own reasons and for the reasons advanced in the puffery of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) is this bill.


An hon. Member:: Bill C-68.


Walter David Baker: Yes, there was one other, Bill C-68. That is another indication of the marvellous choices of the government House leader-a grand slam. That bill directly affects the delivery of health care in the province of Ontario and in other provinces. Surely there is not a self-respecting member on the other side who can support such stupidity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We have heard, in terms of the length of debate, the best example of the scissors' syndrome of this government. This bill is full of bureaucratic discretions in many things, not the least in gun control. There is a danger of imposing a burden on the law-abiding citizen and doing very little for the peace and security in this country and the protection of society which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) indicated was the intention of this bill. That is the position which this government asks the House to lie down and accept for the purpose of closure. Mr. Speaker, we are not going to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We are not going to accept the unintentional misleading of this House by the President of the Privy Council. He said we had debated

April 1, 1976
Business of the House
this bill for six days. I have the record of the debates in this House-Monday, March 8, four hours and 50 minutes; Tuesday, March 9, two hours and 35 minutes; Thursday, March 11, one hour and 25 minutes, and then nothing with respect to this bill-and it is he who chooses the legislation, not us-until Monday, March 29, when the matter was debated for 15 minutes. On Tuesday, March 30, it was debated for three hours and ten minutes, and on Wednesday, March 31, for two hours and 35 minutes. That, Mr. Speaker, is a total of 15 hours' debate on a matter that is of great public importance.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: If a normal, average day-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. With the noise on both sides it is very hard to follow the hon. member. This is a very emotional subject and I think hon. members should at least listen to the member who has the floor.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If a normal, average day at this time of the year is put at three hours and 40 minutes-and that is the experience in terms of debate in this House-we have spent the equivalent of just over four days on Bill C-83. That is hardly any period of time to debate something of urgent and public importance, at least so important that it was put on the order paper and brought forward. The government House leader is attempting to indict the opposition for delaying this piece of legislation. Up to March 31, yesterday, there were 11 Liberal, 11 Progressive Conservative, 4 NDP and 4 Social Credit speakers. If there was ever an indication that a piece of legislation has engaged the attention of members on all sides of the House, it is the record I have just quoted. If there was ever an indication that debate on a piece of legislation ought not to be cut off before running its normal course, it is this.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: This was introduced as a peace and security program. It is part of a whole package of legislation that includes a government proposal for the abolition of capital punishment. This government is putting forward an alternative when it asks this country to go with it and abolish capital punishment. If that abolition is important to this government, then I say this government ought not cut off debate on one important aspect of the whole package it is asking parliament and this country to accept. This parliament and this country is not prepared to accept this kind of untoward muzzling on matters which are so important that they are likely to engage the time of the House until the end of this session.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Do you want to sit in July?


Walter David Baker: The choice as to whether we sit in July rests with the government House leader and his colleagues, and not with anyone else. In fact, I

think it would be a much more pleasant July if the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) went home.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In conclusion, Mr. Speaker, this government ought to know better, four times they have gone to the plate with respect to closure, and they are about to strike out for the fourth time. The people of Canada are not going to forget what this government is trying to do to this parliament in terms of legislation which is so important that it has generated the greatest amount of mail on any subject since many members have been here, including many who have been here much longer than I have. I cannot understand what motivates this government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are thoroughly opposed to this motion. Before he sat down, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said that he could not understand what motivates the government to bring in a motion of this kind. I can only conclude that the government is stupid.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: In the course of his remarks, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said that he hoped it would be possible more often to fix the time of debate by agreement among the parties. The implication of that statement is that what we are doing today is fixing the time of debate by agreement among the parties, and that is not true. Neither was it true with regard to Bill C-73, Bill C-58 or Bill C-68. This is another case of the government using its authority, its majority and its brute force to tell this parliament what it shall do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As has often been said from the chair, this is a place of debate. It is a place of confrontation, where issues are involved. However, I suggest that when it comes to arranging the business of the House and arranging how we will use our time, that ought not to be done by debate and confrontation. It ought to be done by understanding, consultation and agreement.
I hope to be in this place long enough to see the day when we shall arrange the time of the House by consultation, understanding and agreement. But every time the President of the Privy Council moves a motion under 75scc he puts off the day of understanding or agreement. In effect, he says he cannot wait for the business of the House to be arranged in that way; he has the power, he has a majority, and so he uses a form of closure. Every time this is done, it not only raises questions about the immediate issue under debate but it delays the day when we can come to some sensible arrangement about the conduct of business.


An hon. Member:: Not with you here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is for this reason I am annoyed because this stupid motion is being put forward today, and my colleagues and I will vote against it. What is before us is Bill C-83. Gallup polls and other indications make it fairly clear, I think, that the majority of Canadians want legislation along the lines of Bill C-83. But there are requests from all over the country, even from those who support the bill, for improvements and modifications which might be made in committee.
There is, however, a sizeable minority of Canadians who do not like some of the things that are contained in the bill. They have a feeling it is being railroaded through the House. The minister's action today will reinforce that feeling. As for the minority which does not like the gun control measures, I suggest they have a right for their voices to be heard through members in the House who wish to express their objections.
I used the word "stupid" with respect to this motion. I did so deliberately because I think that what is being done today hurts the cause of Bill C-83. It is hurting the cause of the whole peace and security legislation package. I wish the President of the Privy Council had paid attention to the advice some of us tried to give him not to bring in this motion.
May I also point out, in addition to the statistics put on the record by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton in connection with the debate up to this point, that the motion the minister has made is not as generous as he would like to suggest. He said there would be four more days; and there were interjections during the remarks of the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton repeating that phrase-"Four more days". We learned today that those days are to be Wednesday, Thursday and Friday of next week, and Monday of the following week. So two of those days are short days, the Wednesday and the Friday. Further, on Thursday, Friday and Monday there are private members' hours and I see nothing in the motion which would turn those hours into time spent on Bill C-83. So the total number of hours is limited.
I suggest, too, that there is another form of closure which comes into play when a motion such as this is made. When there is no time limit placed on debate, members of the opposition speak one after another and government members sit back; they do not like to speak because they know that to do so would lengthen discussion. But when there is a time limit on the preceedings they rise freely to take part in debate, and since the majority of the members of the House are Liberals they can claim, and expect, a majority of the time to be allotted to them in the days available.


Jean-Jacques Blais: And why not?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I would remind hon. members that during this debate no member may speak for more than ten minutes. Experienced members know that once a speaker has the floor he should be heard without interruption.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That interruption from the other side reveals the basic attitude of the Liberal majority. The Liberals think they run the place,
Business of the House
they think they own it. I was not suggesting that Liberal members do not have the right to speak in this debate. I was pointing out that by taking up 50 or 60 per cent of the time available, they cut down considerably the amount of time available to the opposition.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Why not?


An hon. Member:: Because we shall be under closure.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I shall spend no more time dealing with these idiotic interruptions. The fact of the matter is that the motion contains the elements of double closure. It provides for four days, two of which are short and on three of which there are private members' hours. It also sets up a situation in which members of one party can take up more than half the time available. This means that opportunity for the opposition to express its point of view will be seriously curtailed. Again, I say the President of the Privy Council has been most unwise. In my opinion he has done a disservice to the good which is contained in the bill; he has done a disservice to the whole peace and security package, and he has done a disservice to the effort to arrive at arrangements for conducting our business in an orderly fashion. We shall be voting against the motion.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, as both House leaders spoke before me, namely the leader of the official opposition and the leader of the NDP, I ought to express the views of the members of the Social Credit Party of Canada. We strongly object to the adoption of this motion under Standing Order 75C to restrict the debate on Bill C-83 to four days only on second reading.
This important piece of legislation deals on the one hand with gun control and on the other hand with all the measures the government intends to take in order to reduce the crime rate in this country. I think that anyone who supports this motion accepts at the same time that a member's role be downgraded. It is even an undemocratic measure because it cuts short forcibly the debates in this House. Why then are members elected to come and discuss in this House if the government keeps on resorting to this so-called special legislation to end the debate to suit itself?
In my view, it is a misuse of authority, it is dictatorship, and history has proved that those administrators who have indulged in dictatorial methods were most unpopular at least with those under their jurisdiction.
I hope that all the members of this House will take a stand against that proposal, even Liberal members. Otherwise, I shall have to conclude that there is some truth in the tale about the frog which is gradually heated in a pot of water until it bursts. I shall also have to infer that this tale applies to the letter to those speechless members whose powers, responsibilities and even right to speak are being gradually eroded and who allow themselves to be quietly boiled by the government House leader and the cabinet without so much as raising an objection.
No matter how the government leader explains away that his motion is not a motion of closure, it is nevertheless a gag. I will not accept this attitude on the part of the government. Nor do I accept the rule which was passed in
12368

April 1, 1976
Business of the House
1969 because it is becoming a political instrument in the hands of the government whenever it wishes to gloss over a problem or ignore an important or controversial issue, as is the case with Bill C-83.
If the debate were to last for too long, the public would have enough time to realize the nonsense the government is ramming down their throats through this legislation. Therefore the government is simply reducing the discussion period to a maximum of four days. That is why I say that Standing Order 75C is an anti-democratic political tool. What other logical reason could there be to limit the time spent on debating this bill?
Are there very few bills before the House? Is there any problem in the country which calls for an emergency debate today and which would require the time of the House? The government has not given us any proof of that. Bill C-83 now before us is very important and its implications are many. Many members had expressed the desire to take part, in conformity with democratic principles, in this debate on second reading.
Then why is the government trying everything to limit these discussions, if not prevent the opposition from doing its work, thus making sure the public has no time to react; for public opinion is beginning to get involved.
If the government does not want to manage in a democratic way, it should say so openly and stop this charade to make believe that discussions in Parliament are not useless. At the same time it could tell us how the real powers governing the country-those who administer it and introduce legislation-are out of the House and Parliament and can be found in the hands of big financiers and enterprises that take care of the Liberal party fund.
When the government takes out this blackjack that article 75C of the Standing Orders represents, less than 10 per cent of the members of this House have spoken on second reading of this legislation. There were 28 speakers out of 265 members and ministers, as follows: 11 Liberals, 11 Progressive-Conservatives, three New Democrats and three Social Crediters.
It is now suggested that the debate be limited to four days only. If we look at the schedule of the House business, it may happen that such days be allocated as follows: three short days and only one long day, which will further reduce the time allocated to hon. members. Tomorrow, Friday, is a short day, because the House does not sit in the evening. Next Monday and Tuesday will be devoted to the consideration of the electoral boundaries reform. Wednesday and Friday will be short days and Thursday, April 8, will be the only long day devoted to the consideration of Bill C-83.
Mr. Speaker, there is something else I would like to point out before concluding. By ending the debate on this bill, the government gives the impression that it is irregular that on second reading the House should devote more time to some bills than to others. As if all legislation should be equally important and require the same time, which is totally wrong and illogical.
Mr. Speaker, when it is impossible to have democracy serve one's own purposes, one is sometimes willing to resort to force. This is how I see this motion which was introduced today pursuant to the provisions of Standing

Order 75C. The entire government army, with its back bench mercenaries, is now fighting against democracy and we have the proof.
In the Middle East they have the PLO, the Palestine Liberation Organization. Here in the House of Commons we have the Liberal party which, through this silencer motion, becomes Parliament's PLO, the Parliamentary Liberties Ostracizer, so to speak.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, the government has moved that Bill C-83 be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs after four more days of debate. The motion is moved under this section simply because we could not receive agreement under the other sections of the rule having to do with time allocation. As has already been pointed out, this will mean that there will be ten days of debate on what, under the rules of the House, is supposed to be the principle of the bill, not the detail of the bill.
For those unaccustomed to parliamentary procedures, I want to put on the record, as did the House leader, that this bill will go to committee for clause by clause, word by word examination by the members of that committee. The committee will call witnesses. The committee is comprised of good members from all sides of the House; there are lawyers and experts of one sort or another on the justice and legal affairs committee. The bill is then reported from the committee back to the House for consideration of changes made in committee and for third reading. The same process is then repeated in the other place, the Senate. By no imagination, Mr. Speaker, is this rushing legislation.
The debate so far, of which we have four more days to go, has confirmed my own belief that amendments to the criminal law of this country are complex, intricate measures that require detailed and careful examination in a committee. It has confirmed that there are misunderstandings of the proposals made in Bill C-83 which can only be cleared up in committee. It has confirmed that there are many groups in this country that need and want to be heard on the bill. If the opposition does not want to provide them with an opportunity to be heard, then I want that clearly on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Sheer sophistry.


Stanley Ronald Basford: The debate has shown that there are parts of the bill of particular contention, such as the gun control measures and the protection of privacy amendments. With regard to gun control, a number of concerns have been expressed by responsible and knowledgeable members of the House, some resulting, however, from misunderstanding which I hope is not deliberate. Questions have been raised concerning the nature of the licensing system; as to the adequacy of the firearms-use training programs; as to the nature of the rural needs and interests and the urban needs and interests of the people of this country; as to the bill's effect on gun collectors and on crime and criminality; and as to how to encourage responsible gun use.
April 1, 1976

We have spent six days debating those subjects and we will debate them another four days. I may be a lawyer and a politician, but I believe in action, Mr. Speaker, rather than rhetoric. I believe that the most effective action at this time is to refer this bill to the expert committee on justice and legal affairs so that the many suggestions made by members of the House, as well as those made in correspondence and in briefs, can be considered by that committee of experts. It is in the hands of the committee, not mine, Mr. Speaker; but I hope that at an early date the committee will hear, and hear exhaustively, the representations of the Canadian Bar Association, the Canadian Wildlife Federation-of which I am a member-the firearms and responsible ownership group, the Canadian Association of Chiefs of Police, the Canadian Sporting Arms and Ammunitions Association, the Shooting Federation of Canada. The Canadian Civil Liberties Association is a responsible group that has raised questions about Bill C-83 which it is my duty, as minister, either to answer and convince them or consider changes in the bill.
In addition, Mr. Speaker, I want to hear from the various native groups that have expressed concern about the bill. All of these are people who have a right to come to parliament and be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Ronald Basford: An effective parliament has the obligation to provide the machinery to hear these people at the earliest time. Much has been said recently about the importance of making parliament more effective. I was delighted when the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) was elected the new leader of the Conservative party, because he said one of his priorities was to see parliament become a more workable and relevant institution. I regret that his House leader and his followers are out of step with him already-only three weeks after his election as leader.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We have not had any resignations yet.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We on this side want an effective and relevant parliament. The Leader of the Opposition wants an effective and relevant parliament, and the people of Canada want an effective and relevant parliament. For Pete's sake, Mr. Speaker, let us make this that kind of parliament!
It is the theory of parliament that the government proposes legislation and parliament disposes of it. In this case, Mr. Speaker, parliament cannot properly deal with this kind of legislation until it has received full, rational and complete consideration by an expert committee which, under the Standing Orders, is there to deal with bills of this House. The committee on justice and legal affairs is the place to deal with the details, the words, the clauses and the ramifications of Bill C-83 and to explore with witnesses of interested groups their views as to the effect of this legislation and where it goes.
When we have had ten days' debate on the principle of this bill, we should then refer it to the committee, as this motion would require. I do not think my history in trying
Business of the House
to get legislation through this House would indicate that I am unreasonable when looking at amendments, and I think the hon. member for Calgary South will confirm that.


Mr. Woolliams:: He might, but I won't.


Stanley Ronald Basford: We cannot look at amendments or changes, and we cannot look at the details and the ramifications of this measure until it is before the committee.
Someone asked how members on this side of the House can support the motion today by the government House leader, seconded by myself. The reasons are very simple, Mr. Speaker, and they are two: we on this side of the House believe this country needs an effective and relevant parliament and, second, we want to put parliament to work dealing in detail with the problems of crime in this country. Let us get on with that job.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker,
I	was glad to hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) congratulate our leader, in spite of his fallacious remarks. It is true that our leader said we wanted a workable parliament, but he never suggested that we wanted parliament gagged or muzzled, and that is what the government is doing today. The Minister of Justice says he wants action and not rhetoric. I suggest that what he wants is a dictatorship rather than a democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: What has taken place, Mr. Speaker? There has never been a bill brought before this House about which there has been so much public response and uproar. It is not about what the bill is called, but rather about what it contains. All across this land-and everyone of the backbenches over there knows this-there has been a great deal of response in the form of letters and telegrams, in fact, there has never been an issue over which so much abuse has been poured on the government-and that is what it deserves. This bill contains not only gun controls-about 83 pages in that regard-but also provisions relating to dangerous offenders, amendments giving police full powers under wiretap, amendments giving provinces additional jurisdiction and provisions respecting parole and the Parole Board.
The Minister of Justice talks about wanting to get on with the job. We have so far had about 15 or 16 hours of debate. There have only been 11 Progressive Conservative,
II	Liberals, 4 members of the NDP, and 4 of the Social Credit party who have made speeches on this bill. Considering the important content of this bill and the amendments to the Criminal Code, 16 hours of debate is nothing. This whole thing is a farce. It is nonsense that the government should implement the provisions of Standing Order 75C at this time to guillotine or cut off the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Is this the new kind of arrogance, the new kind of duress, the new kind of coercion? Is this the new society? Is this the new compulsive democracy? Is this just the beginning? Our House Leader pointed out that
21804^-2254

Business of the House
this measure has been used four times. Is this the procedure we can now expect to be used? Are we to have a few hours' debate on important matters and then be gagged in the opposition? The Minister of Justice said the committee is the place to study this bill, rather than here in the House. If we carry that argument to its logical conclusion, it means that we will just have second reading with a bill referred to the committee, and that is all. That is nonsense.


Mitchell William Sharp: We said ten days' debate, first.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I suggest that if this is the way we are going to carry on in this place, parliament will not last. God help Canada, God help the democratic process, and God help Canadians. How long can this country withstand this government that was elected on a program totally different to that which it is trying to implement now? This is the same government which is preaching and implementing an easing of the laws which, either intentionally or unintentionally, is making it easier for the criminal element to operate against law-abiding citizens. The government now comes forward with a peace and security package to cover its mistakes. This is a legal poultice to cover up the next bill, C-84, about which the government is frightened of public opinion.
I hope the Minister of Justice's promises about amendments to be made to the bill and briefs that will be received from a wide section of the country are not idle promises. The Minister of Justice may feel that we should be allowed to call more witnesses and hear more briefs, but I am always afraid of another guillotine that can be used outside this chamber. That guillotine is the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who will tell the Minister of Justice how many briefs and how many witnesses can be heard. He is the man behind the scene. This is the Prime Minister's baby, and the mover of this motion is merely his puppet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The government House leader dances to the tune of the Prime Minister. Because of this action on the part of the government, when this bill does get to the committee, which has always worked well together, instead of there being that kind of fellowship and co-operation we will have nothing but tension.


Otto Emil Lang: Oh, surely!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: The minister says "Oh, shoot". He might want to change that word, because I could use it in reply.


Otto Emil Lang: I said, "Oh, surely"-you are not being serious.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: I am being very serious. I think this is a very serious matter. The hon. member for Saskatoon-Hum-boldt (Mr. Lang) may think this is a great joke because the guillotine is part of his way of life.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the parliamentary secretary rising on a point of order?


Jean-Jacques Blais: No, Mr. Speaker; I wish to participate in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The parliamentary secretary did not rise in time, and I recognize the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman).


Mr. Max Saltsman (Waterloo-Cambridge):: Mr. Speaker, on one occasion, when discussing the relative merits of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) as against the merits of the Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand), someone asked me who I would hire as my lawyer if I had to go to court. My reply, of course, was obvious: I said that it depended upon whether I was innocent, or guilty. If I was guilty, I would obviously take the Minister of Justice, because that had been his role for a long time. I remember the minister when he was a bright, curly-headed backbencher. His job in those days was to take the bad case of the government and to defend it. That is how he got to be Minister of Justice. He did such a fine job of defending bad cases that they made him minister-and he is still doing the same thing. So everything changes, and nothing changes.
This is one of the things that I do not think the Liberals will ever learn, namely, that it is important to have an opposition in the House of Commons. If the Liberal party had its way, there would be just the Liberal party in the House.


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Max Saltsman: I hear "Hear, hear!" They admit to it openly. When they say that, after all, they are entitled to speak and they rise and say they are entitled to equal time with the opposition, do you feel like asking them, "What are you guys supposed to be doing in caucus? This is not the Liberal caucus, this is the House of Commons." I presume that they have voices in their own caucus, and I presume someone pays attention to them in their caucus. But perhaps they do not; perhaps they sit there like a bunch of sheep in caucus and no one pays any attention, so they impose closure so that someone notices they are alive. They do not understand the most elementary fact about parliamentary debate and the opposition.
What is the point of this debate? This is an important decision that parliament is being asked to make. It is a decision that must be aired, a decision that needs time to gel. They say, "Take it to committee and examine it point by point." It is valuable, and no one disagrees that it will go to committee at some point; but public opinion is formed in this House of Commons and it needs time to form. That is the point of the debate, and that is the one thing the Liberals do not seem to want any part of. They can take the best case in the world and, by some incredible piece of genius, turn it to mud. Many of us on this side of the House recognize the importance of this legislation and, in fact, have spent a good part of our time going around the country and defending it. We have tried to reassure people that the government does not mean to be arbitrary, that it does not mean to behave badly to the collectors of guns or the legitimate hunters in this country.
What is the government trying to do? It is trying destroy a good case. It is going out of its way to take a good case and wreck it so that nobody can defend it. This is really what the implication is. If we look at the legislation, we find sections in it that have an arbitrary ring. One of the
April 1, 1976

legitimate complaints of people who are hunters or collectors of guns is their fear that the government intends to be arbitrary in relation to them. If anything is required to reinforce these fears, the government has managed to do it by bringing in closure. It has managed to say, "Yes, you cannot believe a thing we say in this legislation."
I have spent a good part of my time in the past two months speaking to rod and gun clubs. I have been very fortunate, because there are a number of rod and gun clubs in my riding and their members initially did not see any need for legislation of this kind. But unlike the American rod and gun clubs or rifle associations, the members of our clubs are pretty intelligent people who say, "All right. If parliament wants to have this legislation, if the country or parts of the country feel that this kind of legislation is important, we are prepared to co-operate."
I am very proud of the rod and gun clubs in Canada. They have gone out of their way to look at the legislation, to make suggestions, and in most cases their suggestions have been excellent. After all, what do most of us in this place know about guns? Not a great deal. I certainly do not know a great deal about guns, about collecting guns and about the problems associated with either the legitimate or illegitimate use of guns. I welcome the kind of advice that I have been receiving from hunters and associations who know more about it than I do. I have asked for their co-operation and it has been given to me.
I am sure I am not the only member in the House who has done that. I know other members have gone to these associations and asked them to help them, to look at the legislation and to make some suggestions so that we can come out with a bill which achieves the purpose we want it to achieve; in other words, to keep guns out of the hands of the people who should not have them, without inhibiting the legitimate use of guns for sports activities and the use of guns in the hands of people who know how to take care of a gun and do not constitute any problem to society. That is really what many of us have been working to do, and we have received that co-operation.
How do I go back

I am glad I am not a member of the Liberal party; I am glad I am not one of their backbenchers-after having sought the co-operation and given assurances to the rod and gun clubs that the government means to do the right thing, and that if there is something wrong with the legislation there will be ample time in parliament to look at it and correct it and explain the government's imposition of closure? I do not have to do it, of course, because I can say I did not like it and I voted against it. But I would hate to be a Liberal trying to explain that after having gone around telling rod and gun clubs not to worry about it, this legislation will not hurt them, their feelings will be taken into account, the government wants their ideas, it wants to listen to them, and then the government brings in closure and cuts off the debate.
What is the great urgency about getting the bill through in what amounts to two working days? I suspect that the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mrs. Holt), while she does not have much of an effect on anybody else, has had a very profound effect on her caucus. She has sold them the notion of piecework, that you come to the House under a kind of piecework system and that the more words spoken in the House of Commons, the more it costs the
Business of the House
country. We are not on piecework. We get our salary whether we talk or whether we do not talk, whether we sit all year round or whether we do not sit all year round. As a matter of fact, some people over there rarely come here.


An hon. Member:: That is socialism.


Max Saltsman: It is equality of income. It is equality of condition, rather than equality of opportunity. I do not think you should take the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway very seriously. I see there are a few people opposite who have suddenly become very articulate. They are going to speak today because they do not have to worry about the opposition. It is very handy; they brought in closure and they can kill it themselves by talking. They do not need caucus because, after all, caucus is irrelevant. I wonder whether they have said anything in caucus.
It is really disturbing-and I think every member of the House is upset, or if they are not upset they certainly should be-to see the kind of thing the government is doing with this particular legislation. I think it is the kind of legislation which the country really needs, and that is what makes it doubly sad for all of us to see the ineptitude of the Liberal party trying to bring in legislation that is required, and destroying it simultaneously.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I take great pleasure in participating in the debate because I hope that my few comments might tend to temper the attitude which seems to have been created by the opposition. Effectively I am a parliamentarian, and I have indicated that before. I feel that this House is a place where debate ought to take place. I am very disturbed by the suggestions made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) and by the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) that Liberal backbenchers ought not to participate in any of the debates in this House, or at least that our participation ought to be inferior, numerically, to the participation of hon. members on the other side. Surely that is a complete misconception of the role of a member of parliament. Surely hon. members opposite will agree that each and every member of parliament is equal in status in this House and should have an equal opportunity to participate-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -in the deliberations within this precinct. I am shocked when the hon. member for Annapolis Valley says that for us to maintain that we have a right to participate equally in any debate in this House is stupid because we are dealing with government legislation. That is the depth of misconception of the role of a backbencher, whether he is from the opposition or from this party. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge says we have a caucus, and why do we not speak up in caucus? That, again, is an absolute misconception of the process within this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 1, 1976
Business of the House


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge knows full well that the backbencher's role in caucus, prior to the introduction of legislation, is to make sure that the legislation is acceptable when it is presented. Once the legislation has been presented following the input of the backbenchers in caucus, surely it is the obligation of those backbenchers to sell the legislation, as much as it is the responsibility of the minister to sell it, and to persuade gentlemen on the other side of its validity. Surely that is the role of hon. members on this side. Surely we have a role in debate. If we are to have an adversary process, we are not going to sit here and be bludgeoned by hon. members opposite-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: -with the use of misrepresentations, be they unconscious misrepresentations; and on top of that, using all the rules available to them in order to defeat the legislation of the government without any response from this party. I can understand the objection of the New Democratic Party. When we were dealing with this same motion with regard to Bill C-68, every member of the NDP had spoken-and when we consider the legislation which has been delayed in this House we note that that small party, representing less than 10 per cent of the total number of members in this House, has taken a disproportionate amount of time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Sit down.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) tells me that I should sit down. The hon. member has had an opportunity to speak whenever he has been in the House, but that has not been too often lately. He has had more opportunities than any other hon. member in this House, or any backbencher in the Liberal party whose attendance record is superior.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) has taken my name in vain, I want to point out that he has talked about equality among hon. members in this House. I have been seeking an opportunity to speak on second reading of this bill and I am being denied that opportunity by this motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, the previous speaker
accused us of taking too much of the time of the House in relation to the number of Social Crediters who are elected. I think this is not true. If we take time it is because we want to comment on the issue and find it important, and we are entitled to speak in this House as much as he is no matter how many members are elected since we are elected democratically. If we are in this House it is because we secured a majority in our ridings.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I think the points advanced by the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) and the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) are really points of debate and the parliamentary secretary should be allowed to continue his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin), I suggest that I did not refer to the fact that his party was taking too much of the time of this House. I spoke about the members from the socialist party. I did not refer to the Social Crediters for whom I have much respect. I respect not only the hon. member for Richmond but also all his colleagues.

When the hon. member for Nickel Belt-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Jacques Blais: I have a problem with my voice. It is not as powerful as the voices of some hon. members opposite who are kibitzing. May I have some peace so that my arguments can be made?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: We don't kibitz. Only the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) kibitzes.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Perhaps the parliamentary secretary will regain his voice over the next couple of hours. I will leave a note for the next occupant of the chair to the effect that when this debate resumes at eight o'clock, certain time should not be subtracted from the hon. member because of the difficulty he has encountered.


An hon. Member:: The poor little fellow!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie)-Criminal Code-Suggested committee study on other methods of applying capital punishment; the hon. member for Parkdale (Mr. Haidasz)- Industry-Douglas Aircraft, Malton-Measures to save jobs-Date of announcement of aerospace policy; the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Roche)-External Affairs-Cambodia-Inquiry as to Canadian protest against violations of human rights.
April 1, 1976

It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, private bills, public bills and notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE BILLS
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Thursday, March 18, consideration of Bill S-30, to incorporate Continental Bank of Canada, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs.
Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, there have been some suggestions, which I do not believe were conclusive, that the sponsor of the bill before this House would be prepared to forgo the hour by postponing it in order to carry on the debate on the motion of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). I am not sure there is disposition in all corners of the House in that regard, but if there is, I would be very grateful.


Walter David Baker: There is not a disposition in all corners.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: There does not appear to be unanimous consent, and when the bill was being debated previously the hon. member for Timiskam-ing (Mr. Peters) had the floor.


Mr. Arnold Peters (Timiskaming):: Mr. Speaker, when I was speaking previously I referred to a number of names on the list of directors which indicated the interlocking directorship of those who comprise the board of IAC and the directors of the proposed Continental Bank of Canada. It was pointed out that these poor, small, little innocent people were asking for the right to spend whatever largesse they have under their jurisdiction for other people. I referred to some of those people and mentioned some of their interlocking directorships. Many already are bank directors. In that category I put F. M. Covert, a director of Royal Bank; J. S. Dewar, director of Toronto-Dominion Bank; C. F. Harrington, a director of BM-RT Realty Investments, which is jointly owned by Bank of Montreal and Royal Trust; L. A. Lapointe, a director of Toronto-Dominion Bank; Paul Pare, a director of Royal Bank; and Renault St. Laurent, a director of Banque Canadienne Nationale.
It strikes me as strange that all those directors, who also hold the directorships in other companies, want to set up another bank. My party, which represents many disadvantaged people in this country, does not favour the proliferation of banks. We see no reason for establishing another bank. I agree wholeheartedly with at least one plank of the Creditiste party: The banking industry should be nationalized. At present there is absolutely no competition in the banking industry except to the extent that one teller, in one bank, may be cuter than another in another bank. We
Continental Bank of Canada
would be well advised to nationalize the banking industry, not proliferate the number of banks. Let us nationalize banks so that they can work in the national interest and develop this country uniformly. The need for more uniform development is evident in our disadvantaged areas, the maritimes, northern Ontario and many parts of Quebec. We do not need the proliferation of banks. Adding one more bank to the list will merely mean the addition of an expensive building downtown in some city and more expense for someone-for me and the ordinary Canadian.
Banks do not always work in our best interests. For example, the other day an Ottawa bank refused to cash government-backed pay cheques. I do not know if the Bank of Montreal across the road had listened to some disgruntled civil servant, but it refused to pay government-backed pay cheques. Mr. Speaker, our banking system is not like the United States system. Our banks do not go bankrupt; they do not behave stupidly because they are governed by the Bank Act. They are protected. They cannot go broke unless the country goes broke. Imagine a bank saying, "We cannot cash government-backed pay cheques because the government has no money." If the government has no money, the banks don't have money either, because they get their money from the government. Mr. Speaker, there is no competition in the bank industry.
All the directors I mentioned who hold interlocking directorships want to establish a bank merely for their own advantage. IAC has not been a good company. In many ways it has been a bad company. In northern Ontario, IAC cancelled some automobile financing contracts. In New Liskeard it was responsible for making two automobile enterprises go out of business. IAC decided that there were better returns in the small loans business than in the automobile business. Were automobile time payments not lucrative enough? Apparently not, because they now want to go into the banking business.
Those little, disadvantaged citizens on the board of directors of IAC want special privileges going far beyond letters patent which would establish the new bank. They are asking, in effect, the Bank Act to be changed. They are asking all kinds of favours which could even give them advantages over other banks. Mr. Speaker, we will not act in the best interests of the small people of Canada if we let those shysters, those people on the list of interlocking directors, band together and set up another bank. They want to do it only for their financial advantage.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I believe that it is extremely important for us to express certain opinions during this debate on Bill S-30, which aims at allowing the IAC finance company to become a chartered bank in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, since my early childhood, I have heard Canadians from all parts of the country, especially in my social group, say that finance companies are bad, that they gouge the people, charge high interest rates and use the financial problems of people to jump on them and strangle them. Finance companies in general are commonly called the sharks of finance. Mr. Speaker, this is why I am surprised to see that one of these companies wants to become a bank. This must means that there is something even more profitable than being a finance company. IAC

April 1, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
does not want to become a bank because of its generosity, it does not want to become a bank simply because that would serve Canadians. I refuse to swallow that.
Mr. Speaker, it is important to realize that finance companies in Canada have always been scorned by almost all Canadians, especially those who had some knowledge of either social or economic issues. They were considered as big villains, as loan sharks.
Every time we talked about the bank system, the chartered banks, the process of creating money, every time we said that chartered banks systematically control the Canadian economy, the government as well as the provinces we were told by the Liberals that it was not true. They tell us it is an extraordinary and excellent banking system and that there is much to be said for the Canadian banking system because, thanks to it, our economy is sound. The Liberals find the proposals of the Social Credit Party concerning the bank system ridiculous. When we tell them it is only normal that a country should control its own economy, namely the money, the Liberals find this funny.
And now, Mr. Speaker, the Liberals have become the sponsors, the supporters of a finance company which is aiming at changing into a chartered bank. First of all, Mr. Speaker, this is proof that our banking system is a real racket and that it actually exploits Canada. The IAC people who hold capital stock amounting to hundreds of million dollars are no fools, Mr. Speaker. They like to get in where there is money to be made and where there is security. That is why they want to leave the world of finance and become a chartered bank.
They said in committee, and I was there, that the finance market is no longer secure, that it is overcompetitive and crowded, whereas banking is an open field with room for one more bank in Canada. That is why they are applying for incorporation. Mr. Speaker, not only do they wish to incorporate as a chartered bank, but they do not comply at all with the Bank Act nor with the Bank of Canada Act, as one immediately realize upon reading Bill S-30.
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-30 contains more than five exceptions to the Bank Act and the Bank of Canada Act.
My third point is this: Mr. Speaker, IAC which wants to become a chartered bank not only does not comply with the Bank Act, but asks for exemptions on 16 points and, in addition, asks to be given letters patent one year before the ten-year review of the Bank Act due in 1977, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) confirmed again this week.
Mr. Speaker, here is what is most serious about the decision Parliament is about to make. If this Parliament agreed to incorporate this corporation so that the new Continental Bank may transact business, we would thereby create a precedent in our chartered bank system. We would grant letters patent with 16 exceptions to the Bank Act, and the following year the same government would introduce a new Bank Act. And what would the government do with the act it had just passed, which is not yet passed and already contains 16 exceptions?
Mr. Speaker, I suggest that the government is supporting this bill in Parliament because they have financial inter-

ests to preserve or promote. If the government is actually serious and concerned about the Canadian economic situation, it is first going to allow the House and Parliament to conduct an in-depth, responsible review of our banking system in order to correct abuse and then allow IAC to become a bank if they still want to. Mr. Speaker, even if this financial institution waits a year before it is transformed, there will be no great harm done. I would like to repeat that Liberals, with regard to the banking system, are pure hypocrites. They protect the banking system and compromise with it. They allow Canadian chartered banks to generate-I cannot state an exact amount but from memory-I would say 16 times their deposit. They let the population being exploited by uncontrolled interest rates which deprive people and require more of them than they can financially assume. The Liberals protect a banking system which contributes to run our country, our provinces and our municipalities into debt.
The Liberals prevent the provinces, their own partners, from having their own bank. What they refuse to their partners in confederation they are prepared to grant to a finance company. The Liberals are hand in glove with the banking system to protect it, and the list read by the some hon. members of New Democratic Party to the effect that the owners of some banks are also owners of Dominion Stores, Steinberg. This nice big family of nice people, Mr. Speaker, indicates to what extent there is an obvious monopoly in the banking system, yet the Liberals say: We should leave banking system as it is.
When we discuss with the liberals, they tell us: You Social Crediters are very good MPs indeed, but the moment you start talking about the banking system, it's the end of it. They recognize that we are right on many points, but never on the banking system because they are protecting it. So what is their interest in refusing that this point be discussed? They prefer to introduce Bill S-30, recommending that Parliament turn a blind eye on 16 exceptions to the law on the chartered banks which Parliament itself voted. They ask us to vote the bill and then, next year, they will ask us to vote their own law on the charteved banks because they, the Liberals, always hold the truth.
As for me, Mr. Speaker, I do not object to the fact that this bill could be voted quickly, I object, on principle, to this bill. I am not opposed to the fact that the IAC become a chartered bank, but I refuse that this company be given letters patent so that it can transform itself into a bank, on the very eve of the day when we are going to decide that the law dealing with the chartered banks be revised. Mr. Speaker, I think we are going a bit to fast, we are putting the cart before the horse.
In committee, it appeared that if passed, Bill S-30 would create a number of precedents. The committee heard a Mr. Read, inspector general of banks, who very definitely stressed the fact that a big financial corporation was attempting to covert into a bank. That resulted from government policy which stimulated competition within the banking system. Some may say there is too much competition within the banking system, others will say there is not enough competition, but this is not the main point. What counts is the reason why IAC wants to become a bank.
April 1, 1976

That reason is that the banking business is quite better than the finance business.
Mr. Speaker, if people knew what goes on the banking system, they would be astounded. Mr. Speaker, many people and several members of parliament, especially opposite members believe that the government controls money in our country but they are wrong; the chartered banks, not the government, control money, the issue of money and credit in Canada. It is not the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) either who controls the issue of money and credit.
The finance minister and Cabinet members control the lives of citizens in many areas. They control subsidies, they encourage unemployment, they control inflation, they control the workers' salaries, they control some prices- they say. They fine companies which want to raise their employees, salaries, they control people through forms, through taxation, and they control Parliament today through Sanding Order 75C. The government controls the political life of the people of Canada at all levels, from birth to death. But this very government does not control one cent of our bank system, but is the valet of the system.
Mr. Speaker, I raise here a fundamental issue and none of the opposite members can give any evidence that I am wrong. This question is very clear and one has only to listen to the President of the Royal Bank to know it.
This afternoon I read his latest speech, in which he attacks the government anti-inflation policy. This is to save the face because there is no section in the act dealing with this subject. It will also be noticed that in the antiinflation this government is controlling workers. It also controls prices in some way, it is confronting everybody and downgrading collective bargaining. But this same government flatly refuses to control interest rates. Abuses are tolerated. They let the banks create money, they let them create in a systematic way 16 times their volume, if I am not mistaken. That is a minimum figure, 16 times their volume.
Banks are allowed to set interest rates. People are forced to pay back principal, interest, plus interest on the principal money that does not exist. Mr. Speaker, a certain type of business or "racket" is allowed between those banks. They are allowed to buy bonds and control our municipalities and even the federal government, but interest rates are allowed to go up. Who foots the bill, as always? The Canadian citizen, the low-wage earner. What then is a new bank doing in that picture? Absolutely nothing more, except maybe some supposedly increased competition. But everyone knows that there is no competition in the banking system. There may be different corporate names, but basically it is the same group of people, it is a family compact, it is a monopoly.
When one bank increases its prime rate, the others do the same. When one increases interest rates on deposits, the others follow suit. When one bank tightens the money, the others follow suit. This is simply a monopoly, protected by the Liberals, encouraged by the Liberals. When I think, Mr. Speaker, that these same Liberals would now allow a finance company considered by every Canadian as a loan shark, when I think they want to allow that company to
Continental Bank of Canada
become a bank, I see the light. This is disappointing. At any rate, a great number of people are shown that banking is much more profitable, and gives a much better yield than any investment that could be made by a finance company. Mr. Speaker, many things have been written about the banking system. I have studied and read the latest works published on the occasion of the last review of the banking system.
I hope to follow very closely the review for 1977. Mr. Speaker, we shall see that once again the Liberals will be there, not to promote the review of the banking system, but to protect the banks and ensure that this review will be in their favour. Mr. Speaker, as concerns the proposals of Bill S-30, I have nothing against IAC, I have nothing against its wish to become the Continental Bank; it can do what it wants. We live in a democracy, at least the opposition thinks so, Mr. Speaker; we live in a free competition system. I am not opposed to the idea that this company have the same public recognition as the Royal Bank of Canada, the Bank of Montreal, the Canadian National Bank and any other bank; I am not opposed to that, but I want the government to understand that we are not going to swallow this as easily as it hopes.
A company cannot become a Canadian bank simply through a small bill like Bill S-30, because we are supposed to know nothing about the banking system, because this is only normal and good for competition. Too many things and too many factors are involved in such proposal, Mr. Speaker, for us to close our eyes and do nothing.
Mr. Speaker, I believe that on behalf of Canadians, before going along with the government under the pretext of helping competition, we must see the situation like it is. This government is very good at making us swallow or believe certain things. For instance, when a parliamentary delegation makes a trip, the Liberals glorify themselves throughout Canada by saying: For our part, we live in a democracy. They use the Progressive Conservatives, the New Democrats and the Social Crediters to show that the Canadian Parliament is a great democracy. But when we are back in Parliament, they invoke Standing Order 75C and blame us for wanting to work. Mr. Speaker, this shows how much this system is hypocritical.
Let us truly go to the bottom of things and before issuing a permit, a piece of paper, in return for some favours for the Liberal party I suppose, Mr. Speaker, let us serve the interests of Canadians, let us go to the bottom of things and let us protect Canadians through the banking system. In other words, let the government regain control over the issue of money and credit in Canada.
Mr. Speaker, I am well aware that these are all honest people and very nice guys, but the most powerful cartel in Canada is the banking system, the banking monopoly, and as Canadians we cannot agree to increasing this cartel. We do not believe that competition will be increased through Bill S-30. The monopoly of money on human lives, human beings is allowed to grow. Mr. Speaker, on the eve of the decennial bank review it is, to my mind, premature to pass Bill S-30, all the more so because it does not comply with the chartered banks act and the Bank of Canada Act, and because Parliament is being asked to pass, in addition, the sixteen exceptions to the Bank Act it includes. Mr. Speaker, let us leave well alone, for the time being. Let us hope

April 1, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
for an in-depth revision of our banking system after which we can see how necessary and urgent additional competition is within our banking system.
For the time being, it seems to me, Mr. Speaker, and this I repeat, it would be premature to allow this finance company to become a bank. However, that possibility is certainly interesting, and I shall make sure this bill is sent out to the tens of thousands of Canadian citizens who did not hesitate to laugh at the Crediters when they decried the banking system: they might then see where the racket is: With the finance companies or the banks.
Mr. Speaker, Bill S-30 is the best proof that the Social Crediters are right in attacking the banking system. And the government recognizes our claims in this regard through this bill, since it proves that the real monopoly is not that of finance companies but that of the banking system. No one is forced to go to a finance company but everyone, sooner or later, has to deal with a bank. There is the real monopoly.
Some time ago, I made a speech in this House to prove the monopoly that exists with food products. At that time,
I demonstrated how the owners of the Bank of Montreal and the Royal Bank in fact own Dominion, Steinberg and Canada Packers. I think that if we relate this to what the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) and the hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) said, it becomes an extremely dangerous monopoly.
Mr. Speaker, let us go back to the sources. Let us allow the Canadian people to control their own country. However, the members of the cabinet want to make us believe that inflation is being controlled. The Liberal members say to us: You members of the Social Credit Party claim you know the banking system, but you would print money. It is the usual joke. Then they tell us: There would be too much money in circulation and money would have no value any more. Suffice to look at the present situation, Mr. Speaker, and to ask oneself: what is money worth today? Absolutely nothing. Our unemployment rate is increasing. And the members of the Social Credit Party are not those who are in power.
Mr. Speaker, we must stop fooling around with the banking system, it is too important and too serious. We will have to approach these matters seriously. Here is a very simple example. When there is too much blood in the human body, what happens? Hemorrhage. When there is not enough blood, there is anemia. If there is too much money in Canada, certainly it is not good, and the same if there is a lack of money.
Now the government is saying in its fight against inflation: Tighten your belts, restrain yourself! Let unemployment increase! Control yourself and accept a 10 per cent ceiling on your wage increases. At the same time, the profits of chartered banks rise to 30 per cent, interest rates are up and the government does nothing. That is why I finally ask the question. On which side does the government stand? On the side of the Canadian people or of the banking system? Who elected this government and whom does it serve? For me, it is obvious that it serves-


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am really very hurt and touched by that fact that this bill, S-30, is being sponsored by a member of parliament who comes from Northern Ontario, an area I represent. I think of all the hours he is going to put in in defence of a group of corporate bigwigs when we face such serious problems in northern Ontario, including those just enunciated by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion which showed in its tabled report that we are on the wrong side of the track. His riding in northwestern Ontario, and my riding in northeastern Ontario, are probably the two most underprivileged areas in this country, with a declining population, a housing shortage, pollution, and unemployment. Meanwhile, this member of parliament is getting himself tied in with the political bosses to be a running dog, as it were, to the corporate sector, to be lackey, to be a footman to the corporate sector in moving Bill S-30 through the House.


Mr. Symes:: A flunkey.


John R. Rodriguez: My hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie says "A flunkey". I suppose that could be most apropos. It hurts me to see the fine talents of a member like this being wasted a fruitless, frivolous search after building the corporate banking system, one which, does not in any way serve the interests of the people of northern Ontario. We heard the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) point out how quick they are to withdraw from even such activities as financing automobile purchases. It really grieves me to see a man who was involved earlier in the budget debate defending motorboat owners and motorboat dealers, and all the rest, being used again. Why could they not have got someone from their backbenches, a flunkey from an urban centre, or one of their corporate sector guys over there to sponsor this private member's bill through the House? I say to the hon. member: It is a shame you have to come to this level to be a sort of capitalist-roader for Bay Street and try to move this bill through the House.


An hon. Member:: A Bay Street buddy!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Is the hon. member for St. Catharines rising on a point of order?


Mr. Parent:: Surely, Mr. Speaker, we are going to hear something about the bill which is before us. Surely the hon. member for Nickel Belt does not intend merely to waste our time by dilly-dallying on calling hon. members on the back benches here "flunkeys". We would not think of lowering ourselves to call him anything so base. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would direct the hon. member to say something, at least, about the bill which is before us so that we can get on with the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, all I can say to the hon. member for St. Catharines (Mr. Parent) is that I would have preferred him to sponsor the bill through this House rather than the other flunkey. It is good to get a bill like this once in a while coming through this House because it once more reinforces what we on this side have long
April 1, 1976

recognized-the incestuous relationship that exists between Liberals, Tories, and the corporate sector of this country.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order. The hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) is rising on a point of order.


Eymard G. Corbin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, the hon. member who has the floor used a word in the English language that has not been interpreted and I should like to know its meaning. I wonder whether the interpretation service could give it to us. I think the word used was "flunkey".


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hon. member asks for an opinion or a direction from the Chair. I have had the opportunity to consult and it seems to me that the word "flunkey", though it has some definite connotations, is not a term ordinarily considered to be unparliamentary.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I will use a term that hon. members may better understand. The parliamentary term would probably be "bumboy" instead of "flunkey". This bill is excellent when it comes to showing-


Mr. Raines:: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hon. member for Burnaby-Seymour (Mr. Raines) is rising on a point of order.


Marke Raines: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member would wish to withdraw his expression "bumboy". However, if he wishes to stay with it I suggest he is stuck with it. I do not think it is a matter of great importance, but on another point of order I would suggest that hon. members should not become too preoccupied with the sex life of parliamentarians since we have had reference to the word "incestuous", and a few other connotations, which may be of interest to some people outside the Chamber though I think we have other business to do. Since we have had reference specifically to the expression "bumboy", perhaps we could get a definition. Otherwise we might waste a great deal of time, and so I will await Your Honour's ruling on that.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Whatever happens I will not count the time taken against the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez). The attention of the Chair has been directed to the "Concise Oxford Dictionary" which is upon the Table of this Chamber. I cannot see the word "bumboy" but I do see the word "bumbo", which is a cold rum punch. That seems to be a very commendable suggestion.
I think the hon. member has a certain knack with words. Frankly, the Chair had more difficulty with his use of the word "incestuous" than the word "flunkey" or the word "bumboy". When the debate becomes a little warm in here we do try to respond in kind. I do not think it holds up operations in a way that the Chair should intervene. Therefore I recognize the hon. member for Nickel Belt, and the time taken will not be held against him.
Continental Bank of Canada


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you for your kindness, Mr. Speaker. It seems to me that when it comes to showing that Canada's financial and political systems are one and the same thing, no course in any school or business administration could be more effective in showing that relationship than simply coming to this place and observing the progress of Bill S-30 through the House and the other place. Every time one looks at this bill or at the companies behind it one cannot help but stumble over the names of Canada's big business, the guys who clearly run both our country and our finances, and that includes this House and the other place. As the profitability of IAC goes up, there are a lot of people who stand to benefit greatly. I am not talking about the little shareholders benefiting. They will still have to go to the banks feeling very apologetic about asking for a loan. But the big boys and their friends will see plenty of profit, and this is the kind of thing that we in this party question.
Why should we make an exception under the Bank Act to facilitate this particular arrangement for IAC to become a bank? We have argued that IAC ought to go through the normal processes stipulated in the Bank Act if they want to become a bank. Parliament ought to be making exceptions for small groups in this country, yet never does. For example, widows should be able to get their widow's pension and the guaranteed income supplement. Why not put a special bill through parliament to enable such people to get those benefits? Why not sponsor a private member's bill to do this? We on this side would let it go through almost without debate so that the poor people of this country would get some benefit.
This is why we in this party cannot vote for privilege. That is what this is all about, Mr. Speaker-privilege. We as a party have stood against privilege and will stand against privilege, and we do so as it comes before this House in the form of Bill S-30.
The hon. member for Timiskaming made reference to the name Bronfman. That name has come up time and time again during this debate. The Bronfmans are the friends of the health minister. He travels in their jets to Israel and all over the place. It seems to me there are a lot of other people like that, MP's and Senators, members of both houses, who are involved either directly or indirectly in IAC.
Since this is a Senate bill let me see how that body is involved in interlocking directorships in IAC and other companies. I have a list of Senators before me and the companies on which they sit as directors, on the boards of other companies as well as IAC. I should like to show how corporate interlocking meshes with memberships of this parliament. Since we are dealing with interlocking directorships it is only fair to put on the record the names of those in the other place who have an interest in this particular bill.
Why should the people of this country put up with this kind of nonsense? These are individuals who are supposed to be passing laws. They are passing laws for themselves. They are the ones who will get the biggest benefits out of IAC becoming a bank quickly through circumventing the regulation that provides that you cannot be a member of the boards of directors of two banks at the same time. Who are going to get any benefit from that, Mr. Speaker? It is certainly not the people of my riding or the people in the

April 1, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
riding of Kenora-Rainey River. We cannot even get the government to close off a polluted river in that area.
Who is the first poor little Senator who is trying to make a living on his senatorial salary of $29,000 a year? His name is Louis-Philippe Gelinas, a Liberal. He is vice-president and director of the Mercantile Bank of Canada. I think they had profits of 65 per cent in the last quarter. In any event they did very well. He is also a director of the Canadian International Paper Company, Candiac Development Corporation, Delta Benco Limited, and Gerling Global Life Insurance Company.
Incidentally, there is a Mr. C. F. Harrington, the honourable, and a Senator, who is also on the board of directors of IAC and on the board of directors od Gerling Global Reinsurance Company.
An Kon. Member: They don't talk to each other.


John R. Rodriguez: They don't talk to each other? I see! As I say, he is a director of the Gerling Global Reinsurance Company. That is a new one; reinsurance.
An Ron. Member: They get you the second time around.


John R. Rodriguez: He is also a director of Alexander and Alexander Services Limited, Gerling Global General Insurance Company, Greyhound Leasing and Financing Limited, Montreal-


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I should like to inform the hon. member who has the floor, and has referred to Senator Gelinas, that he passed away sometime ago.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


An hon. Member:: That's NDP research for you.


John R. Rodriguez: The way things go around here, the spirit lives on.
He is also involved in Montreal Refrigerating and Storage Limited.


An hon. Member:: You mean was.


John R. Rodriguez: Also the Manicouagan Power Company, and North American Car (Canada) Limited.
Then we have one Peter Kilburn and Renault St. Laurent, directors of IAC. Then we have reference to Hilton of Canada Limited and one Louis A. Lapointe who is also on the board of directors of IAC as well as Canada Cement Lafarge Limited and United North American Holdings Limited.
We then have E. Jacques Courtois who is a director of IAC and of Foster Wheeler Limited, Crush International Limited, The Robert Mitchell Company Limited, Distillers Corporation, Seagrams Limited, and is an honorary director of John Labatt Limited.


An hon. Member:: If I had all that I would never die.


John R. Rodriguez: I have always been under the impression that they have been dead over there for years.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I think there are provisions in the Standing Order referring to members of the other place, and while I think the Chair has to permit the hon. member to continue the type of debate that is presently taking place in the sense that he is raising a very fundamental issue which involves one of the Houses of Parliament, it should be done with a certain amount of restraint, particularly regarding personal references that are outside the actual subject matter.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. Then, of course, we have John M. Godfrey, a Liberal Senator as well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: May I interrupt the hon. member again. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais) rises on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, in view of the manifestly limited vocabulary of the hon. member perhaps you might define the word "restraint" for his benefit.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I do not think it helps the Chair or the debate very much when members use points of order to smuggle in one-liners in a debate such as this.


John R. Rodriguez: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Léonel Beaudoin: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.

On a point of order, Mr. Speaker.
It is not that I doubt your judgment when you say that we must take care not to name members of the Senate, Mr. Speaker. However, it is obvious that when a person has a federal or provincial charter, it is a public document which anyone can see; it does not harm any reputation. I know that this does nothing but describe the facts to the House.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Perhaps the hon. member for Richmond (Mr. Beaudoin) misunderstood. I hope that I was clear, but perhaps I should repeat what I said so that hon. members will know. The Chair did not suggest that members of the other place could not be identified by name in connection with their outside activities. I just thought this ought to be done within the spirit of Standing Order 35, which I shall read in part as follows:
No Member shall speak disrespectfully of Her Majesty, nor of any of the Royal Family, nor of His Excellency or the person administering the Government of Canada; nor use offensive words against either House, or against any Member thereof.
I certainly grant the hon. member for Nickel Belt the right to identify people in the other place and the directorships they hold. I think that is quite proper in a debate such as this. But I thought one of his remarks went perhaps a little too far, and that was when I interrupted him.


John R. Rodriguez: The next senator we are dealing with, and I should like to make this clear to the hon. member for Madawaska-Victoria (Mr. Corbin) since this gentleman is still with us, is John M. Godfrey, a Liberal. He is a director of IAC and a director of Campbell, Godfrey and Lewtas.
April 1, 1976

He is vice-president and director of Renzy Mines Limited, and secretary and director of Cleveland Twist Drill Carpet (Canada) Limited, Canadian Admiral Corporation Limited, and Canadian Klockner Limited.
Then there is one Denis K. Yorath who is on the board of directors of IAC as well as of the Montreal Trust Company, Dover Industries Limited, Howell Litho and Cartons Limited, Richardson Mernell (Canada) Limited, Wayne Sweeper Manufacturing (Canada) Limited. He is, in addition, governor of the Canadian Council on Social Development.


An hon. Member:: That's interesting.


John R. Rodriguez: Yes, that is very interesting. Then, Mr. Speaker, we have one Harry W. Hays, another Liberal senator. He is a director of the Burritt Travel Service Limited and of The Canada Permanent Trust Company. Then there is Mr. K. H. MacDonald, also on the board of directors of Canada Permanent Mortgage Corporation and on the board of directors of IAC.


An hon. Member:: They don't talk to each other either.


John R. Rodriguez: They don't? I guess that means they are on opposite sides of the Chamber. Then, lo and behold, we come to K. H. MacDonald who is also a director of that company and also on the board of directors of IAC. This K. H. MacDonald is the same fellow. He is also a director of the Home Oil Company Limited. Then we have Renault St. Laurent. He is on the board of directors of IAC and Lakeside Cattle Company Limited.
I understand that this chap Harry W. Hays, the Senator, is also a director of Lakeside Cattle Company Limited. Then, somehow or other, and I do not know how this gets in here but I suppose it is quite understandable, we have Senator E. C. Manning-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. The hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) rises on a point of order.


Miss Nicholson:: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member accept a question?


John R. Rodriguez: Certainly, Mr. Speaker.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the hon. member if he is saying that all private sector activities are intrinsically wrong, or is he going to offer us some kind of definition of the degree of nationalization he wishes?


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I must thank the hon. member for giving me this opportunity to clarify once again what we are about here. When I started out I said that if we look at Bill S-30 and what it attempts to do, and we look at the people who are behind it, we find an interesting situation in view of the fact that we are dealing with interlocking directorships. That is the purpose of our amendment. No director should be allowed to sit on two boards of directors of banks. I was trying to point out the incestuous relationship-I cannot help but use that word because this conjures up in my mind-


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!
Continental Bank of Canada


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I must apologize if I used the wrong word, but I am just a new Canadian and I have difficulty with the language. I am trying to build a word picture for the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: Order, please. I regret having to interrupting the hon. member but his allotted time has expired. I did him extra time in light of certain events that occurred during his speech.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, do I have the permission of the House to continue?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: The hon. member has asked for leave to continue, but there is no unanimous consent.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, who said no?


Mr. Roy (Timmins):: I did. Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Surely the hon. member-and I should not use the term "honourable"-the member who just spoke should know that with the low level of the debate in this House he lowers every constituent whom he represents. He should be ashamed of his performance. If he cannot flush that big head of his through the toilet, he should not leave this extra mess behind.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. I think the hon. member for Timmins (Mr. Roy) has been very intemperate. I can understand that the hon. gentleman has become so perturbed because his friends have been unmasked. But surely we should extend the usual courtesies in this House to each other irrespective of the views we put forward.
I have heard members in the House being accused of having been in cahoots to protect the medical profession. We saw that today.
I have had the hon. member for Lethbridge (Mr. Hurl-burt) insult me in the House for being a foreigner and a new Canadian.
I would never suggest the hon. member for Timmins is not honourable. I may think all sorts of things about him, but surely this House is a forum for the democratic process and we observe those niceties here. I suppose that is most difficult when your friends are being bored, but surely his words are uncalled for in the House. He should be asked to apologize and withdraw his words because, if that is the system, I could use every kind of word in the House with respect to that gentleman.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: I suspect that the language used-


Some hon. Members:: Make him withdraw!


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: A great deal of the language used in the last half hour has been intemperate, and some of it has been provoked. The Chair therefore,

April 1, 1976
Continental Bank of Canada
with much cheerfulness, turns to a healing force, I hope. I recognize the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard).


Eudore Allard: Mr. Speaker, I hope my speech will not produce the same effect as did the one of the hon. member who has just spoken. I would not like every of you to draw prematurely his own conclusions.
Mr. Speaker, I greatly appreciate having this opportunity to express my admiration for all the great financiers who have contributed and still contribute to the administration of this country and of its banking, financial, industrial, commercial and agricultural institutions.
Various institutions such as IAC Ltd. have felt that their great success was being too closely emulated by the big banks, particularly since the revision of the banking system in 1967. That is the reason why these corporations want to sustain the competition against those privileged banks by obtaining the same charter, with the same privileges. All things considered, it matters little to us, of the Social Credit, whether the number of banks in the country varies by one or two. The important thing to us is that our bank legislation should be more in line with the good of the people in general, that is should control more closely their exclusive privileges, and that their services should reach the whole population rather than a small proportion of all Canadian citizens.
Personnally, I have no objection to IAC Ltd., its president, directors and shareholders being allowed to run their bank on the basis of the privileges granted to other banks, since the law exists and these gentlemen certainly have the millions of capital necessary to operate a bank. We can also recognize that greater competition between banks is even more beneficial to the people who have more options with regard to the source of credit they are seeking. When a bank refuses to give you a loan, you can apply to another one. I know something about it for it happened to me not so long ago.
We are pleased to see that the chartered banks are doing a terrific business and making tremendous profits, each year, and that they are repeatedly increasing by several billions their yearly assets out of their profits, and after tax, Mr. Speaker. During the last fiscal year, we have seen in public reports that, 10 chartered banks have increased their assets by more than 14 billions; the Bank of Commerce has increased its assets by 3,300 millions and the Royal Bank of Canada by 3,500 millions.
And is only one year Mr. Speaker, in Parliament we have seen our government increase its annual deficit of $3.50 billions by $500 millions. You can see here the government representing the people and the banks representing the private sector which, within a single year, has increased its assets by $3.5 billions, while the people have to account for a deficit of $3.5 billions, that is, altogether, a difference of $7 billions for this single item.
How is it, Mr. Speaker, that before the revision of the Bank Act in 1967, banks were only accounting for an annual increase in assets of about $3 billions while now, not even ten years later, the annual surplus of their assets is over $15 billions?
There is a great deal of talk about inflation, higher rate of unemployment and poverty. But who benefits from
[The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave)]
inflation, who suffers from unemployment and poverty? It is a question far more serious than it appears on the surface. It is all very nice for the banks to make big profits and to increase their assets and capital. There is nothing wrong, per se, in having strong banks and companies in Canada, but we still have to make sure that it is not going to be detrimental to the interests of the majority of the Canadian people.
When me talk about Social Credit, we mean finance, on a social level as much as on a capital level, we mean work, and so forth, and social justice, for all Canadians.
Why then is the gap widening each year between the poor and the rich between those who make profits and those who operate at loss, including our present government. Why is it that the more the deficits increase on one side, the more the assets increase on the other?
Does that not depend a little on legal privileges granted to some at the expense of others? That is what we must take into account if we sincerely want to fight inflation, unemployment and poverty in Canada in 1976. I do not want to imply that all is wrong in Canada, but I want to say to everyone that there is a way to correct a situation which is not related to the laws and legal privileges that we granted to some and not to the others.
Mr. Speaker, we have no time here-


An hon. Member:: Call it six o'clock.


Eudore Allard: May I call it six o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCleave):: As the hour for the consideration of private members' business has now expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock this evening.
At six o'clock the House took recess.
The House resumed at 8 p.m.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. Sharp:
That, in relation to Bill C-83, an Act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime, four sitting days shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the said bill; and
That, on the fourth of the said days, at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business in such sitting, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding then before the House, if required for the purpose of this order, and, shall forthwith put, without further debate or amendment, every question necessary for the disposal of the second reading stage of the said bill.
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: I have only two minutes, Mr. Speaker, I am told. So, I have one point to make.
First we are accused, when proposing this motion, of not providing enough time for public opinion, in fact, to respond to the bill before the House.

This bill was given first reading on February 24. At that time the government House leader indicated that he would allow approximately ten days before bringing the bill on
April 1, 1976

for second reading because, although it has been expected by hon. members of the opposition, there was a belief that perhaps some time would be required in order to ascertain the full impact of the bill. Subsequently, at the request of the opposition House leader, an additional week was permitted so that public opinion would be allowed to jell, so we did not begin second reading until March 8.
The purpose in not beginning before March 8 was to permit hon. members of the opposition and government backbenchers to communicate with their constituents so that their constituents migh be informed about the provisions of the bill. I am not responsible for any delinquency on the part of some hon. members of the opposition in failing to communicate with their constituents and advise them on the provisions of this bill and to obtain replies from them.
Initially when I became aware of this bill I insisted upon communicating its provisions to everyone in my riding who was interested. As a matter of fact I have been in constant communication with most of my constituents interested in gun control and other aspects of this legislation for the better part of 18 months. As it stands, I am now replying to replies received from people in my constituency, so in effect the matter has jelled in the minds of constituents in the riding of Nipissing. I might indicate that they are willing and ready to make representations so that those representations can be dealt with when the matter goes before the Committee.
I suggest that now is the time to pass this bill at second reading and send it to committee. To the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez), who is concerned about not speaking on this bill because of this motion, I say that when he speaks to his party whip the superiority of his remarks will permit him to be recognized within his caucus, and in the event that his whip feels that his remarks are superior to those of other hon. members of his party, he will be heard. Of course I doubt very much that that will be the case.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, this debate demonstrates beyond any doubt that Standing Order 75C is not working. I am not talking about Standing Order 75, because we have Standing Order 75A and 75B. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) knows full well that when we brought in these rule changes back in 1968 it was the understanding of the House during that debate, notwithstanding the fact that this particular provision of the rules was itself brought in by closure, that Standing Order 75C would only be used on the rarest of occasions, and rightly so, because we are talking about closure.
We know the history of closure in this House. We know what it did to the Liberal Party in 1956, and it went on to pay for it in 1957. However, there is a whole new element entering into the use of the principle of closure, and that is the application of closure when there is no apparent urgency. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pointed out that we have spent barely six days on this bill. If we equate that to full parliamentary days, it works out to about three days or a total of 15 hours, and now we will have closure. As a consequence of this measure before the
Business of the House
House and the vote which will follow we will be told that we have only four more days of debate.
I listened with great interest to the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Blais). It is not often he gets a chance to take off in full flight as he did today, and perhaps that is a good thing because I know the pent up frustration of the hon. member who has an opportunity in this House only to say no.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: He is the original Dr. No. I can imagine the parliamentary secretary having a nightmare one of these days and waking up in the middle of his sleep saying, "Yes, yes, yes".


An hon. Member:: To his wife, I hope.


James Aloysius McGrath: Just think how many worth-while measures have been cut off by the indiscriminate use of the prerogative of the parliamentary secretary to withhold unanimous consent under Standing Order 43.
I listened very carefully to what the parliamentary secretary said. He said that each and every member in this House is equal in status, and I could not agree with him more. Each and every member of this House is equal in status, yet by the very motion of closure which has been introduced in this House the government is denying us the right to participate at second reading of this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I have the right to speak at second reading of this bill. Every hon. member of this House has that right, if he feels so inclined. I submit that there has not been a bill which has come before this House in a long time which has aroused public interest to the extent this measure has, in my recent knowledge, and there has been no measure which has generated more mail than this bill.
It is only right that each member who has to deal with his constituents, who has to answer to his constituents and has to account for his actions in this House-if he feels so inclined and if he feels that he has a responsibility to his constituents-should have a right at second reading of a bill to stand in his place and speak on behalf of his constituents. We are being denied that right.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), when he participated in this debate, said that second reading was only a debate on principle. I am not going to argue that. We are operating under new rules; we have new procedures for the passage of bills in this House; we have committee stage and report stage. Debate on the principle of a bill has always been an important part of our parliamentary procedure, has always been an important prelude before a bill is sent to committee. It sets the state for the examination which is to follow in committee.
This afternoon I listened with amazement to the Minister of Justice saying that it is time we sent the bill to committee so that witnesses can be heard. I say to the Minister of Justice and to the government House leader that members of parliament have the right to be heard

April 1, 1976
Business of the House
before witnesses are heard. That, Sir, is what this debate is all about.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put his finger right on it when he said that it is the right of every member of this House to be heard. Sir, we have that right. I will be the first to concede to the parliamentary secretary and to the government House leader that at times, infrequent to be sure, closure can be justified. But I submit that closure under Standing Order 75C was never meant to be applied as a general principle.


Jean-Jacques Blais: It is not closure. It is time allocation.


James Aloysius McGrath: Consider what has happened since the beginning of this session. We are now debating the fourth closure motion introduced since this parliament began. What does this mean? The government talks about managing the business of the House; but when you talk about four closure motions you are talking about debate taking two full parliamentary days.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: Yes, Mr. Speaker, you are talking about debate taking two parliamentary days.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point or order. The hon. member suggested that the government has introduced four closure motions. I submit that that is not correct. There have been only three closure motions. Allocation of time was not used with respect to the anti-inflation bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member can deal with that point if he makes a speech.


James Aloysius McGrath: The fact remains that important time of this House has been used to debate closure motions brought in under Standing Order 75C. That is a shameful misuse of the time of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The government's shameful action in bringing in closure on this bill will ultimately be reflected in the votes which voters will cast when the government goes to the country to give an account of itself. Make no mistake about it, closure will be an issue.
I was surprised to hear the Minister of Justice, a parliamentarian for whom I have the greatest respect, stand up and try to justify closure after only six days of debate on the principle of the bill. I listened to him very carefully. He brought forward that well-worn cliche: parliament disposes, the government proposes. He meant that this government proposes and arbitrarily disposes, and to hell with parliament. That is the government's attitude.
I hope the Minister of Justice can assure us before this debate ends that this bill in committee will not be treated as Bill C-58 was treated. As you remember, Sir, the government introduced closure in the House with respect to Bill C-58. When the bill was sent to committee we found ourselves once more faced with closure in committee. We were

told to send Bill C-58 back to the House before Christmas. And what happened? We did not reach Bill C-58 again in the House until last month. How can the government justify its shameful use of closure on that occasion? It introduced closure on second reading, and closure again when the bill was in committee. I see the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik) nodding, apparently in approval. He was on that committee and knows that what I say is right.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member. His time has expired.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, today when the government House leader moved the closure motion under Standing Order 75C we learned what the new society is all about. At one time I thought the government wanted to do away with free enterprise. Without equivocating, I say that the government seeks to emasculate the opposition. That, exactly, is what it wants to do. The government wants to reduce us to nobodies. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Minister of Justice (Mr. Bas-ford), and the government House leader have said so in so many words. They want to reduce us to nobodies, and we will not accept it. The government seeks to erode the authority of parliament. I only wish the right hon. gentleman from Prince Albert were here this evening. He would tell the House what this is all about.
The government has conveniently forgotten the role of the opposition. It is our role to be the watchdog of the public purse and to make the government behave. It is hard to make this government behave properly. It is also our duty to offer constructive criticism. This we have done all along, but the government pays no attention. This insensitive, arrogant government does not want a watchdog, does not want to be told how to behave, does not want to listen to constructive criticism. Yes, I recall the words of some ministers, "We are the masters of this House." Nobody falls for that nonsense. There is a responsible role for the opposition to play. We accept our responsibility, no matter what the government wants to do.
The Prime Minister's attitude to the opposition is, if they don't like it they can lump it.


Mr. Cullen:: Really, really!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I see the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Cullen) opposite me. He is one of the class of '68 and no doubt remembers the statement attributed to the Prime Minister, "If they don't like it, they can lump it." Well, when the Prime Minister says that to me he is talking indirectly to between 80,000 and 100,000 people. As my hon. friend from St. John's East said, the people will not forget in the next election.
Here the government is, closing off debate on an important measure. It says we may debate the closure motion for two hours and the bill for four more days. What will happen when the bill is in committee? The work of our committees is a myth. Our committee structure is a farce. It is insensitive to the wishes of opposition members. So far as I am concerned the committees are nothing but a means for pushing through government bills. The opposition has been muzzled even in committee. I have seen much hanky-panky in committees. We have asked that witnesses be called, and the government refused.
April 1, 1976

It is quite possible that the government will close off debate on this bill in committee. The government is fond of closure, fond of stifling debate on controversial measures. I am thinking of the anti-inflation bill, the Reader's Digest bill, the medicare bill, and other similar bills. In those cases the government ended debate with closure. The guillotine prevented my speaking, took away a right given to me when I was elected. I listened to the parliamentary secretary talk about bludgeoning. They are masters at that. We in the opposition must guard our rights most jealously. We resent this strong arm, arrogant use of closure. There is no excuse for it.
We have had 16 hours of debate. Surely a bill so complicated and complex that not even government members understand what is going on and the implications of it should be given more time. If government members do not know, they will soon know because letters are coming in by the hundreds, stating that this bill is ill-drafted. It was brought in without any thought whatsoever. All we are trying to do is point out these faults and make constructive criticism so that what is a bad bill can, perhaps in the long run, become a contemporary bill, one that is acceptable.
In conclusion, it must be tiresome for members opposite again to hear the government being labelled arrogant- tiresome, but true. Again meihbers of the government are proving they have little understanding of and less respect for the House of Commons. This closure motion on Bill C-83 is a disgrace. It is a disgrace to the government House leader, to the government, and to all members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I urge prompt defeat of this guillotine motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Warren Allmand (Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, when I sit and listen to debates like this I often question my position with regard to capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: This afternoon I did a quick check of the order paper. I found that there are 19 or 20 government bills at different stages presently before parliament, bills which should be passed before the end of this session or, as hon. members know, they will expire and must be re-introduced in a new session. These are important bills for the Canadian people. We as a government are committed to them and we want to see them passed as soon as possible. It is obvious that the opposition is not as enthusiastic about the bills as we. It is in their interest to drag out debate as long as they can. It is in their interest to delay the government's legislative program and make it look as poor as possible.
The government, faced with this situation, has two choices. It can either let the opposition run this House and control this parliament, or we can do it ourselves. If we do not take action to see that our legislation is put through this House in a diligent way, then I say the opposition will
Business of the House
do it in their way. How will they do it? They have what I call the closure of the opposition. They have the closure of delay, the closure of repetition, the closure of obstruction, and the closure of just plain tactical interference. With that type of closure, instead of passing those 20 important bills before the House of Commons, we will only pass five or ten. I say that is just as serious. It is what I describe as closure by the opposition.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) criticized the government for putting this motion to provide ten days of debate at second reading, and he poses as an opponent of closure and allocation of time. However, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre did not hesitate for one minute in the last two weeks to introduce a motion to adjourn this House when it suited his own political purposes. That kind of tactic to introduce motions of adjournment, to refuse extensions of hours and to introduce frivolous motions to delay time in the House, is just as much a delay in time and obstruction, and a type of closure as this type.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: As long as the opposition insists on using that type of closure in trying to control this House, we will respond with reasonable rules and reasonable measures to put through our program of legislation.
There are other ways to get through the large volume of legislation that we must put through this House. We could extend the hours of this House. We could extend the sittings. However, I understand that each time we went to the opposition with that kind of proposal, they turned it down. I have been in this House time and again when the government House leader has asked for an extension of hours so that we could sit late to get in more debate and pass a bill, and was refused by the opposition. That is one way we could do it. I am sure our House leader would be pleased to discuss that type of extension of hours.
I also understand that the government House leader approached the opposition House leaders during this debate to see if they would accept some allocation of time such as seven days, ten days, or 15 days. They were not interested in any allocation of time. We asked for a suggestion, but they were not interested in an allocation of time.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. This afternoon I called the House to order. Each member is only allowed ten minutes to speak. It is difficult for the Chair to follow the debate when one cannot hear what is being said. I ask hon. members to allow the minister to speak and be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) suggested that we were acting contrary to the spirit of parliament in introducing this motion. However, I do not know of any parliament under the British parliamentary system that drags out debates as long as this parliament in Ottawa. If we look at the parliament of Westminster we find that it is very rare for any debate on second reading to go beyond a couple of days. Further, if we look at many of the parliaments in our Commonwealth, very few of them go beyond a few days on second reading

April 1, 1976
Business of the House
debates. Therefore if hon. members wish to follow the spirit of parliament I suggest that we follow the Mother of Parliaments and restrict second reading debates to one or two days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Warren Allmand: The government introduces motions like this the better to order the progress of business in this House and to see that its program of legislation will be passed in a reasonable period of time. The government also introduces motions like this as a response to the opposition attempt to run parliament according to their schedule. As I said earlier, as long as they attempt to foreclose the program of legislation put forward by the government with attempts at closure by delay, repetition, and obstruction, we will respond with motions such as this.
If this motion passes there will be four more days in this second reading debate. There will then be a long period in committee where the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford), myself, and our officials will go to explain the legislation. Other people in the country can come before the committee and put forward their views. There will also be a long debate at the report stage, and a long debate at third reading.
I will start taking the opposition seriously, when they talk about closure and time allocation, when they show me by their actions that they are willing to take a responsible approach to the business of this House.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, I might say, as a member who, since 1972, has been sympathetic to gun control and who has introduced two private members' bills in the House on the subject, that I am disappointed, disillusioned, and literally amazed at the stupidity of the government.
There can be no question about the importance of the legislation. It affects four million people in Canada and a stimulating debate has developed up to this point between those interested in the shooting sports and those interested in increasing public safety. The government's refusal to allow this debate to proceed uninterrupted is a knee-jerk reaction of an administration which does not understand the sensitivity inherent in legislation of this type. To impose closure thus soon is running the risk of losing sympathy for the legislation in terms of the public debate which is going on in the country at large. As one who has long supported the principle of gun control this action brings no credit on those who have advocated such a position.
The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) talks about the "closure of delay" and the "closure of obstruction". He has demonstrated clearly the closure of his own mind on the subject. It is absurd to try to pass peace and security legislation in the absence of a consensus, without support in the country, and the government is throwing this support away.
The hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) has told us he would like to see the gun control provisions severed from this package. I had reservations about that proposition because this is not just a gun control bill, it is a

wiretapping bill, a dangerous offenders bill, a crime inquiry bill, and a parole bill. We had serious reservations with regard to the Conservative position on that aspect. At this point, however, we feel we ought to rethink that attitude in the light of the decision the government has taken.
The Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) has told us he would like to get the bill into committee so that witnesses might be called. I have been waiting for a commitment from him and his supporters that closure will not be imposed in the committee as well. I should like a commitment that a long and full debate will be possible with regard to this subject in committee and that we shall not find the Liberal members on that committee dictating to us how many witnesses will be called and how much time we can spend listening to their views.
The motion we are considering today is an indication of the fact the government has lost touch with the constituencies. I can understand the frustration of the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais) when he said that members of the opposition were always on their feet talking while Liberal backbenchers do not have that chance. One justification for closure is the opportunity it provides for Liberal backbenchers to contribute. I can understand their frustration, having to sit there in silence or, worse, pound their benches after some of the nonsense we hear from over there. They want to get up once in a while and show they are alive.
The mail every member has received on both sides of the peace and security issue is overwhelming. There has been so much response that I cannot conceive any sensitive government cutting off debate.


William Warren Allmand: When are you going to move to adjourn the House?


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: It is another indication that these people are no longer merely arrogant; they are drunk with power. They are replacing arrogance with a stupidity they used not to show. The government will need all the friends it can get if it wishes to pass the kind of controversial legislation we are considering. It has made a silly, stupid, and arrogant decision to abandon those friends. It will rue the day when it decided there is no longer a place for meaningful debate in the House. To impose closure after such a limited time is a shame. In this party we have had four speakers out of 16. The Minister of Justice said the other day that this was just a debate on the principle. Mr. Speaker, the principle here is whether three million people in Canada will have to register themselves. Could there be a more important principle than that? That is the principle of the gun control provisions, and that is why it is so vital.


An hon. Member:: Why don't you get up and move the adjournment of the House again?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Belanger):: Order, please. I think hon. members have enough experience to know that when an hon. member has the floor he must be allowed to speak and be listened to carefully.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: We oppose this motion because all members should have an unfettered opportunity to make an input on
April 1, 1976

the subject. We should be able to hear the views of members who are concerned on either side. The government is preventing hon. members from getting the advice they need in order to vote intelligently on this matter, and I suggest it will live to regret its arrogant stand.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to take part in this debate although it is a very sick motion. The Solicitor General (Mr. Allmand) is well known for his views on capital punishment and, while many would disagree with them they are respected because they are sincere. Yet a minister who has such strong views on an element that some people consider has to do with the protection of society comes into the House of Commons with this type of closure motion and, in effect, speaks for a type of capital punishment.
The Solicitor General is against capital punishment for those who commit murder, but now he wants to go beyond the pale and, after literally only 16 hours of debate in the House, has the nerve to stand up and practically refute his sincere belief in the abolition of capital punishment. By coming out for "capital punishment" on this bill, Mr. Speaker, that is what he is doing.
I thought that all of the April fool jokes came early in the day, Mr. Speaker. If I did not know better I would say that the motion before us today is one of the sickest April fool jokes that has been perpetrated in the House of Commons in many a year. One hon. member on that side a while ago asked what Bill C-83 was for. It is entitled "an act for the better protection of Canadian society against perpetrators of violent and other crime". Is it not a sick April fool joke, when talking about a bill to protect Canadian society, to have the government gag the representatives of Canadian society?
The subject matter of the bill is protection against the perpetration of violent and other crime, but what is the most violent parliamentary crime, Mr. Speaker? It is parliamentary rape. It is parliamentary closure. This is a form of parliamentary rape, and I am not going to be raped by those government eunuchs over there!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: While the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) may say that backbenchers on all sides are nobodies-and we can debate that-I never thought I would hear the Minister of Justice (Mr. Basford) promulgate his theory of parliamentary democracy by, in effect, ending parliamentary debate. This confirms that he shares the opinions of his boss, the prince from Pierreland, that he believes not only in parliamentary nobodies but in verbal eunuchs. That is what he wants to do, Mr. Speaker; he wants to cut off debate.
I had thought that some of the backbenchers on the other side of the House would have spoken to this motion. As my hon. House leader said this afternoon, having presented some well reasoned statistics, after only 16 hours of debate there have been 11 government members-


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Where is your House leader now?
Business of the House


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Would the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) just restrain his empty vessel. My grade six teacher told me many years ago that it is the empty vessel that makes the most sound. I know he is not fully empty but only half empty. Be that as it may, there have been 11 government members, 11 Conservative members, four NDP members, and four Social Credit members who have spoken in this debate. I agree with what the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt) said, that-


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: A point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member is rising on a point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: Mr. Speaker, the reason I am getting up is that I have two points of order really. One is to ask the hon. member which member he pointed to when he was talking about the House leader; my other point of order is tell him that if he keeps his mouth closed he will never get into any trouble.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan) has the floor.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I hope you do not take that time away from me but instead add another minute or two for such an irrelevant comment. The Solicitor General talked earlier this evening about government time and the orderly conduct of government business. How many Canadians know that we are now on the 276th day of the first session of this parliament after the election of July 8, 1974? This is the longest session of Parliament in our history. We have been in session over a span of three years, yet after only 16 hours of debate the government has the temerity to muzzle, gag, and throttle the representatives of the Canadian people on a matter affecting all Canadians.
In closing-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -I should like to say, as others have said before me, that while the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Chretien) and the government House leader may be in favour of "muzzlitis"-and bringing in closure four times this session must be quite an uneasy record that the government will have to defend-may I say in all seriousness that with no commitment from the other side about what will happen to the number of people who will sit on the committee, and with no commitment that there will not be closure in committee, this type of closure is not only closure against members on all sides, including government backbenchers who have spoken equally with us up to today, but closure against all Canadians, and that is what is going to be resented by all Canadians.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, the Liberal club or muzzle has been wielded for the fourth time, but the second time within a month. The first time it was to impose a new tax distribution of medical costs between Ottawa and the provinces since no agreement had been

April 1, 1976
Business of the House
concluded between the various governments and today because Bill C-83 amending the Criminal Code is extremely complex and difficult. This bill is thus giving rise to strong popular pressures against the government and this is why the closure has again been moved.
According to our rules, Mr. Speaker, there are three procedures to regulate the proceedings of this House: Firstly, under rule 75A, requiring the unanimous consent of the House or the parties; secondly under rule 75B, requiring the majority and thirdly under rule 75C which provides for unilateral action by the government which lays down the law for lack of a consensus or a majority.
After some very cheap consultations, the government has jumped immediately to take unilateral action and they are forcing their will upon Parliament by using Standing Order 75C and imposing the closure of debate. What are the facts, Mr. Speaker? In fact, 28 members have spoken on second reading of Bill C-83 in the House, which represents a percentage of 10.6 per cent of the members to have spoken on Bill C-83, the bill dealing with gun control. Surely 10 per cent does not amount to abuse, and no Canadian will accept the government's argument that members on both sides of the House have abused when only 10 per cent of them have risen to speak on this legislation. No Canadian will accept this argument.
Secondly, Mr. Speaker,-


Mr. Roy (Laval):: You will speak in committee.


André-Gilles Fortin: -I would ask the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy) to shut up. He should have risen before. Secondly, 11 Liberal members have spoken on the legislation, 11 Progressive Conservative members have also spoken, as well as four NDP members and three Social Crediters. That means that as many Liberals as Progressive Conservatives have spoken on the legislation. Therefore the argument of the Liberals who want to muzzle the Progressive Conservatives is absolutely senseless. The two parties have had an equal number of speakers. The NDP have had 11 and we, the Social Crediters, have had only three or four, half the number of Liberals or Conservatives.
Mr. Speaker, I say the federal Liberals behave exactly like their provincial counterparts in Quebec, and I draw the attention of colleagues from other provinces. In Quebec, we have a premier who gets a kick out of dividing people through fear of the PQ. He thus obtains the unanimity in the National Assembly. In Quebec, there is no majority any more, there is no longer any democracy. There is a dictatorship that works, a system of full patronage and here there are attempts to divide the opposition the better to reign. Mr. Speaker, that is the prevailing situation. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) could have risen on Standing Order 75C if the opposition had been filibustering this debate, but such is not the case.
Mr. Speaker, the Liberals cannot therefore accuse the Conservatives nor the NDP nor the Crediters of listing too many speakers. They cannot accuse the opposition because they have had as many speakers as the opposition. As a matter of fact, 40.6 per cent of the speakers during the second reading debate, which is a discussion on prin-cipales, were Liberals and we agree that the Liberals should have the floor, Mr. Speaker, we are not opposed to that, we want backbenchers on the government side to

stand up, but we request the same right for the opposition. We request the right to express ourselves.
Mr. Speaker, when opposition or public opinion begins to be felt, when the opposition begins to speak up and when the public gets interested, that is when they are gagged.


Mr. Guay (Levis):: What are you doing!


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, that shows one thing: the hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) never stops interrupting me, he is not brave enough to stand up but he is enough of a coward to interrupt me.
Mr. Speaker, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp)-


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Levis (Mr. Guay) on a question of privilege.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I quite understand that the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) is in the running for the leadership, but when one starts calling others "cowards", Mr. Speaker, that is going a bit too far. I demand that the hon. member for Lotbiniere treat the others as they do him. I will not allow being treated so shabbily. I demand that he withdraw his words.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. If the word "coward" was spoken, then I did not hear it. If it was uttered, I admit that it is harsh, strong, but I did not hear the word the hon. member has just used.


An hon. Member:: That is what he said.


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I rise on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. I want the hon. member to understand me well. As I did not hear the word, I shall take his question as notice, and we can look at Hansard tomorrow.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: It is a matter of personal privilege. If you did not hear the word, then I feel that tomorrow will be too late because the words will have been consigned to Hansard. I request that the hon. member withdraw his words immediately. The hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) knows himself what he said.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order. The hon. member knows full well that when the Speaker does not hear or understand the words that are spoken, he can reserve the right to pass judgment the next day after having read Hansard.
The hon. member for Lotbiniere.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) invokes Standing Order 75C today, that proves two things: the first, that he does not have the leadership required to conduct negotiations in the House
April 1, 1976

leading to democratic debates. He has no leadership. Mr. Speaker, I was parliamentary leader for three years myself. I knew two other parliamentary leaders before the present one and Standing Order 75C was never used for one reason: the negotiations took place. Mr. Speaker, we have the worst President of the Privy Council we have ever had. When he sees we are unable to discuss, he simply imposes his law.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Levis on a point of order.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, if you did not hear what the hon. member for Lotbiniere said about me, I think you have just heard what he says about the President of the Privy Council, the leader in this House. Mr. Speaker, allow me to go on with my question of privilege, because I have a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member probably did not like the words of the hon. member who has the floor but there is nothing unparliamentary in what he said.
The hon. member for Levis on a question of privilege.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to point out to the House that, on a personal question of privilege, if we blame people for talking too much, if we say we must muzzle the House, as the hon. member now seems to be trying to prove, I think he is the one who should be muzzled for all the nonsense he is saying.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, on a question of privilege.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a question of privilege.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker-


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please, the Hon. member for Joliette (Mr. La Salle) on a point of order.


Roch La Salle: Mr. Speaker, I am listening very carefully to these comments. However, despite the good will showed by the hon. member for Levis, I have the strong feeling that the hon. member for Lotbiniere only spoke the truth.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if the President of the Privy Council resorts to Standing Order 75C, it shows that there is no leadership whatsoever left in the House, and that each time a legislation must be passed, the House is muzzled.
Moreover, the President of the Privy Council clearly indicates that he has no more confidence-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The time allowed to the hon. member is over.
The hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik).
Business of the House


Mr. Cafik:: Thank you, Mr. Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


André-Gilles Fortin: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The hon. member for Lotbiniere on a point of order.


André-Gilles Fortin: Yes, Mr. Speaker, I had precisely ten minutes under the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. The hon. member for Levis found ways to interrupt me, biased ways to prevent me from speaking. I claim my right to speak ten minutes like anyone else.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. The Chair did allow for the interventions and all things considered, the hon. member for Lotbiniere was allowed his ten minutes.
I recognize the hon. member for Ontario (Mr. Cafik).


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I gather from the-


André-Gilles Fortin: I am rising on a question of privilege, Mr. Speaker.
Mr. Speaker, I have the highest respect for the Chair and I believe that in the past the Chair has given evidence of its great familiarity with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and I think that today's ruling by the Chair was fair.
Mr. Speaker, I spoke a while ago and said candidly what I thought. I was interrupted on exactly four occasions, Mr. Speaker.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. I have already given my ruling by pointing out to the hon. member that, all facts considered, his ten minutes were up, and I stand by that.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Thank you, Mr. Speaker, for the third time that you have recognized me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I think the opposition has made a very valid point in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Norman Augustine Cafik: I do not think it relates to the use of 75C but I do think it is important that we get some kind of understanding that, at the committee stage, we have a very serious opportunity to deal with this highly emotional subject matter that is of importance to all the people of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 1, 1976
Business of the House


Norman Augustine Cafik: My understanding is that by moving it to the committee more quickly there will be that kind of opportunity.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Don't you believe it!


Norman Augustine Cafik: Just a moment. I am saying that I have not heard-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Order, please. It being 9.02 p.m., the time provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House under Standing Order 75C has expired.
The motion is now before the House. Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Some hon. Members:: Read the motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Read the motion.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: In my opinion the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Boulanger):: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried.


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, since the House is in such an amiable mood I have another suggestion to make. It will be recalled that when I announced the business for today and tomorrow, I included as the first order of business second reading of Bill C-92 dealing with prisoners of war. Because of the hour at which we have arrived, I was a little afraid that we might not reach that item before ten o'clock. Therefore there have been discussions among House leaders. There is an agreement, I understand unanimously, to take the second reading of Bill C-92 now without further debate.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened very carefully to the government House leader. We are in agreement with what I think is a very commendable move on all sides of the House. I just want him and others to
[Mr. Cafik.)
April 1, 1976

Electoral Boundaries



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
know that we put the plight of veterans much higher than the necessity for closure on Bill C-83.
Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, the announcement made by the government House leader is correct. We gladly agree.


Léonel Beaudoin: Mr. Speaker, we are in full agreement with the suggestion put forward to the House by the President of the Privy Council. This proves that when the government introduces good legislation to help the poor, especially those who require it most, we always go along.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members should understand that, despite the lateness of the hour, the House is still dealing with Routine Proceedings. If the House were to deal with this measure now and put the motion and have passage of the motion without debate, the necessary steps would have to be taken with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Tuesday, March 30, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacDonald (Cardigan) that Bill C-92, to provide for compensation for former prisoners of war and their dependants and to amend certain other statutes in consequence thereof, be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.
Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to, bill read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs.

Mr. Speaker:: The House is now still engaged in the conclusion of Routine Proceedings, specifically, motions. Earlier this day the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) gave indication of his intention, with the consent of the House, to move a motion respecting the business of the House for Monday and Tuesday, namely, debate on the Electoral Boundaries Commission reports, at which time the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) raised a point of order.
The hon. member for Thunder Bay.


B. Keith Penner: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I seek your indulgence and that of all hon. members to raise a serious and pressing point of order with reference to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of Ontario which was tabled on February 27 by Your Honour in this House. I raise the point of order at this time because, in my view, it must be considered by Your Honour prior to the debate which is to take place on Monday and Tuesday of next week, if in fact that comes about.
My point of order is that this document cannot properly be tabled and considered because the commission has failed to comply with the reporting provisions of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act. The Commission has not complied to the extent that it has not included reasons justifying the recommendations as required by the act I have mentioned.
I would draw your attention to section 2(1) of the act and the definition therein contained of the word "Recommendation" which states:
"Recommendation" with respect to a recommendation set forth in the report means a recommendation that is justified by a reason therefor.
It is the last phrase, Mr. Speaker, which I wish to stress, "a recommendation that is justified by a reason therefor." The section of the act I have quoted was a fairly recent amendment introduced in this House by the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert). It was a wise and useful amendment simply because when objections are filed, as they have been in large numbers, members quite naturally want to be relevant in debate, and in order to do so they must find specific reasons stated justifying the recommendations. Otherwise members have nothing before them upon which to base what should be cogent and pertinent comments.
Now, Sir, if I may, let me draw your attention to the Ontario report and let us see exactly in what way the commission has failed to abide by the terms of the act. On page three, we find Schedule B, purporting to be that part of the report complying with the requirement of the act as contained in the definition I have just read. The title of Schedule B is "Reasons for the Original Proposed Boundaries". Immediately we are confronted with error No. 1. The report which ought to be tabled by Your Honour is not that

April 1, 1976
Electoral Boundaries
which contains the original proposed boundaries. It must be the report which has followed the public hearings the commission is required to hold.
Let us suppose for a moment that in the title to Schedule B the word "original" were simply deleted. Would the commission then have met its legal obligations? The answer, I submit, is categorically, no. What has the Commission said in Schedule B? They have done no more than paraphrase for us the language of the very law passed by parliament. In what way does that constitute the justification which parliament has demanded from the commission?
On page four, the commissioners, in this document which purports to be their report, go on simply to tell us what they have done. They say, for example, that all of the non-urban electoral districts in Northern Ontario are below quota. I submit that this statement is factually incorrect, but more seriously, and more pertinent to this point of order, the commissioners have made no effort whatsoever to offer any reason in support of their recommendations.
Consider, for a moment, what they have proposed for Northern Ontario-a reduction of the present level of representation from 12 seats to 11. This is a recommendation which has caused deep-seated dismay across the entire region of Northern Ontario. Where is the justification for this particular recommendation?


Mr. Speaker:: I am reluctant to interrupt the hon. member but I do want to restrict him from talking about the merits of the report itself. We must be clear about what is taking place. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) has put down a notice which would legalize the calling of this question tomorrow. The minister has now sought the consent of the House to deal with it today, not tomorrow. Before the consent of the House could be sought, the hon. member raised a point of order which has something to do with whether or not the motion could be dealt with at all by the House. I respect that. But I want to confine him strictly to the technicality of whether or not the House can deal with the report.


B. Keith Penner: I appreciate very much what you have just said, Mr. Speaker. My reference to Northern Ontario was designed to illustrate the point I was about to make. A serious recommendation is made but it is supported by no reason or reasons whatsoever.
I hasten to add that in this proposed redistribution Ontario is gaining seven more seats than it has at present. All of these, of course, will go to the more populous southern part of the province, and understandably so. But why has the commission found it necessary to subtract one from Northern Ontario? My point is that it has offered no reason for such an important decision. However, in keeping with Your Honour's ruling, I do not wish to dwell on that point. I will conclude by simply reiterating my point of order.
The commission is required by statute to present reasons justifying its recommendations. This document fails to offer reasons and should, therefore, not have been tabled. Hence I contend, with respect, that it would be out of order to proceed with any debate regarding the distribution of seats in Ontario. The debate to take place next week,

should it take place, and should Your Honour accept the point I am making, would have to exclude any discussion of the Ontario report.


Norman Augustine Cafik: Mr. Speaker, I rise to participate in the debate on this point of order because I strongly believe that the hon. member for Thunder Bay (Mr. Penner) has presented a very valid argument. His submission is strengthened by the fact that the Electoral Boundaries Commission has, in every province with the exception of Ontario, provided reasons to support the recommendations. Thus the commission as a whole recognizes the obligation to provide those reasons. However, in the case of Ontario the commission did not do so.
The second point I would make is that this argument is not exclusively a technical argument. I think the requirement to provide reasons for recommendations not only applies to this particular aspect of the report that has been tabled in the House or given to Your Honour, but is a requirement to provide that reasons existed for the original report that was given public debate and participation. The reasons did not exist at that particular point either. Therefore it appears to me, Mr. Speaker, that the report is not only invalid and in fact fails to be a report under the law at this particular time, but it was so even prior to its arriving in this House.
I contend that the very essence of the function performed by the commissioners was to make recommendations as to the disposition of proposed new ridings. When one looks at the act giving rise to this commission, "recommendation" itself is defined in the interpretation section, section 2(1). A recommendation is defined as one that contains a reason to justify it. If there is no justification, then there is no recommendation, because a recommendation itself is defined to be that which contains within it a justification for a recommendation.
I therefore contend that there is in fact no recommendation whatsoever in the report of the Ontario Electoral Boundaries Redistribution Commission. If that is true then you have withdrawn the very essence of the report, the very thing that gives it meaning, the recommendation itself. If those recommendations fail to exist, I find it extremely difficult to contend that the report in fact exists. I maintain that when you withdraw the essence of it, you have withdrawn the very thing itself. The report therefore does not exist, and it cannot be dealt with by the House of Commons if it is not here.
I make one other point, Mr. Speaker. The requirement for reasons is one that appears to be fully understood and recognized by Mr. Castonguay, the representation commissioner. On April 26, 1974, at the privileges and elections committee, there was in fact extensive discussion with the representation commissioner respecting a proposed amendment that would require these reasons. At that time the commissioner indulged in quite a lengthy discussion, and indicated to the committee that if such recommendations required reasons it would make eminent sense that those reasons would not only have to be present in the report to be tabled in the House of Commons but, by the same token, should be present prior to the public hearings.
April 1, 1976

That particular amendment was carried, Mr. Speaker. It was carried in this House. It was an amendment specifically requiring reasons in order to qualify it as being a recommendation in the first place. So I maintain that at that time the representation Commissioner was fully aware of this legal requirement, and in the case of Ontario for some peculiar reason that requirement was not met.
I would further argue that lack of reasons justifying recommendations in the case of Ontario puts Ontario members at a considerable disadvantage when discussing this alleged report. In the case of all other members of parliament from other regions of Canada, they are entitled to see those justifying reasons for the recommendations and thus address their remarks to that which gives rise to the recommendations. In the case of members from Ontario who wish to address themselves to the report of the redistribution commissioners, they are denied that which gives rise to the recommendations themselves. Therefore our position as members of parliament has been somewhat eroded in relation to other members in light of any discussion that would take place in respect to this alleged report. I therefore conclude that this report is non-existent and therefore cannot be dealt with by the House of Commons.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we must keep clear in our minds that we are still on routine proceedings. What has been sought at this point is the necessary unanimous consent of the House to deal with a motion during today's proceedings, as opposed to tomorrow when it could be called. It is important that the Chair be advised in advance of this point of order, and I have been grateful for the participation of the two hon. members. The Chair has been greatly assisted in any event by the opportunity to consider this matter overnight.
Since we have never really got to the point where I could ask for unanimous consent, and it is now approaching ten o'clock with Questions on the Order Paper still to come, perhaps the House would permit the Chair to reflect on this matter overnight, and when the matter comes before the House on motions tomorrow, as it normally would without the necessity for consent, it may be possible for the Chair to give some indication of its views at that time. I might say that it does not seem to me that there is a great deal of difficulty about the facts leading up to the argument. What is in doubt is the effect of those facts from a procedural point of view. Perhaps all would benefit if the Chair were to reflect on the matter overnight.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, I do not know whether this is a first, dealing with the last item on routine proceedings as the last item of business on a government day. The following questions will be answered today: 1,521, 3,530, 3,789, 3,839, 3,840, 4,072, 4,610, 4,613, 4,775, 4,912, 4,922 and 4,940.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.

Order Paper Questions PRIME MINISTER'S TRIP TO MONTREAL


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	With reference to the Prime Minister's trip to Montreal on or about January 31, 1975 (a) what exact means of transportation was used (i) was it government-owned (ii) what was the total cost to the taxpayers (b) how many persons accompanied the Prime Minister at public expense and what were all their names?
2.	Was one of the items on the Prime Minister's Montreal agenda an address to a Liberal Party Fund Raising Dinner, and, if so, did or will the Liberal Party pay a portion of the cost of the trip and (a) if not, for what reason (b) if so, how much and on what date?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1. (a) The
Prime Minister travelled by official automobile, (i) Yes. (ii) In addition to gasoline, chauffeur's expenses and overnight accommodation, $53.55 (b) The following members of the Prime Minister's staff were in Montreal during the period January 31-February 1: P. O'Neil, Miss M. Macdonald, G. Dufault, R. Coleman, J. Moore, Miss A. McCabe; travelling expense totalling $551.23.
2. Yes. The visit also included official meetings with the Premier of Quebec.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the Public Accounts for 1974-75 on the Fund for Rural Economic Development (a) for each programme and project in PEI under the category of Social Development, what (i) was the approved programme (ii) were the actual expenditure figures (iii) are the reasons for the difference between each approved programme and actual expenditure figures (iv) happens to those funds which were not spent in the fiscal year for which they were approved (b) what are the reasons for the expenditures under Resource Adjustment and Development exceeding the approved programme figure?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
Education Capital Funds Adult Education and Related Training Housing
Urban Development and Community Services Total
(a) (i)	(a) (ii)	(a) (iii)Approved	Expen-	RevisedProgram	diture	Program3,790,772	2,609,108	2,752,772611,920	478,226	507,9201,207,241	1,889,618	2,064,2411,603,347	427,514	519,3477,213,280	5,404,466	5,844,280
(a) (iii); (b) Amendment No. 3 to the First Memorandum of Implementation (Schedule "A" to the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan Agreement) provided that "... the Ministers may, by agreement expressed in writing, in order to meet the program implementation requirements during the period April 1, 1973 to the end of the first phase of the Plan and on the recommendation of the Joint Federal-Provincial Advisory Board established under Article 13 of the Agreement, from time to time re-allocate, among the components of the Summary of Cost Sharing, the funds to be provided by the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and by the Province. For the
12392

April 1, 1976
Order Paper Questions
purposes of this sub-article, "the Ministers" means the Premier of the Province and the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion of Canada-" Such a reallocation of the components of the Summary of Cost Sharing did take place with respect to fiscal year 1974-75. The original and revised allocations are shown below for each program:
Development Grant Resource Adjustment and Development Social Development Resource Supporting and Commercial Services Implementation Total
Approved	Expen-	RevisedProgram	diture	Program3,146,000	3,146,000	3,146,0005,640,579	7,000,783	7,401,5797,213,280	5,404,466	5,844,2803,116,030	2,374,925	2,637,030987,862	969,576	1,074,86220,103,751	18,895,750	20,103,751
(a) (iv) The First Memorandum of Implementation provided for maximum FRED contributions of $81,937,000 during the first phase of the agreement (which was terminated on March 31, 1975). An examination of expenditures reported in the response to Question No. 3,531 will show that the federal government has contributed 99.2 per cent of that maximum.


Mr. Matte: Will jobs be created for the duration of the Olympic Games and, if so (a) how many (b) what type (c) for what length of time (d) at what cost?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: We
are unable to provide any specific information on job creation in this regard during the 1976 Olympic Games as we are not involved in the actual management of the Games. However, COJO advises us that: (a) approximately 30,000 temporary employees will be hired for the duration, including some 10,000 students from Quebec, thousands of volunteers and staff supplied by the Department of National Defence; (b) apart from supervisory positions, most of the jobs will be for unskilled labour, i.e. hostesses, guides, ticket collectors, program distributors, ushers, cleaners, messengers, etc.; (c) the jobs will last from three weeks to six months, the average being about six weeks; (d) we were unable to obtain an estimate of the cost of this manpower. The actual cost will, of course, not be known until after the Games.
addition, measures to improve merchandising methods such as new packaging techniques for lobster and development of retortable pouches and improved labeling are in advanced stages.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): 1.	With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, is one of the objectives of the sectoral strategy to provide longer-term employment for workers in fish processing plants and, if so (a) what measures have been or will be implemented (b) on what date (c) at what cost?
2.	Has any evaluation been made of such measures under Phase 1 and, if so (a) what were the conclusions as to their effectiveness (b) what changes in emphasis will result under Phase 2?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows:
1.	Yes. (a) Measures taken have been: the production of new products, harvesting of fish over a longer period, and encouragement of more storage. New measures may be taken in the future, (b) These measures are part of the program started in 1969, and the date of adoption of any part of a measure by an individual fisherman is not recorded. (c) Records of the cost of each project do not allow for the breakdown of cost as requested.
2.	(a) The measures were of limited effectiveness because of circumstances beyond the control of the implementing agency such as the finite quantity of fish available and the number of fishermen involved, (b) The objective is the same but changes in emphasis in the strategy are being discussed with the province.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	From 1969 to date, how many DREE incentive grants to industries in (a) British Columbia (b) the rest of Canada were made in respect of (i) new industries (ii) expansion of existing industries and, in each case, what were the amounts?
2.	(a) How many such industries failed (b) what amounts were lost?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: The information requested in both questions is provided in the following table:


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the fishing sector of the Prince Edward Island Comprehensive Development Plan, have measures been taken since the Plan's inception to develop the capability in PEI for processing of specialized fish products and, if so, what have been the results?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Yes. Measures have been taken to develop capability in the processing of specialized fish products such as chowders, smelts, fish cakes, breaded oysters and clam strips. In 
	RDIA offers made and accepted between April 1, 1969 and September 30, 1975		
		Number of Net Accepted Offers	Amount of Incentive Grants ($000's)
(a)	In British Columbia (i) New Industries*	30	4,421(ii) Expansion of Existing Industries**	11	1,184(b)	Rest of Canada (i) New Industries*	2,011	417,013(ii) Expansion of Existing Industries**	1,267	115,223
April 1, 1976

			Number of Total Cessations (other than fire)	Amount of Payment to be Recovered ($000's)
2. (a)	In British Columbia (i) New Industries*		2	219
	(ii) Expansion of Industries**	Existing			
(b)	Rest of Canada (i) New Industries*	101	10,328(ii) Expansion of Industries**	Existing	10	227
'New industries includes the following categories: (a) new facility (b) new product expansion (c) expansion and new facility (d) expansion and new product expansion (e) modernization and new facility (f) modernization and new product expansion (g) new facility and new product expansion (h) expansion, modernization, new facility (i) modernization, new facility, new product expansion (j) expansion, new facility, new product expansion (k) expansion, modernization new product expansion (1) expansion, modernization, new facility new product expansion.
'Expansion of existing industries includes the following categories: (a) expansion (b) modernization and (c) expansion and modernization.


Mr. Laprise: Did Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation grant a loan to the Province of Quebec for the construction of senior citizens' homes in La Sarre, Amos and Palmarolle and, if so (a) on what date (b) in what amount?


Hon. Barney Danson (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: I am advised by Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation as follows: CMHC made loans to Quebec Housing Corporation to finance the construction of housing for elderly persons in the towns of Amos and La Sarre, and the municipality of Palmarolle, as follows:
Municipality	Date Approved	No. of Units	Hostel Beds	$000Amos	December, 1968	-	175	1,225May, 1969	10	78	726La Sarre	September, 1966	4	38	291Palmarolle	May, 1969	-	29	203


Mr. Whiteway: Have Armed Forces personnel been injured through accidents involving the light anti-tank weapon M-72 and, if so (a) how many (b) how many have lost limbs or part of limbs?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes, (a) 2; (b) 1.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. MacKay: Who are the members of the Regional Development Incentives Board?


Joseph Clifford McIsaac: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is as follows: Mr. J. D. Love, Chairman, Deputy Minister, Regional Economic Expansion. Mr. M. R. Daniels Assistant Deputy Minister, Planning and Coordination, Regional Economic Expansion. Mr. A. M. Guerin Assistant Deputy Minister, Department of Industry, Trade & Commerce. Mr. J. L. Manion Senior Assistant Deputy Minister, Manpower Employer Services Branch, Department of Manpower and Immigration. Mr. L. Edgeworth Assistant Deputy Minister, Environmental Protection Service, Department of the Environment. Mr. E. A. Oestreicher General Director, Economic Programs & Government Finance Branch, Department of Finance. Mr. G. Howarth Deputy Commissioner, Foreign Investment Review Agency.


Mr. Howie: Has the Department of National Defence identified one hundred PMQ units at CFB Gagetown as surplus to the Department's needs and have the units been offered for sale and, if so, for what amount?


James Armstrong Richardson: Yes. However, the units have not been offered for sale.


Mr. Caouette (Temiscamingue): 1.	Since January 1976, how many man-days were lost in the Public Service as a result of strikes or lock-outs?
2.	What was the (a) number of work stoppages (b) number of man-days lost in each province (c) number of workers involved in each work stoppage (d) the average increase of income of each group following the work stoppage?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: 1.
None.
2. N/A.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	How many persons did the student manpower centres across Canada have in their employ in 1975?
2.	By province, how many (a) applications were filed for jobs at the centres (b) jobs were available from the centres?
3.	By province, what was the total cost of the project?


Robert Knight Andras: 1. The CMC's for students employed 1,070 students in 1975.
2. (a) Registrations in 1975: New Brunswick, 15,346; Nova Scotia, 19,257; P. E. Island, 2,547; Newfoundland, 7,484; Quebec, 146,839; Ontario, 235,898; Manitoba, 16,035; Saskatchewan, 10,965; Alberta, 35,486; British Columbia, 51,518. (b) Number of vacancies notified in 1976; New Brunswick,
21 804-23V2

April 1, 1976
Adjournment Debate
7 388; Nova Scotia, 10,613; P. E. Island, 1,903; Newfoundland 3 085; Quebec, 50,766; Ontario, 82,537; Manitoba, 8,110; Saskatchewan, 7,552; Alberta, 23,768; British Columbia, 22,080.
3. Total cost by province of CMC's for students program: New Brunswick $135,023; Nova Scotia, $166,292; P. E. Island, $24,928; Newfoundland, $72,757; Quebec, $1,329,400; Ontario, $1,569,000; Manitoba, $22,113; Saskatchewan, $221,468; Alberta, $31,323; British Columbia, $354,500; N. W. Territories, $8,858; Yukon, $16,500.


Jean-Jacques Blais: May I call it ten o'clock, Mr. Speaker?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, Orders of the Day!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, during the past few months the Canadian public has once again been subjected to a flood of articles, editorials, commentaries, and so on in the media on the issue of capital punishment. For nearly a decade this debate has been raging, and I believe I reflect the sentiments of many in hoping that this present parliament will resolve the issue of capital punishment once and for all. In numerous articles that I have had the opportunity to read on the subject it seems to me that those who favour abolition of the death penalty are making a concerted effort, in some instances almost a blind crusade, to cloud the issue by attempting to make people believe that those who favour capital punishment are neanderthal, blood thirsty, mindless individuals.
It certainly is a shame when those with so-called humanitarian motives act in the shabbiest of political manner. They are in many ways bankrupt humanitarians. It leads one to wonder why there is this effort to discredit those who call for the enforcement of capital punishment. It probably stems from the fact that an overwhelming majority of Canadians favour retention. There is a real tragedy when an elitist majority led by the Liberal government manipulates the system to effect its own will irrespective of public opinion.
When one looks at the results of surveys such as the one I conducted in my constituency of Winnipeg South Centre, where 90 per cent of all the respondents were in favour of having the death penalty made applicable to anyone convicted of premeditated murder, one awakens to the sobering fact that the government has no interest in the will of

the people. The use of power to thwart the public will is another step in the erosion of parliament.
It is interesting to note that the Solicitor General's office conducted a survey on capital punishment, as a result of which 80 per cent supported the death penalty. The government is so concerned about eradicating the ultimate penalty that it even squandered the taxpayers' money to hire a consultant to report that the public is blood thirsty about hanging. In a report to the Solicitor General (Mr. All-mand), one Mr. Fattah reported:
Uninformed or irrational public opinion is not a justification for bringing back the noose.
In the same report this abolitionist goes on to give negative connotations to those who support the death penalty. I suppose one could say, what else did you expect him to say? After all it goes back to the old adage of don't bite the hand that feeds you. I contend an elitist minority is at work; an elitist minority that forgets that since 1967 the murder rate has increased 100 per cent.
To suggest that 90 per cent of the people in my constituency, or indeed a sizeable majority of Canadians are blood thirsty and irrational, is indeed an arrogant and elitist attitude. An overwhelming majority of Canadians favour the retention of capital punishment because they want to live in a society not constantly plagued with fear and rising crime. The government has been negligent in enforcing the laws of the country and people are no longer going to accept such a law approach to law enforcement.
In recent years the government has built up a theory on which much policy has been based, that the rights of the criminal are more important than the rights of society. This has brought about a backlash in public opinion even to the point where one Liberal Senator, Louis Robichaud, said:
I have a fourteen year old daughter. If anyone rapes and kills my daughter and justice doesn't take care of that man, I will do it myself.
Senator Robichaud is by no means a wild-eyed redneck, and neither are the majority of law-abiding citizens who want a return to common sense and a healthy respect for the law.
The death penalty represents the final right of organzied society to rid itself of those who will not conform in any respect to civilized life. Such people are a minority and are not to be confused with others who may take life in a moment of passion. There are abolitionists who would lead people to believe that those who favour retention want blanket capital punishment. That is a falsehood. The vast majority of Canadians are normal citizens who find the death penalty a distasteful subject to discuss. Common sense warns them that the removal of the final right of society to carry out the supreme punishment tells the criminal that, no matter how horrible and vicious the crime, his own life will be protected by a society for which the criminal has no respect.
In the many letters and phone calls I receive from constituents, they share with me their concerns about being safe and that their children will grow up in a safe society. They fear those individuals best described by the William Gold of the Calgary Herald, when he wrote:
April 1, 1976

Contemporary society is producing a singularly savage type of animal, entirely lacking in comprehension of, or respect for, the lives of other people. These psychopaths know perfectly well what they are doing is wrong legally and morally, but the act of murder causes them no sense of personal revulsion.
I reject the idea that society seeks vengeance. I call it simple justice and a desire for safety. Most people subscribe to the opening line of an Ontario Provincial Police advertisement which reads:
Let there be more respect for the law.
The government certainly has not subscribed to that notion. The government knows full well it has failed so many times to enforce existing capital punishment laws that abolition is its only way to cease its habit of ignoring the law.
I believe that so far in the course of my remarks I have made it clear I reflect the views of the majority of those who favour the retention of capital punishment. However, many people are saying that if executions are to remain on the books then people should be assured that the latest scientific and medical evidence is used to find an alternate to hanging.
When I presented a motion on February 10 of this year under Standing Order 43 to have the subject of capital punishment referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs to find a more humane method of applying capital punishment, I did so because of two overriding concerns; first, the majority of Canadians favour retention; and second, many people consider hanging barbaric.
I did not appreciate the answer of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, in response to a question of mine relating to an alternate method, said that if abolition is not accepted then we could address ourself to the question of how we should destroy these people. His whole attitude seems to be "holier than thou," as if he believed that somehow he might become foul and base if he seriously discussed this matter. I still contend that we must look at this in a sober, realistic manner and come up with an alternative, whether it be the electric chair, the gas chamber, medication, or whatever. A more civilized and efficient manner would help to ease the qualms of those who are repelled by the rope.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Fabian Hugh Poulin: Mr. Speaker, in the last few moments of his speech the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie) addressed himself to the original question he asked, which is what are the other more humane methods of execution of people who have committed crimes that we should investigate. Surely that is not the issue to which we should be addressing ourselves either in this parliament on in this country.
We should be addressing ourselves to investigating ways in which to protect society against violent crime and to deter others from committing horrible crimes. If members of the House are concerned with finding humane ways of putting people to death, I begin to wonder whether they are not ashamed to agree to capital punishment, because it has not shown itself to be a deterrent in the commission of horrible crimes. As we all know, some years ago in Eng-
Adjournment Debate
land hundreds of minor crimes were punished by the death penalty, such crimes as pickpocketing or petty theft. The penalty was public execution, during which other pickpockets had the opportunity to make more money and were doing far greater business. But at least society at that time had the courage to have the execution take place in full public view in the hope that it would deter others from committing this type of crime. It was not a deterrent then, nor is it now.
I think the people of this country must decide whether or not society can be protected from terrible crimes by adopting capital punishment, whatever means are used whether by rope or otherwise, whether in public or otherwise, or whether we should hide behind some more humane way of executing people thereby not accepting our responsibility as members of parliament and leaders in this country to execute people who have committed crimes.
I say we only have one justification for capital punishment, that is, to protect society and guarantee to society that there will be no more horrible crimes committed because we execute one or two people by whatever humane method we adopt. All the studies that have been conducted in this and other countries of the world have indicated that there is no perceptible difference in the crime rate whether there is capital punishment or whether there is not, especially so far as such crimes as murder and similar types of offences are concerned.
The hon. member hopes that this debate into which we are about to enter in one or two weeks will resolve once and for all the issue of capital punishment. I do also, and I hope it will resolve it in a way that will show Canada is a leader among the nations of the free world in the humane way in which it treats people and protects its society against violent crimes. I believe we should abolish capital punishment.


INDUSTRY-DOUGLAS AIRCRAFT, MALTON-MEASURES TO SAVE JOBS-DATE OF ANNOUNCEMENT OF AEROSPACE POLICY
Stanley Haidasz: Mr. Speaker, last Friday and again this afternoon I directed questions both to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Macdonald) and the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) with regard to the announced lay off of almost 150 workers at the Douglas Aircraft plant in Malton. I also asked the appropriate ministers to state when we can expect an announcement in this House about a comprehensive and sound policy for the Canadian aerospace industry.
I directed these questions to the ministers not only because I am sure all hon. members of this House are saddened by the announcement yesterday by the management of Douglas Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, of the lay offs of 150 workers, but also because of the uncertainty of the preservation and expansion of the aerospace industry in Canada, which not only includes the highly skilled workers in the aircraft plants but also the auxiliary help in research and development, whether it be at those plants, at our universities, or at the National Research Council, where we know many government grants have been frozen.

April 1, 1976
Adjournment Debate
At one time in Malton, Ontario, there were employed approximately 8,000 workers. In 1972 this was reduced to 5,000 employees, and we believe that with this present impending lay off beginning tomorrow the workers and staff at the Douglas Aircraft plant will be reduced to a mere 1,200. That makes a reduction of approximately 6,800 workers in 10 years. I think this is a great blow to the present and future of the Canadian aerospace industry.
The current problems at Douglas Aircraft are the result of the cyclical nature of the aerospace industry which is prevalent in many countries, not only because of increased production costs, but especially because of the increase in the cost of aviation fuels brought about by the Organization of Petroleum Exporting Countries since 1972. These additional and unforeseen fuel costs have added to the difficulties which have beset all airlines in the world in the past three years and, of course, resulted in a marked slowdown in orders for new aircraft.
While the people at Douglas Aircraft in Malton, Ontario, are confident of an increase in market demand, perhaps in the next two or three years, unfortunately no viable solution to alleviate the present situation has been forthcoming. The tragedy is that many of the skilled teams of Canadians who worked so ably to create this high technology industry are being dispersed because of the impending lay offs, and when the cycle once again enters an expansionary period much time will be lost in training new personnel.
Another point worthy of note is the fact that Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada in Malton, occupying some two million square feet of space within a confine of 110 acres, has developed into one of the most efficient aircraft parts manufacturing plants in the world. The quality of its product is of the highest order, and its productivity superior even to American aircraft firms. These statements are hard to refute when it is considered that employees' salaries equate with U.S. counterparts, that shipping charges on components sent to California are paid by the firm, and yet the components are still less expensive than those produced locally in California.
I might add that in the past ten years productivity at the Douglas Aircraft plant in Malton has generated $1.1 billion in sales, or about $150 million per year. It would be a pity therefore to lose those export sales, and so many highly trained, skilled workers.
It has been proposed that to save this country's aircraft industry, which includes Douglas, the three major companies, de Havilland, Canadair, and Douglas, should be amalgamated, the new entity to be known as Canadian Aerospace Limited. In this way specialization would be retained, de Havilland being responsible for engineering and development, Canadair for high technology manufacturing, and Douglas for components production, assembly, and possibly flight testing.
The new company would be staffed by Canadians and, at the beginning, could be assisted financially by the U.S. parent of Douglas and, later, through a financial arrangement entered into between the federal government and the consortium of three Canadian aircraft companies.
I mention this possibility for restructuring the Canadian aerospace industry because it is not only important but

urgently needed. I hope the federal government, in particular the Departments of Industry, Trade and Commerce, National Defence, Treasury Board, Supply and Services, and Finance, which have been briefed about this proposal, will continue negotiations with the management of Douglas Aircraft in order to save the 150 jobs and to give Canada a better footing in the aerospace industry.


Marcel-Claude Roy: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to congratulate the hon. member for the concern he showed for the workers affected here and also for the interest he has always had toward the development of the aerospace industry in Canada.
It was necessary that the employees of the Douglas Aircraft Company of Canada Ltd. be sent their notices of dismissal because of the shortage of work at the Malton factory. The company does regret it had to take this measure, following the common efforts put forth by the company and senior Canadian government officers during weeks in an attempt to avoid these layoffs.
In January 1976, the company announced it expected to dismiss 800 to 1,000 employees because of cutbacks in the production of DC 9 and DC 10 aircraft. The move would bring the total number of employees from 1,650 to 650. We are already concerned by the fact that not only would this jeopardize the DACAN project but the layoffs would also threaten the operations of the suppliers of DACAN, and Fleet Industries in particular, where 105 employees out of a total workforce of 385 are now working on the DACAN project.
Following that announcement, meetings were held with representatives of the UAW on February 9, and with Messrs. McDonnell and Reece, on February 12. The meeting with Mr. McDonnell resulted in an agreement to postpone the announced layoff. In the meantime, the people concerned were to examine all opportunities to obtain other contracts for the achievement of the work or find a way to maintain production at its present level.
An interim solution was considered which was to keep about 1,450 employees as a result of stock financing, but it was rejected because it was not practical. At a subsequent meeting between senior officials of the department and Messrs. Sanford McDonnell and John McDonnell on February 24, the lease financing of 10 DC 9 and 50 aircraft to Eastern Airlines was discussed within the GAPP and EDC program. The department agreed to undertake a feasibility study in that regard.

The lease financing was later expanded to include other airlines and increase the time period. This approach is still being investigated although no specific customer has been identified or definite request received from the company. Because of the depressed state of the entire aerospace industry at home and abroad, no additional work has yet been identified.
The company has advised that lay-off notices will be given to 30 employees on Friday, April 2, effective eight weeks later. It is their objective to carry out a selective gradual reduction of approximately 30 people per week up to a total of 150 maximum by July 15, which is the beginning of their holiday shutdown period. This will reduce

total employment to between 1,300 and 1,350 at shutdown time. The lay-off will mostly affect indirect workers in an attempt to keep their overhead rate down. The company is trying to achieve a ratio of one direct to .65 indirect and will probably achieve .65 by July. The company will give us ample warning of any changes, up or down, to the above schedule.
The company said it appreciated the vigorous effort being made by the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Jamieson) and the Canadian government, but said corporate responsibility to other employees and shareholders made it necessary to issue the notices.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS-CAMBODIA-INQUIRY AS TO CANADIAN PROTEST AGAINST VIOLATIONS OF HUMAN RIGHTS
Mr. Douglas Roche (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Mr. Speaker, I am glad to see the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Miss Begin) here for this great moment we are going to have in this jammed House of Commons.
A few days ago I opened up the subject of human rights with the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Mac-Eachen) by asking him a question concerning the terrible situation with regard to the violation of human rights in Cambodia. I attempted to go on at that time to discuss the very much related question of Canada's ratification of the United Nations covenant of human rights as an expression of our concern. I opened this question up because of the escalation of brutality toward human beings which we have seen in flagrant cases in Chile and Cambodia, to name but two of the outrageous situations of the violations of human rights in the world today.
I read recently the report of the United Nations Commission on Human Rights. It makes chilling reading indeed as a catalogue of primitive brutality committed against Chileans by their own rulers. The report concludes,' and I quote:
Denial of human rights and fundamental freedoms, torture and inhuman, cruel and degrading treatment have become a pattern of governmental policies in Chile.
With regard to Cambodia, press reports from that country and neighbouring countries are conclusive in telling us of the mass executions in death valleys of Cambodians, mowed down in a cross-fire of bullets by Khmer Rouge forces. The old and the young are wasting away from starvation, disease, and exhaustion. All of this terrible violation of human rights has been confirmed by western diplomats in Peking. Therefore I ask what we in this country are doing to launch our protest to the United Nations about this violation?
I also ask why it is that, ten years after the U.N. covenant on human rights was passed by the United Nations, in the year 1966, Canada still has not ratified that covenant? There was a federal-provincial meeting last December 11 at which time the federal and provincial governments came to an agreement. Now, almost four months later, the necessary paper work still has not been done. We still have not ratified the covenant.
Adjournment Debate
I received a letter from the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Sharp) informing me of some of the reasons why Canada has not been able to move. It comes down to the question of one of the provinces being extremely slow in putting its signature on the document for ratification. It makes me wonder why it is in this country we have to be slowed down by constitutional battles in order to express in a formal way our shock and protest at incursions on human rights around the world.
I do not agree that it is an unimportant matter that Canada has not yet ratified the covenant on human rights. Thirty-five countries have done so. I realize that the covenant would only be applicable in countries which have ratified it, but what is necessary is that we get on to a sound course of human conduct by using the charter of the United Nations and the Declaration of Human Rights as a basis of law, and proceed from there to the establishment of an international court for the enforcement of that law. This will require our creating instruments to express the standards and the obligations which countries of the world ought to respect. In other words, action by Canada in this regard would help to raise the moral climate of the world. Surely it is better to keep increasing moral pressure on nations than it is to keep quiet, thus appearing to tolerate the great evils which are taking place.
The final resolution of this matter necessitates the establishment of a universal court of human rights to which individuals could go for redress. Right now only countries can take such action. We have to move forward, as Sean MacBride, the distinguished Nobel Peace Prize winner says, to new ways of thinking, and bring about some form of supernational authority, so that the individual can make claims under international law. This brings us right back to our immediate concern today. Canada must express, in the United Nations, its continuing protest against the violation of human rights, particularly in Cambodia and Chile, and expedite the ratification of the covenant on human rights, because it is a scandal that we should have allowed ourselves to be bogged down in our constitutional battles leading to our inability to take that action.


Miss Monique Begin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am somewhat at a loss after listening to what has been said by the hon. member. I thought he was sincere in his questioning of the minister the other day, on March 24, on the situation in Cambodia. Tonight he made only passing reference to Cambodia after which he went on to speak of Chile, after which he criticized us for not having signed the human rights covenants. Then he went on to refer to a constitutional debate involving Quebec! As a result I think the House will understand if I found it difficult to follow the precise idea the hon. member had in mind.
With regard to the human rights covenants, which have not yet been signed by Canada, I can tell him that I represented the department at the federal-provincial conference, a meeting which went on very well. I would like the hon. member to reflect upon the fact, that maybe Quebecers somehow felt not very sure of their own rights when participating at the national level, probably because of abrasive statements such as the ones he just made.

April 1, 1976
Adjournment Debate
I do not intend to speak about Chile; the subject has nothing to do with the question which was addressed to the minister the other day.
The hon. member spoke of Cambodia, and with a good deal of self-assurance he told us that everybody knew about Cambodia executing people on a massive scale-all the diplomats had confirmed it, Peking knew about it, all the journalists knew about it, as well as everybody else. But how did they know? The country has withdrawn into a state of isolation and has virtually cut off contact with the outside world. Canada recognized the present regime in April, 1975, but we have no official diplomatic accreditation to Cambodia. In these circumstances all we could do was to ask our embassy in Bangkok, Thailand, our diplomatic mission closest to Cambodia, to report on the situation there to the extent it is possible for them to do so. [DOT]
If the case of alleged violations of basic human rights in Cambodia is true, we would have another problem in regard to taking unilateral action vis-a-vis the government of Cambodia. As with any other government, we would be
expected to observe the principle of non-intervention in the internal affairs of another state.
There is one more avenue, albeit somewhat longer term, where we can act.

The hon. member accuses us of not being able to do anything, of being paralyzed because we did not ratify the United Nations covenant of human rights. This does not prevent us from following now the procedures of the United Nations through the agencies that are concerned with such questions.
When individuals, groups or non-government organizations that have direct knowledge of violations submit documents, they are analyzed by the United Nations subcommission on Human Rights of which we are a member. Our Canadian representative is prepared to consider seriously any report on Cambodia which is communicated by this sub-commission.
To conclude I have a question to put to the hon. member: Why Cambodia and not all the other areas in the communist world or in the Third World where there are violations of the most fundamental human rights?
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.36 p.m.

Friday, April 2, 1976