1976-03-10

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa-Whitby):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Considering the fundamental importance of the right of the people of Canada to be certain that the executive branch of our government does not interfere with the judicial branch; considering also that the Prime Minister has asserted that the government will take no further action on the alleged impropriety in this respect on the part of some of his ministers unless a specific grievance is made by the Chief Justice of the Superior Court; and following the report made last night that the Minister of Public Works specifically attempted to ascertain the conditions of a judicial settlement on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles);
That this House urges the Minister of Public Works to make a statement in the House outlining the exact nature of his conversation with Judge Hugessen, so that members of the House and the public will have the opportunity of judging, independent of the opinion of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec, whether or not the Minister violated his obligations as a minister.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 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.


SUGGESTED CONSTRUCTION OF TUNNEL TO CONFEDERATION BUILDING TO PERMIT MEMBERS TO JOG AND IMPROVE FITNESS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Bob Brisco (Kootenay West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that the minister of health has just introduced the fit kit, and in view of the fact that the government is spending several thousands of dollars annually on bus transportation, gasoline and oil, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burnaby-Richmond-Delta (Mr. Reynolds):
That the government give immediate consideration to the construction of a tunnel connecting the Confederation Building to the existing West Block tunnel so that the minister of health can jog along with Mitch and members and staff of Confederation in order to save fuel and tax dollars and improve his fitness and our physical fitness.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


THE CANADIAN CONSTITUTION
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I ask leave of the House to present a motion under Standing Order 43 regarding a matter of urgent importance. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas):
That this House urges the Prime Minister, at the earliest opportunity, to make a speech or a statement in the House of Commons, outlining clearly the precise steps he has in mind in connection with his proposal to bring the British North America Act to Canada and under Canadian control.


Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to Standing Order 43 such a motion can only be presented with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works. Last Wednesday, as reported at page 11457 of Hansard, the Minister of Public Works said that, along with other persons, he had contacted the Associate Chief Justice of Quebec to "effect a solution to" the appeal of court proceedings. In trying to find a solution, did the minister, as was alleged last night, try to sound out the presiding judge as to how the court would respond to an apology by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?

March 10, 1976
Oral Questions


Hon. C. M. Drury (Minister of Public Works):: Mr. Speaker, I think I made it clear, and the Leader of the Opposition must be aware, that this particular incident is currently under review by the Chief Justice of Quebec. The Prime Minister has suggested-I am in full concurrence and I think the House will be-that the Chief Justice should be allowed time to conduct his inquiries and to reach a judgment, rather than have a number of other individuals concurrently exploring the matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as the minister well knows, the inquiry by the Chief Justice of Quebec is into a matter related to judges. What this parliament and the people of Canada are interested in has to do with the conduct of ministers of the Crown.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me repeat the question to the minister. There have now been public allegations as to the content of his conversation which he admitted having with a member of the Bench of Quebec. Will the minister now stop dodging and tell the House whether he tried to sound out the presiding judge as to the question of the response of the court to an apology by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. With all due respect, as the Leader of the Opposition stated, that is a repetition of the question. The minister made an answer, such as that answer may be, but that is the answer that has been given. I cannot really, in view of the rules, permit a repeat of the question.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF CONTENT OF CONVERSATION BY MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS WITH JUDGE HUGESSEN
Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister said yesterday in answer to a question that I posed, and I quote:
I have heard from the three ministers who were mentioned in Justice Mackay's letter ...
I listened to their version and feel that their explanations indicated clearly that they were not attempting to influence in any way the judgment of the courts.
That is the position of the Prime Minister. Did the Prime Minister ask the Minister of Public Works what the minister said to the judge, particularly with regard to the statement to effect a solution made by the Minister of Public Works and the statement relevant to the full knowledge of the facts being possessed by the judge? If so, did the Minister of Public Works raise with the judge the matter of a response to an apology and the political impact of the verdict by the courts? Will the Prime Minister give that information to the House of Commons?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, I indicated to the House that I had raised this matter with the ministers and that they had given me an answer which I found satisfactory. However, I conceded from the very first day that this important matter was discussed

that the view of the courts may be different. I think that the Minister of Public Works in his answer just now stated in the most perfect way possible the attitude of the government, that attitude being that we in this House should not be telling the chief justice what his court should feel and not feel and we should leave that for him to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-VIEW OF PRIME MINISTER ON WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INTERFERENCE
Charles Joseph Clark: Whatever the report of the Chief Justice of Quebec, is the Prime Minister prepared to tell this House whether there was intervention by ministers of his Crown-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -with the courts of Quebec and what was the nature of that intervention? Is he prepared to tell this House that, instead of shunting it off to a judge? Does he deny this House the right to that kind of information?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am glad the Leader of the Opposition is back on track. Yesterday he was worried about what ministers were telling each other. Now, he is back to the really important question of what ministers may have been saying to judges and whether this did or did not constitute an attempt to influence the course of justice. I have reached the conclusion unilaterally, a one-sided point of view if you wish, that there was no such attempt. I am, of course, prepared to hear the courts argue the contrary and demonstrate the contrary. If the courts feel aggrieved and feel there has been an attempt to influence the course of justice, that indeed will be a very serious matter. At that point we will have to establish whether the court's or ministers' version is correct. Of course, at that point I cannot pretend that I will be the judge of a matter in which I was involved. I will then discuss with the opposition ways in which we can seek out the truth in this matter.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS CALLED JUDGE HUGESSEN ON OWN INITIATIVE
Mr. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I have a brief supplementary for the Minister of Public works which might be described perhaps as a point of clarification. Would the hon. gentleman state unequivocally whether the telephone call he made to Chief Justice Hugessen was done solely on the minister's own initiative or whether it came following conversations and consultations with any of his colleagues?


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, this is only slightly less direct than the previous questions.

March 10, 1976


VIEW OF PRIME MINISTER ON POLITICAL INTERFERENCE WITH JUDICIARY
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Mr. Speaker, I am certainly amazed at the minister's reticence, but let me ask one more supplementary of the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister seems satisfied with the Minister of Public Works' statement to the House last Wednesday and his private explanation, does the Prime Minister accept any kind of political interference with the judiciary on matters immediately before the courts so long as it cannot be proven. Is that the rule over there, that you can behave as you like so long as you can get away with it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that the member is forgetting a very important fact, that the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of Quebec is an independent agent and that he will make his decision on this very matter which is of such concern to the opposition.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- DECISION AS TO WHETHER OR NOT THERE WAS INTERFERENCE
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether it is his view that this issue is to be resolved entirely on the basis of the judgment of the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec; is he to be the judge of whether or not there was interference which is to be considered? Does the Prime Minister not agree that it is even more importantly a matter of the Prime Minister himself or one of his ministers deciding whether or not they took the right or wrong course of action, independent of whether or not the chief justice agrees with it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, it would seem to me that if the action is said to be wrong, as the hon. member puts it, it will be wrong because the courts come to the conclusion that they have been interfered with.


Mr. Fairweather:: Oh, no!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if there was no interference with the course of justice in the very judgment of those who in this House are claiming the contrary, then surely it is not for Parliament and certainly not for this government to tell the courts how they should feel about whether they are discharging their duties freely or not.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, I could not agree less with what the Prime Minister just said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to ask the Prime Minister whether it is not possible that the Chief Justice of the Province of Quebec can reach a conclusion-and I am not questioning his motives-that the conversation that was alleged to have taken place last night between the Minister of Public Works and the Chief Justice did in fact take place and that he, the judge, decides that it was not political interference.
Oral Questions
The Prime Minister, I am sure, will agree that is a possibility, but I should like to ask him if that is so would he not, as Prime Minister, judge that that kind of conversation if it is true, does constitute interference with the courts.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker. I think I can be quite clear on that. If the courts say they have not been interfered with I shall not argue that with them and say that they should know they have been interfered with.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- POSSIBILITY OF MEMBERS LEARNING CONTENT OF CONVERSATION OF MINISTER WITH JUDGE HUGESSEN
John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, then I should like to get clear a matter which follows from that. Is the Prime Minister also saying to the House today, as in the past, that we will not learn the nature of the conversation that took place between the Minister of Public Works and Judge Hugessen unless the chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec decides there was interference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, they shall not learn certainly by way of a public inquiry set up by the government.


John Edward Broadbent: Any other way?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or any other way; I suppose they can attempt to learn any way they want. Apparently the press is informing them on what happened. But in our view the essence of the question is whether the courts have been in some way interfered with in the discharge of their duties. Surely, that is the question which should occupy the House. We have before the House one piece of evidence, a letter by Mr. Justice Mackay which, it is now well known, contains some inaccuracies. I think it would be improper for the House to try to examine in any depth the nature and the extent of these inaccuracies.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Because if the hon. member wants to do it, it must be done by way of impeachment, and I do not intend to bring such a motion.


Some hon. Members:: Absolute nonsense!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: How else can you examine a judge but by bringing him here before the House?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Paproski:: You are sucking and blowing at the same time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
11662

March 10, 1976
Oral Questions


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Rene Matte (Champlain):: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a supplementary question of the right hon. Prime Minister, who appoints judges.
I take the liberty of changing the subject. Could the Prime Minister tell the House whether industrial milk producers, who are feeling rather tense now because of the apprehension caused by the official announcement of the policies of the government which is forthcoming, could relax if the Prime Minister agreed to meet the representatives of these producers? Would the Prime Minister tell the House whether he is willing to meet them before the deadline of April 1?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is probably not aware that a great number of milk producers came here to Ottawa last night. There was an important meeting between the members of our caucus and these milk producers. I regret that the hon. member was not informed.


INQUIRY WHETHER EASTERN MILK PRODUCERS WILL BE GIVEN SAME TREATMENT AS WESTERN PRODUCERS
Mr. Andre Fortin (Lotbiniere):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister another supplementary question.
Can the right hon. Prime Minister assure the House that he will show as much consideration for eastern milk producers as for their western counterparts, so that eastern producers not be the only category of workers in Canada who not only will not have to comply with anti-inflationary measures but will, in addition, following last night's meeting, see their incomes shrink below the 10.2 per cent inflation spiral?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, the latter hon. member is as ill-informed as the former. A meeting took place last night between four ministers, thirty odd Liberal members and milk producers, and what the hon. member reported is not what actually did take place.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET WITH FLUID MILK PRODUCERS
Mr. Gilbert Rondeau (Shefford):: Mr. Speaker, I would also appreciate it if the right hon. Prime Minister would indicate clearly whether he is willing to meet fluid milk producers from Quebec or the representatives of the Agricultural Producers' Union, because we know quite well that last night the dairy producers did not see the Prime Minister. They only got evasive promises. This morning, they are deceived. They would like to be sure today that they will meet the right hon. Prime Minister and no one else.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am obviously pleased to hear the hon. member say

that four ministers and thirty odd members of the House are not as important, to the dairy producers, as the Prime Minister. I think that this is not very nice for the leader of the Social Credit Party, who is not always there to meet the people when hon. members receive delegations.
Mr. Speaker, before a fourth Social Credit member rises to make inaccurate allegations, I would like to say to the third member that the discussion in Ottawa relates to industrial milk and not fluid milk. The hon. member is in the wrong House, he should discuss fluid milk in Quebec City because here we are dealing with industrial milk.


THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon-Biggar):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to get on to the topic of spilled milk. I should like to address my question to the Prime Minister. Last Thursday at page 11486 of Hansard the Prime Minister said he had not been told by the Minister of Public Works about his conversation with the judge. I wonder if it is agreed by the Prime Minister that the problem of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, as it is alleged, was a matter of intense concern within the government and at the highest levels of the Liberal Party. Did the Prime Minister have no other indication that the ministers of the government and eminent citizens had and were considering approaching the judge?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I must complete the premise of the question. What I indicated to the House was that I had no knowledge when the Minister of Public Works was doing it or after he had done it. He did not tell me he was going to, nor did he tell me, until this whole thing came before the House, that he had approached Judge Hugessen, so that is the context in which I replied.
On the other matter, I believe the hon. member is asking if high members of the Liberal Party were concerned about the matter. Perhaps the hon. member could be allowed to rephrase the question because I am stuck on the premise and I want to make sure it is precise.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: For clarification, the question I asked was whether any other minister of the Crown in fact communicated with the Prime Minister with respect to the approaching of the judge at the time this incident took place. The Prime Minister referred to no communication being had with the Minister of Public Works. I am asking whether there were other ministers or other persons who made approaches so that the Prime Minister had knowledge in advance of the intended approach to the judge.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, I know of no other minister who approached the judge in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Who approached you?
March 10, 1976


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Who approached me about approaching the judge? No, I indicated that I did not know the Minister of Public Works had approached the judge.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY-BASIS ON WHICH MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS INTERVENED WITH JUDGE HUGESSEN
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I should like then to address a question to the Minister of Public Works. Yesterday the minister once again raised, as a means of avoiding answering questions directed to him with regard to any instructions received from or discussions held with cabinet colleagues, the suggestion that there is privilege in this whole area on the basis of Privy Council confidentiality. Does the minister take the position that his intervention on behalf of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs was a matter of governmental business? I hope the answer will not be in the affirmative.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: Mr. Speaker, with regard to the circumstances surrounding the conversation I think I would continue to say I would prefer not to answer specific questions and not to have the inquiry conducted piecemeal in the House.


ALLEGATIONS OF INTERFERENCE BY JUDGE MACKAY- KNOWLEDGE OF PRIME MINISTER OF CONTENT OF CONVERSATION BETWEEN MINISTER AND JUDGE HUGESSEN
Mr. Allan Lawrence (Northumberland-Durham):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister about a matter which is not before the chief justice of Quebec.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Yesterday the Prime Minister informed the House that he had received an explanation of what was said by his Minister of Public Works in relation to this matter, so I now ask the Prime Minister, did the version of what transpired, indicated to him by the Minister of Public Works, include the allegation that the Minister of Public Works attempted to ask the justice if an apology and retraction by his cabinet colleague would affect the result of the determination of the court? That is in respect of a conversation between the minister and the Prime Minister. That is not before the chief justice of Quebec.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker, but that is between the minister and myself. I want to make it very clear, if I want to enlarge the area of suspicion, that I also talked to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the matter which was before the court. I am sure he consulted other of his colleagues than the Minister of Public Works.


An hon. Member:: That is not the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What he told me in this conversation and what he asked me is not a matter I intend to put before the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Why not?
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am sure hon. members opposite understand why not. They are members of parliament. Surely, it must happen that they have perhaps constituents who approach them about a matter that is before the courts-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and who ask for advice about a matter which is before the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would not expect a member of parliament to tell this House what he was asked.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INQUIRY WHETHER MINISTER OF PUBLIC WORKS HAS BEEN INTERROGATED BY CHIEF JUSTICE OF QUEBEC
Allan Frederick Lawrence: supplementary question, Mr. Speaker. In a matter such as this which cannot possibly affect government business-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -but which affects the honour and integrity of the caucus-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -sir, my appeal to you is that in respect of the privileges of this House how can a member of the Crown-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think we have to be clear that if there is some appeal in respect of the privileges of the House, that will have to be heard at three o'clock. If the hon. member has a supplementary question he can put it now.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in order to differentiate this whole matter may I ask the Minister of Public Works whether the Chief Justice of the Superior Court of the Province of Quebec has yet interrogated him on what he said to the Associate Chief Justice of that court.


Charles Mills (Bud) Drury: No, Mr. Speaker.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Did you say no? That is the whole point.


Mr. Sharp:: What point?


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Annapolis Valley.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
21419-46'/2

March 10, 1976
The answer really is the answer I gave last week. It is possible, and happens frequently, that citizens, not only members of parliament but citizens, talk to judges.


An hon. Member:: Not about cases.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have talked to judges frequently, Mr. Speaker. The essence of the question is "Did you talk to the judge in order to influence the judgment or to influence the course of justice"? That is the relevant-


An hon. Member:: Or to try.
Oral Questions


VIEW OF PRIME MINISTER ON WHETHER PEOPLE SHOULD CALL JUDGES ABOUT CASES-REASON MINISTERS SHOULD CALL JUDGES
Mr. J. P. Nowlan (Annapolis Valley):: I must say, Mr. Speaker, that I hope the thump of approval-


Robert Gordon Lee Fairweather: "Thump" has gone!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -will not deflect from the thrust of my question. I have enjoyed sitting here these past days after a couple of days away, to find out how the government of Canada can carry on. I should like to ask a very simple question of a very simple man, the Prime Minister of this land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the questions and answers given by the Minister of Public Works, for whom I have a great deal of personal regard-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -and the Prime Minister on this whole question of phone calls and privilege and all the hocus pocus that might be around the questions, is the Prime Minister suggesting today, in view of his answers and the talk of constituents and the fact that there seems to be a bar of privilege that those involved Canadians who happen to find themselves before the courts of their land should phone one of the judges to talk about their case or have their friends phone one of the judges to talk about the case?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Why not?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I did not fully hear the Prime Minister's answer.


Mr. Speaker:: The answer was no.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I am glad the Prime Minister at least goes that far, that all Canadians should not phone judges.


An hon. Member:: Just ask the question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The question, man from Thunder Bay, McRae, is this, to the Prime Minister: If all Canadians involved in the courts should not phone judges can he explain to me, with his knowledge of constitutional law, why any cabinet minister should phone a friend on the bench to discuss a case involving a colleague, or, even to ask him for a gold date let alone anything else. Why did he phone?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I think by asking the question the hon. member has really supplied me with an answer. I gave it in the House last week.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I was not here last week; I was taking a break.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would be interesting to know if the hon. member was holding a golf date with a judge, Mr. Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the relevant question. I say that to my knowledge, to my information which I acquired after the fact because I did not know from one minister or the other that they were going to do this, having listened to them after this was done I came to the conclusion that they did not attempt to influence the course of justice.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Tell us upon what you based your conclusions.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the courts feel otherwise, I believe we should hear to that effect from the courts. That is the position of the government. Now, that the hon. member has been refreshed perhaps he wants to ask a third question.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the indulgence of the Prime Minister in allowing me another supplementary. It is just with regard to part of his answer that I have found myself in this tangled web because I was away from this scene when the news broke.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My question to the Prime Minister is this: again with his knowledge of constitutional law, let alone parliamentary practice-and that I am not so sure about-[DOT] does not the Prime Minister of this land think that the very fact of a phone call to a judge sitting in decision on a colleague in cabinet is interference, either direct or implied, or could be considered that way by the judge who received the phone call regardless of the intentions of the government friend who might have made it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Of course it can be considered that way, Mr. Speaker, and that is why it is a very serious question. But we have an example of one judge, Justice Mackay, who indeed considers it that way then we have the example of another judge, Judge Aronovitch who says he does not agree with Judge Mackay that he consider it that way. Surely this is relevant. We have to know if the judges got that kind of phone call and they are the people who can tell us, not hearsay from members of parliament.


Mr. Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: So can Drury tell us. Drury can tell us, too. Why don't you tell us?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

March 10, 1976


TRANSPORT
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport.
Mr. Speaker, may I ask a question which has nothing to do with sugar? They have just understood.
Can the minister inform this House whether he intends to remove tolls for public transport on Champlain Bridge, between Montreal and the south shore, in agreement with the province of Quebec?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, I considered action along these lines after submissions were made to me by the hon. member and several others. I am certainly sympathetic to the principle involved. There are some discussions going on with the province of Quebec in connection with the operation of the whole enterprise, and I thought that for the moment at least it would be better to let those discussions continue before reaching any firm conclusion.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Stuart Leggatt (New Westminster):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. In answer to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby the Prime Minister continued to refer to whether the courts had been influenced. My question is whether the terms of reference given to the department of justice of Quebec are beyond whether the courts were influenced. Surely, those terms of reference refer to whether there was any attempt whatsoever to influence. I should like the Prime Minister to confirm whether the judge has those terms of reference. Further, if the chief justice reports that no influence was exercised, and no attempt was made to exercise it, has the Prime Minister still not a political responsibility to this House for the conduct of his ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member listened to the Minister of Justice the other day, he will realize that "terms of reference" is perhaps used in a loose sense by the hon. member. We did not give terms of reference to the chief justice of the Superior Court as to how he should inquire from his own judges about certain things. We asked the judge to inform us. More precisely, the Minister of Justice asked the judge to inform him or to give him any information which might be in his possession. How he will come in possession of it is his problem and privilege. Whether it will be through a full inquiry, through talking to his judges or reading the correspondence I do not know. We are asking him to give us information that might be in his possession respecting any
Oral Questions
unwarranted attempts to interfere with proper administration.


Walter David Baker: Can there be warranted attempts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is what we are talking about.


Walter David Baker: Can there be warranted attempts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I am sure the hon. member cannot have missed the point I am making. We are not defining. He should not latch on to particular words. We are not telling the judge what to do.


Walter David Baker: I am more worried about what the Prime Minister may do.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We asked him to inform the Minister of Justice if he feels there have been unwarranted attempts to influence the course of justice.


Walter David Baker: Yes, but can there be warranted attempts?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, of course there are warranted attempts. Any lawyer pleading a case is attempting that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: What a shameful display.


Steve Eugene Paproski: Where do you think you are, in Quebec city?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As for the second question the hon. member asked, namely, even if the chief justice finds that there have been no unwarranted attempts, does the matter rest there, or will I not be concerned and look into the matter further, the answer is that, in this whole system of allegations, that will have been the answer which satisfies me. If the judge feels that his court has not been the victim or object of unwarranted attempts, I will then have the word of the court and the word of my ministers that they have not attempted to influence the course of justice, and I do not see how I could listen to the opposition which is basing its position on hearsay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Now we know what the Prime Minister thinks.


Charles Joseph Clark: We are just a bunch of nobodies.


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: Mr. Speaker, apparently there is one law for cabinet ministers and another law in Canada applying to the general public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 10, 1976
Oral Questions


Stuart Malcolm Leggatt: I asked my question because I wanted to know how the Prime Minister feels about these two standards. If the chief justice of Quebec is not given terms of reference relating to what he shall study and report on, how can the Prime Minister rely on that report in terms of anything other than what the judge says vis-a-vis the courts? What about the political ramifications of this whole affair? I ask this, since the Prime Minister has now closed his options with regard to the conduct of his own ministers.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member for New Westminster will be the first to agree that his question was largely argument.


POSSIBILITY OF NEW TRIAL FOR KEITH LATTA- GOVERNMENT POSITION
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, may I change the subject and direct a question to the Minister of Justice which relates to his ministerial discretion to order a new trial in a certain case? Will the minister order a new trial for Professor Keith Latta, of Queen's University, who was convicted of murder? I ask this as I understand that Department of Justice officials, the police of Edmonton, the defence attorney involved in the case and others are to meet with a certain witness, Sylvia McCauley, alias Le Tendress, to determine facts which were either suppressed at the trial of Mr. Latta, who is convicted of murder, or which came to light after the trial was completed. It is alleged that she knew certain facts which were suppressed during the trial. I ask, is that meeting taking place and will the minister, at his discretion, keep the door open for Mr. Latta, so that there may be a new trial of this matter?


Hon. Ron Basford (Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure whether the precise meetings to which the hon. member refers are taking place, but discussions are going on between my officials and authorities in Alberta for the purpose of making recommendations to me, or rendering advice to me as to whether a new trial should be ordered or other procedure undertaken pursuant to section 617 of the Criminal Code. As I explained to the hon. member previously, I hoped to make a decision before now, but have not.


POSSIBILITY OF NEW TRIAL FOR KEITH LATTA-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE WITNESS NOT SUBJECT TO DURESS
Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, may I direct a most serious supplementary question to the minister? Apparently the witness signed a statement, but the evidence came to light after the trial ended and the appeal procedure was completed. As she signed the statement, will the minister make certain that no pressure is brought to bear on the witness and that she is not put under any duress to change her statement. This is a most serious matter affecting Mr. Latta, and there are some grave irregularities which could affect all in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I do not know why hon. members opposite are hollering. This is an important matter involving the life and liberty of one of our country's citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I was under the impression the minister was about to answer.


Stanley Ronald Basford: Mr. Speaker, I agree with the hon. member. The question is serious and the matter is serious. I think I am properly entitled to assume that the appropriate authorities in Alberta will not apply duress which the hon. member suggested might be applied. I understand that interviews with Mrs. McCauley would be conducted in the presence of an officer of my department. One of his duties and obligations would be to assure that no duress is applied.


FISHERIES
Mr. Jack Marshall (Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for Fisheries. Now that the Greenpeace organization has shown the good sense not to interfere with the seal hunt by marking the seals, possibly because the minister amended the sealing regulations, for which he should be commended, but more likely because 200 Newfoundlanders stopped them, may I ask the minister this question: since the Greepeace organization is now turning its efforts toward the whole area of conservation, and since it is obvious they do not know anything about conservation, what action is the minister taking to educate or advise them?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of State (Fisheries)):: thank the hon. member for his kind words. I always thought that anyone who spent a couple of days in Newfoundland would better understand something, and they have in this case. I see through press reports that the leader of the New Democratic Party, who also spent a couple of days in Newfoundland, supports our position.
I would say to the Greenpeace organization-and I do not doubt the sincerity of their minds and hearts-that if they do want to discuss conservation there are avenues open to them, including a committee of advisers on seals, chaired by Professor Ronald, who is not an employee of the government. This committee has gone along, with some doubts, with the hunt this year on condition that we be very careful, and carefully assess the stocks for next year. This, we shall do. I rejoice that the confrontation which seemed to be on the horizon may not take place. I hope everyone is very cautious since the ice is dangerous. I also hope that the Greenpeace movement will take advantage of the fact that the parliamentary committee on fisheries and forestry is sitting in the next few days. If they want to attend and be heard or discuss matters with the officials, we are perfectly open to that.
March 10, 1976


AIRPORTS
Mr. William Skoreyko (Edmonton East):: Might I ask the Minister of Transport whether it is now departmental policy that a 60-cent per hour fee be charged for flying training plus a $1.30 last landing charge at MOT airports? Does the minister think these charges are justifiable in the light of the heavy taxes and duties which are already being paid on these very small aircraft?


Otto Emil Lang: I would not try to deal with the question as it concerns excise tax. It is our proposal, however, to increase the whole series of user charges so as to move basically to the position that those who use the facilities should pay a larger proportion of the cost rather than leave the cost to be borne by the taxpayers generally. The charge in this case has not been increased for a long time and the landing fee to which the hon. member referred is a last landing fee with application to training aircraft and I think it is reasonable in the circumstances. I am quite prepared to discuss the exact nature and administrative details of any user charge with those who are having to pay them.


SUMMER GAMES AT ST. JOHN'S, NEWFOUNDLAND-AWARDING OF CONTRACT FOR MAIN COMPLEX WITHOUT TENDER
Mr. Dave Rooney (Bonavista-Trinity-Conception):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of National Health and Welfare and it concerns the Canada Summer Games to be held in St. John's in 1977. Have the minister or designated officials of his department concluded negotiations with Newfoundland regarding federal funding of this event? If not, is the minister aware that the main contract for the games facilities valued at $4.47 million has already been awarded without public tender to the chairman of the Summer Games Committee?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I hesitate to interrupt the hon. member but he has put a question which was asked just a few days ago.


NORTHERN AFFAIRS
Hon. Alvin Hamilton (Qu'Appelle-Moose Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the minister's announcement recently that publication of the northern land regulations would be delayed until the fall of 1976 at the earliest, has the minister proposed any plan or made any promise to the oil companies to induce them to carry on exploration in the Arctic in the meantime?
Oral Questions


Hon. Judd Buchanan (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: It is our hope we would be able to make the intent of the regulations, the regime under the regulations, known in the next six weeks or so; it will be longer before we can put it into legislation.


Francis Alvin George Hamilton: I gather from the minister that he still made no offer or inducement to the companies to carry on in the meantime.


J. Judd Buchanan: It is our hope that this will be the result of the publication of the regulations.


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Robert McCleave (Halifax-East Hants):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister since it arises out of one piece of legislation and one piece of regulation which deal with different departments. One concerns the expropriation of arms under the gun control law, and the other the expropriation of fishing licences under the change in the lobster fishery.
Has the Prime Minister considered or set any force to work to deal with compensation for the expropriation of proprietary rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think this is an important question and one which has obvious legal implications. I must ask the hon. member to let me take notice of it and determine whether in fact what he describes as proprietary rights are such, either in law or in equity, as to give rise to a requirement for any compensation.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, I will address my question to the Minister of Supply and Services in the absence of the President of the Treasury Board. Can the minister inform the House whether the government is now considering lending something over $100 million to the Lockheed Aircraft Company?


Hon. Jean-Pierre Goyer (Minister of Supply and Services):: Mr. Speaker, we never talked about lending money to Lockheed Aircraft Corporation, Ltd. In fact, the contract to be signed did not provide for any down payment and the contract which was negotiated and was to be signed never mentioned that Lockheed would finance the government.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: I should like to thank the minister for the openness of that answer. The Minister of National

March 10, 1976
Oral Questions
Defence, however, is on record in Hansard at page 11402 as saying an extra $111 million must now be added to the cost of the LRPA to cover interest payments on interim financing. Can the minister advise the House who is providing such interim financing and to whom is the $111 million in interest being paid?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Defence could answer this question. Unfortunately, this does not fall within the realm of my responsibilities.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. John Wise (Elgin):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Agriculture and it relates to the dairy industry and its associated problems. In a recent speech to dairymen in Uxbridge, the minister gave an indication that he was looking into the possibility of cutting off imports of milk products, which were being heavily subsidised by exporting countries. This is encouraging news, and since the situation referred to contributes largely to our own domestic surplus position, could the hon. gentleman give us some indication of his progress in this regard?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: I understand meetings are to take place next Tuesday to discuss the subsidies which vary from week to week and sometimes from day to day on dairy products, the specialty cheeses to which I was referring. We have made a decision, and my colleague the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce announced recently there would be no increase in the 50 million pound quota. Since then, we also decided that we would be reviewing the subsidies, as has been done in the United States where they have been successful in removing the subsidies from cheese products entering that country in 90 per cent of the cases.



EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


Mr. Bob  Weiunan@Fraser Valley West: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the minister's statement with reference to the Korean reactor that we have not required the spent fuel to be returned to Canada-that we did consider such a course seriously but abandoned it because of the environmental implications-what are the environmental implications of returning the spent fuel to Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Well, Mr. Speaker, the question which has been put did not actually arise in the form in which it had originally been considered, because the Koreans decid-

ed not to proceed with the acquisition of a reprocessing plant.


Mr. Wenman:: Having regard to the agreement with India presently under discussion, may I ask whether spent fuel from that reactor will be returned to Canada for reprocessing to make sure that Canadian material will not be used to produce further nuclear explosions. Further, can environmentally sound methods of the storage and disposal of waste be found?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I think I should explain to the hon. member, to avoid misunderstanding, that while the issue, as an issue, disappeared because of the decision of the government of South Korea not to acquire a reprocessing plant, the main reason for not insisting upon the particular provision referred to was that upon analysis it was not felt to be anything but a marginal safeguard. In other words, even if this particular provision were insisted upon it would be possible for a country wishing to do so to proceed to make a bomb. It was not an important item in the system of safeguards. We have no such line of discussion at work with the Indians at the present time.



CONSUMER AFFAIRS


Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. Yesterday the Anti-Inflation Board announced that it would permit McGavin Toastmaster, a subsidiary of Labatts and Ogilvie Flour, and Weston Bakeries to raise the wholesale price of bread by one cent. This means an increase in the retail price of two cents for Weston, which owns both the bakery and the supermarket. In view of the preliminary Food Prices Review Board study, which found that concentration in the food industry has resulted in Canadians paying 4 per cent too much for their food, would the minister explain how this increase is justified; and if the minister cannot do so, would he ask the Anti-Inflation Board if it will give an explanation to the public, in view of the public's concern that price increases are not being restricted by the board?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: My answer to the first part of the question is no, to the second part, it is yes.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Real Caouette (Temiscamingue):: Mr. Speaker, a few minutes ago the Prime Minister answered my colleague from Champlain who asked him whether he was prepared to meet the farmers and the milk producers
March 10, 1976

whom the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada was not always available to meet. He is right in saying so. What we did ask and again I repeat is whether the Prime Minister is prepared to meet the farmers whom the members of his caucus met last night, whom we met this morning at eleven o'clock and who express the wish to meet the right hon. Prime Minister. I realize that he cannot see them at any time during the day, but if he sets a date, day or time, these people, the farmers, would like to discuss their problems with the Prime Minister of Canada. This is the only thing we ask him, that is whether he would meet the farmers and when.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, I often meet delegations throughout the year, and of course a delegation as important as an agricultural one would have priority on my agenda. In fact, every year I have met groups from the Federation of Agriculture or other farming organizations. It will be a matter of finding, if possible, a date that suits both parties.
I merely wish to add, for the benefit of the leader of the Social Credit Party, what I have already told other members of his party, that is to say, that in our party, it is at times as useful, if not more so, to meet, as was the case yesterday, extremely active and energetic members, four ministers who know far more about the subject than I do, since my responsibilities are somewhat broader. The idea is to get the farmers the best audience possible. I thought they had had it yesterday. Now if it simply a matter of having the pleasure of seeing me, of shaking my hand, Mr. Speaker, I should be happy to meet them. If they are still here, I shall see them when I leave the House shortly. As for the presentation of arguments, I believe that was done yesterday. I trust my hon. members and ministers to give me a reliable report on what occurred. I will merely add that if the leader of the Social Credit Party wants to welcome all the delegations that come to Ottawa and I must meet, I shall be pleased to oblige and will ask him why, last week, he did not meet the eight bishops who came to Ottawa to discuss serious problems. Why did the Social Credit Party of Canada not meet them? Did they not have time to meet those bishops and religious leaders? Mr. Speaker, one cannot do everything one would like to do in a day. We try to share the responsibilities as best we can.


Mr. Lalonde:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. A few moments ago there was a question from the hon. member for Bonavista-Trinity-Conception (Mr. Rooney) about the Canada Summer Games.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the House would permit me to hear the point so I can decide whether there is a point of order.


Marc Lalonde: Your Honour ruled at the time that the question had previously been asked. That is true. I think it was asked last Friday of the Acting Prime Minister, who replied that he was not aware of the situation but would look into it. Therefore no answer was provided to that question. I respectfully submit, Mr. Speaker, that today when the hon. member raised the question he was asking for information that was not available to the House last
Oral Questions
Friday, and therefore the hon. member should have been entitled to ask the question again.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) rising on the same point of order?


John Edward Broadbent: Yes, Mr. Speaker. Speaking on behalf of my colleagues we would willingly give the minister an opportunity to answer, and I hope the House does, since we asked that very serious question on Friday.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. The fact is that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) has raised a point of order which is well taken. The test is not, as I have phrased it, whether or not the question has been asked previously; the test is whether the question has been answered previously. The fact is that a minister of the Crown undertook to look into the matter and to bring in an answer later. If I took that as a non-answer in this particular situation I would have a number of grievances on my hands, something which I have faced before.
Perhaps the best solution would be for the hon. member tomorrow to put the question to the same minister who undertook to give an answer, or at least by way of some preamble to indicate that he is seeking an answer which was previously sought. The custom of the House is that if a member, having asked a question on Friday, is expecting to be given an answer today, the courtesy of the House ought to be extended in such a way that the member who asked the question originally should be the one who should ask the question the second time.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. My question of privilege relates to the question of whether privilege applies in a given set of circumstances. I want to determine if, in a matter that does not relate to government business or parliamentary affairs, any parliamentary or statutory privilege lies in conversations between ministers of the Crown and/or the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
My understanding is that the Speaker must rule on whether a prima facie question actually exists before a motion is framed for reference to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. Therefore I am giving your Honour notice now that I desire to frame such a motion, but I would ask the Chair to give consideration to whether or not such a motion is receivable.


Mr. Speaker:: If the hon. member is referring to any lack of response to a question put during the question period-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No, sir, I am not.


Mr. Speaker:: -then, of course, it is the right of any minister to refuse to answer any question during the question period. If the hon. member was referring to that, then no question of privilege arises because there is no obligation on a minister ever to make any answer to any question in the question period. If the hon. member has something else in mind, perhaps he might put it to the Chair.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, my question relates to the fact that ministers of the Crown are pleading privilege in answer to questions during the question period. I under-

March 10, 1976
Oral Questions
stand that they do not have to give an answer to a question if they do not want to; but if they plead privilege-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may be able to argue that privilege has been pleaded which is fallacious or which has some loophole in it either in law or parliamentary procedure, but the fact is that the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) has asked the Chair whether or not a prima facie question of privilege exists. My answer is that a prima facie question of privilege does not exist, because there can be no obligation upon a minister to answer.
The reason the minister gives for not answering may be weak and might be subject to political commentary, but this cannot found a question of privilege because, as I have already said, there is no obligation upon a minister to make any answer.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order that is related to matters which have been put before Your Honour on which you have made a statement respecting the refusal of ministers to answer, particularly with respect to the exchanges which have taken place in this House over the last little while in regard to ministerial intervention in the Quebec courts.
I understand what Your Honour has said, that if ministers feel it proper or necessary they can refuse to answer questions that are put to them during the question period. But what I very strongly object to is the usurpation by a minister of the Speaker's authority by attempting to invoke, improperly as it happens, rules of the House which would help the minister to avoid admitting that he does not want to answer.
When asked about direct interventions with the judiciary, the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) invoked the sub judice rule on the grounds that he is involved in a contempt of court proceeding. It is obvious that when a question is put in the House, it is up to Mr. Speaker to intervene if the rules are offended. I suggest that the minister examine Standing Order 12(1) which reads:
Mr. Speaker shall preserve order and decorum, and shall decide questions of order. In deciding a point of order or practice, he shall state the Standing Order or other authority applicable to the case.
I wish to point out respectfully to the House that at no time has the occupant of the Chair, including Your Honour, intervened to cite the sub judice rule. The minister decided to do so on his own. Aside from whether the minister should be judging the procedural acceptability of questions put to him, I wonder whether that rule helps him in this case because on February 11 Your Honour stated, as reported at page 10844 of Hansard, and I quote:
It is clear to me at this point, however, that in any event no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial.
Sir, you also indicated that you wanted a little more time to deal further with the matter. I hope that the time has come when you are ready to make a detailed statement on the subject of sub judice, with relation to both civil and criminal proceedings at all stages, so that we will be spared
(Mr. Lawrence.]
the kind of evasive nonsense being built up into a question-proof barrier around the ministers concerned with these events.
However, even if the doubts about when a question is or is not "before the courts" cannot be immediately cleared up, I want to join other members in saying that the sub judice rule is no defence at all anyway, because the subject matter of our questions does not concern the minister's loquacious clumsiness in getting into a contempt of court proceeding, but the nature of his extra-legal attempts to get out of it. That is the issue in the questions we have been putting before this House. It is in that light and in those circumstances that this rule ought to be examined. This rule ought not to be invoked by any minister of the Crown; if a minister of the Crown attempts to invoke it, he ought to be told plainly and clearly.
The line of questioning has dealt with the activities of the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury) and his conversations with the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs which come very close to a prima facie case of infringement of a section of the Criminal Code. That only follows, incidentally, matters which are before the court as a result of the improper words, so found by a court of law, of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They do not have anything to do with any matter that is before the court and which could be sub judice and ought to be so found by you, Mr. Speaker.
The minister has implicitly invoked Beauchesne, citation 181, to avoid answering questions on this matter. If he went no further, he would at least be on firm ground procedurally. Whether he would be doing himself or the House any favour is another question. I hope he realizes the opposition has an obligation to pursue this, as he has an as yet unfulfilled obligation to tell the House whether he did or did not instigate an interference with the course of justice.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) will agree that I have allowed him a great deal of leeway on what in fact amounts to substantive criticism of the minister for failing to answer questions. While the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton had the floor on a point of order, he raised the question of sub judice. At no time has the Chair ruled on any question that has been raised. There has never been an interference, either under the guise of privilege or the sub judice rule, with the right of hon. members to put questions. There has, however, been a refusal by ministers to answer questions, on whatever grounds. Those grounds are limitless.
It is in fact the right of the ministry at any time simply to fail to make an answer, or to make a response which gives some reason for failing to make an answer. The criticism of that response, such as it may be, is always a matter of political or public comment. The question is, does it offend the rules of this House?
I repeat, at no time has the Chair intervened to interfere with the right of any member to put questions under those rules in respect of this particular matter. Therefore it would seem there has never been any application by the Chair of the rule as has been described by the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton.
March 10, 1976

The refusal of the minister to answer questions, on which the hon. member was beginning to comment, is indeed a matter for fair comment. However, it does not constitute a point of order in view of the fact ministers that have the right at all times simply to refuse to make answers.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I would not quarrel with your comment in respect of this matter because I think you have stated the obvious in a very clear and succinct way. What I would like to say is that it would be very helpful to this House, in view of the matters in which we are involved as well as those previously before us, if Your Honour could give us the benefit of your reflections on the sub judice rule so that it will at least be clear that the minister's refusal to answer our questions can have nothing to do, from a procedural viewpoint, with anything directly before the courts.


Mr. Speaker:: I hope I made that perfectly clear. I should say to the House that in light of the establishment of the committee, of which evidently I will be the chairman, which has been brought into existence largely at the instigation and initiative of the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin), which I think will inquire into the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, I had intended to reserve any further comment, unless it was necessary, with respect to the sub judice rule. I hope that will be one of the first matters the committee will examine.
I think I made it clear in the circumstance with respect to the case of the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), that there would be no interference with his right, or the right of other members, to put questions reflecting on that matter unless and until it was at trial, and perhaps not even then.
With respect to questions put to the ministry in this matter, I have again made it clear there has been no interference with hon. members under the sub judice rule. If I were to attempt to interfere with the right of a member and get into difficulty there, it might be necessary to interpose some discussion and a finalization of that. However, up until the time there is some difficulty with the right of members to put questions, the position is clearly understood. Certainly at the moment that point has not arrived.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. May I ask Your Honour to direct your mind to one brief question? It relates not only to the sub judice rule but to the question of privilege. When Your Honour is directing your consideration to this matter, would you direct it to one further question, a small one?
As I understand the position of the Chair it is that ministers do not have to reply. However, if they do reply that is the end of the matter as far as the Chair is concerned. May I simply ask this: if a reply comes which is quite patently false to the knowledge of the Chair and the knowledge of hon. members of the House, surely that is a matter of misleading the House and is obviously a question of privilege before the House? Could Your Honour direct your consideration to an answer coming from the ministry which is patently false?
Oral Questions


Mr. Speaker:: That consideration, of course, also involves a great deal of judgment which would have to be exercised in the circumstances.


Mr. Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order.
Following the oral question period this afternoon, I wish to point out to the House that more than 40 Liberal members met the directors of the Agricultural Producers' Union yesterday, and it has not been seen fit, after the very amiable discussions that took place-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


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


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


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: Mr. Speaker, I wish to set the facts straight. After this meeting attended by 40 Liberal members and four ministers from the province of Quebec, it has not been seen fit to ask to meet the Prime Minister-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I raise the question of privilege.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, if it is possible to turn a point of order into a question of privilege, I feel also that my rights are encroached upon. The farmers probably knew that the Liberals are stronger in caucus than in the House of Commons, this is perhaps why this morning they took up the matter strongly with the Social Crediters.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I would like to point out that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) took advantage of a slip of the tongue to refrain from answering one of my very serious questions, to wit whether he would be willing to meet a representative of the dairy industry.
Since the farmers have attempted to-


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Shefford understands quite well that the Prime Minister has indeed answered that question this afternoon during the oral question period and if he has anything to say on the content of the answer given, it is not through a point of order or a question of privilege.


Gilbert F. Rondeau: Mr. Speaker, I merely want to know whether the Prime Minister will meet the representatives of the dairy industry as readily as he met the Canadian bishops last week?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.
Order Paper Questions



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
March 10, 1976
m

Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I should like to move, seconded by the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Drury):
That, in relation to Bill C-68, an Act to amend the Medical Care Act, five hours shall be allotted to the further consideration of the second reading stage of the Bill; and
That, at the expiry of the fifth such hour, Mr. Speaker shall interrupt any proceeding 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 bill.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. All hon. members will realize that the provisions of Standing Order 75c require that such a motion can be put only when the minister has announced his intention so to do at a previous sitting, which the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) did at the sitting of the House last evening. Accordingly, pursuant to the provisions of Standing 75c, when the motion is put today, which can be at this moment or at this hour, a two hour debate is precipitated, leading to a vote on the terms of the motion.
There being only the matter of Questions on the Order Paper remaining in Routine Proceedings may I refer back to the procedure we followed in the last instance, which was that Routine Proceedings were finalized and then the first order of business to be considered was the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council. Would it be in order to proceed in that fashion at this moment?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
* *
*


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, the following questions will be answered today: 3,540, 3,717, 3,933 3,975, 3,978, 3,991, 4,111, 4,128 and 4,148.


Mr. MacDonald (Egmont): With reference to the recent agreement on Phase 2 of the PEI Comprehensive Development Plan, will any aspects of the Community Resources Programme be designed to facilitate or maximize citizen feedback to government and, if so, what specific channels and/or projects will be created to ensure citizen input into discussions preceding Phase 3 of the Plan?


Mr. Cliff Mclsaac (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: The reply for the Department of Regional Economic Expansion is: Yes. The question of channels and/or projects for input into discussions about any further phase would only arise when such further action is contemplated.


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	With reference to the answer to Question No. 2,015 regarding transfers of surplus assets purchased from one department to another, does the Crown Assets Disposal Corporation always receive remuneration?
2.	Would the Minister of Supply and Services provide case histories of all authorized transfers in 1974 that were without remuneration for the owner department?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: In so far as Crown Assets Disposal Corporation is concerned: 1. No.
2.	In accordance with the records of this corporation, the following is a list representing case histories of all authorized transfers in 1974 where the owner department did not receive remuneration:
Date
Department	Items
January 10, 1974 January 10, 1974 January 11, 1974
January 31, 1974 February 4, 1974 February 5, 1974
February 25, 1974
March 6, 1974
April 3, 1974 April 10, 1974
April 26, 1974
June 12, 1974
June 13, 1974 July 22, 1974 September 11, 1974 September 16, 1974
September 16, 1974
September 16, 1974
October 9, 1974 October 15, 1974
October 25, 1974
November 5, 1974 November 29, 1974
November 29, 1974
National Defence Environment Canada National Research Council
Health and Welfare National Defence National Research Council
National Research Council
Dominion Council of Health
National Defence National Research Council
National Research Council
National Research Council
Supply and Services National Defence Supply and Services National Research Council
National Research Council
National Research Council
National Defence National Defence
Regional	Economic
Expansion External Affairs Transport Canada
National Research Council
Naval Service cap ribbons 26 Displacement Type Launch Four Royal Standard Typewriters
Addressograph plates Anti-G flying suit, fying helmet Six paper tape punches, and three tool kits
Air survey camera calibrator
Functions and equipment
Car 45-86827 Kuiper stereo plotter
Serial Sound Structure Generator
26 surplus electronic components
Bindery equipment Signal flags Regent Paper cutter Fuel Coker Unit
Turborater
Digital Stepping Recorder with Coupler
Wang Loci Desk Top Calculator Wang Data Logging Control Tape Transport Recorder
4-channel Sanborn Recorder
Torpedo MK 14 Mod 3
Base Insulator, Receiving whip
Antenna
Transit, Gauge and Caliper
Uniforms for six hostesses Marconi Company Radio Range Transmitters Stoddard Horn Antenna



March 10, 1976


Mr. Hnatyshyn: Is the government giving consideration to deducting the federal tax on farm fuels at the time of purchase?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: The Excise Tax Act, which imposes the 10 cents a gallon excise tax on gasoline, requires users of gasoline who qualify for relief to recover the tax paid on their purchases by filing refund claims. However, the legislation also provides authority under which the Governor-in-Council may make regulations pertaining to relief from the tax for qualified users. On December 23, 1975, under PC 1975/3017 amendments to the Gasoline Tax Regulations were issued. These amendments provide that from March 1, 1976 users, including farmers, who qualify for relief from the tax and who purchase more than 2,000 gallons per month, may purchase gasoline exempt from the special excise tax rather than going through the refund claim procedure.


Mr. Brisco: 1.	Was there a runaway of freight cars at Tadanac Yards, Trail, British Columbia on December 19 or 20, 1975 and, if so, how many (a) contained SO2 (b) had (i) Ajax type brakes (ii) stem wind brakes (vertical mast) (iii) composition brake-shoes (iv) steel brake-shoes?
2.	How many (a) CP freight cars (b) CN freight cars are equipped with (i) Ajax brakes (ii) stem wind brakes?
3.	How many (a) CP freight cars (b) CN freight cars per year are being converted from stem wind brakes to Ajax brakes?


Mr. Ralph E. Goodale (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. Yes, December 20, 1975; (a) Ten; (b) (i) eight; (ii) ten; (iii) one; (iv) seventeen.
2.	There is no consolidated record of railway cars in operation with such equipment.
3.	There is no conversion program. The old stem type brakes are being phased out throught retirement.


Mr. Fleming: Do specifications in tenders for laboratory furniture by the Department of Supply and Services often specify the product or material of a particular company instead of offering a list of companies (Canadian, if possible) with products that would meet the same required standards, particularly, if the specified product is produced by one of the expected tendering companies or an affiliate company and, if so, for what reason?


Jean-Pierre Goyer: A recent survey indicated that the purchase description in invitations to tender for laboratory furniture which were obtained from requisitions submitted by customer departments, were almost equally divided between those quoting a trade reference, those quoting a trade reference
Order Paper Questions
and indicating that an equivalent was acceptable, and those quoting a customer's detailed specification. It is left for firms to decide which of their products they consider is the equivalent to the trade name quoted and bids are judged accordingly. Often, a trade name is quoted on a no substitute basis because laboratory furniture or equipment required is to complement an existing installation which may have been supplied off a previous competitive tender, to the customer's specification, or as provided by a building contractor. In all instances, except when a trade name item on a no substitute basis is required, all firms on the Department's Office Product Centre's source list or on the applicable Regional Supply Centre's source list are invited to tender on the requirement.


Mr. MacKay: 1.	For each year since 1965, by province, what were the payouts from the Post Office Guaranty Fund?
2.	Is such money used to reimburse persons who have had mail lost by the Post Office Department and, if not, what is the purpose of the Fund?
3.	From what part of the Post Office budget is the money taken for the Fund?
4.	In each fiscal year, is the Fund allotted a set amount of money and, if not, is the amount limitless?
5.	In each year since 1965, under the terms of the Fund, how many cases of (a) inefficiency (b) criminal action have been investigated?
6.	In each year since 1965, how many postal employees and/or others have been (a) prosecuted (b) dismissed for inefficiency or criminal action as covered under the terms of the Fund?
7.	How much was recovered as a result of such prosecutions or dismissals and was the money added to the Fund?


Mr. Paul E. McRae (Parliamentary Secretary to Postmaster General):: 1. See table below.
2.	The purpose of the Fund is to pay out losses as stipulated in Section 5, subsection (1), paragraph (1) of the Post Office Act.
3.	The fund is not sustained by the Post Office budget nor derived from parliamentary appropriations but consists of assessments against postal employees and mail contractors made prior to 1920, and any interest earned, less the net charges on the fund since its inception.
4.	See (3) above.
5.	The statutory provisions for the fund and the regulations for its administration do not specify categorization of cases according to inefficiency and criminal action. Nevertheless every loss is thoroughly investigated with a view to obtaining recovery, before recourse is made to the fund.
6.	See (5) above.
7.	Recoveries of losses in whole or in part previously charged to the fund amounted to $99,036 during the period April 1, 1965 to March 31, 1975. These moneys were credited to the fund at the time of recovery.

March 10, 1976
Order Paper Questions
Disbursements from Post Office Guarantee Fund, Years 1965-66 to 1974-75
New- foundland	Prince Edward Island	Nova Scotia	New Bruns- wick	Quebec	Ontario1965-66	$9,953.87	-	$1,292.09	$1,154.22	$ 2,100.66	$ 1,824.581966-67	3,633.17	-	1,901.35	259.93	9,447.46	3,132.361967-68	4,962.08	-	-	1,028.68	2,388.85	4,157.351968-69	2,346.07	-	-	-	7,123.28	366.301969-70	-	-	-	-	-	-1970-71	2,889.31	-	-	1,869.31	15,614.59	7,646.981971-72	-	-	-	761.43	23,977.04	3,810.091972-73	31.81	-	-	-	11,605.02	7,085.361973-74	25,577.66	-	-	-	69,585.09	6,384.521974-75	3,180.05	-	-	-	23,467.41	18,942.29Totals	$52,574.02	-	$3,193.44	$5,073.57	$165,309.40	$53,349.83Manitoba	Saskatch- ewan	Alberta	British Columbia	Yukon	North West Territo- ries	Total-	_	-	$ 357.56	_	-	$ 16,682.98$ 467.86	-	$ 414.68	-	$1,795.04	-	21,051,85235.25	-	-	1,039.68	-	$1,635.67	15,447.56-	-	-	2,274.74	-	-	12,110.39-	-	-	-	-	-.	--	227.98	-	6,195.68	-	1,207.41	35,651.26-	-	-	-	-	-	28,548.56-	220.08	6.31	163.06	-	78.36	19,190.001,013.13	-	830.11	73.36	-	3,086.24	106,550.1118,335.76	-	564.63	-	-	-	64,490.14$20,052.00	$448.06	$1,815.73	$10,104.08	$1,795.04	$6,007.68	$319,722.85


Mr. Reynolds: 1.	(a) How many persons are employed at the Blaine Border crossing (b) what are the duties of each individual (c) how many are bilingual?
2.	In the peak periods of traffic returning from the United States, are there normally only three or four out of a possible seven re-entry gates in operation and, if so, for what reason?


Hon. Jack Cullen (Minister of National Revenue):: 1.
(a) Sixty-five; (b) one Collector, one Secretary to the Collector, one Operational Superintendent, four Shift Superintendents, eight Shift Supervisors, 32 two Customs Inspectors, Traffic at Douglas, 15 Customs Inspectors, Traffic at Pacific Highway, three Support Clerks; (c) There are five positions designated as bilingual: One officer has been certified bilingual. One is presently on language training. Two are scheduled to take a language test. One is awaiting appointment to language training.
2. There are two Canadian entrance points opposite the Blaine, Washington crossing, Pacific Highway and Douglas, with the bulk of the tourist traffic passing through the Douglas entrance. There are three to four re-entry gates normally in operation at the Douglas office. Five to six are in operation during the summer months when student casuals are available. Both points are staffed on a three shift twenty-four hour basis. With the manpower available, coupled with the shift scheduling requirements under the collective agreement, it is impossible to open all entry gates during peak traffic periods.


Mr. Matte: 1.	Since 1970, has the Department of Finance granted money to the Constituency of Champlain as investment funds for winter projects and, if so, in what amounts?
2.	For each such grant, what was (a) its purpose (b) the area concerned (c) the amount (d) the year it was made?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: 1. Loans totalling $571,704 have been approved under the Winter Capital Projects Fund for capital projects in the Constituency of Champlain.
2. The details of these loans are as follows:
Pro jet	Location	Loan Approved	Approval DateConstruct Recreation Center and Ice Rink	Ville de St-Tite	$199,258	1973Renovate Pumping Station and Extend Water System	Paroisse de St-Narcisse	58,901	1973Watermain Construction and Pumping Station	Village de Ste Thecle	53,749	1973Construct Municipal Park	Village de Ste Thecle	9,796	1973Construct Social Center	Ville de La Tuque	250,000	1973


Mr. Landers: 1.	Is the Minister of Finance aware that City Transit of Saint John, New Brunswick has recently raised bus fares by 30 per cent?
2.	Will the Minister bring this to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board and request the Board to rule on the admissibility of such an increase under the Anti-Inflation guidelines?


Mr.   Jacques-L. Trudel@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Finance: It is our understanding that the City Transit of Saint John, New Brunswick is a privately owned company. If this company is part of a group with 500 or more employees, its recent action in raising bus fares would automatically be subject to review by the Anti-Inflation Board. The matter has been drawn to the attention of the Anti-Inflation Board.


Steve Eugene Paproski: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I wonder whether we are still on the subject of Questions on the Order Paper. I had a question on the order paper, question No. 3171, which appears at page 10793 of Hansard, involving a project at Place du Portage in Hull. The contract totals $28 million for the building of a garage, a simple steel and concrete structure.
I wonder why the minister of Public Works has not answered my question. There are 501 charge orders totalling $4.5 million. This is very serious. As I have said, the
March 10, 1976

contract is for $28 million. The minister does not tell us whether he authorized any of these expenditures. I would very much appreciate if he would do this. Is this an indication of the type of control the minister has over these projects, or does he really know what is going on and what he is doing over there?


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, notice of motion for the production of papers No. 94 is acceptable to the government.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 94-Mr. Orlikow:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of the most recent magazine, newspaper or newsletter published by each department, agency or Crown corporation.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 69, 71 and 93 are acceptable to the government subject to the usual reservations concerning confidential documents and to the authorization of the government authorities concerned.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House that the notices of motions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary in those circumstances shall be deemed to have been adopted.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 69-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the Greenland-Canada Boundary in the Davis Strait.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 71-Mr. Marshall:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before this House copies of all minutes of meetings, letters and telegrams pertaining to the negotiations which
Electoral Boundaries
have taken place between the government and the United States on the continental shelf boundary disputes with regard to the Maine-Nova Scotia Boundary.
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 93-Mr. Firth:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of the audited financial statements of the Northern Canada Power Commission for the years 1970-71, 1971-72, 1972-73, 1973-74, 1974-75.
Motion agreed to.
Jean-Jacques Blais: I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is it agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I simply indicate to the hon. member for Edmonton Centre (Mr. Paproski) that if he has any difficulty in obtaining replies to his questions a simple private word would be of considerable assistance in first of all identifying the question the reply to which has been delayed. This is the first I have heard of a delay in the reply to this particular question.


Jack Marshall: Mr. Speaker, my notice of motion for the production of papers No. 68 requires a simple yes or no answer. I wonder why it has taken so long, since January 26, to answer No. 68.




Mr. Speaker:: It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. member for Okanagan Boundary (Mr. Whittaker), the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), the hon. member for Annapolis Valley (Mr. Nowlan), the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Brisco), the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Skoreyko), the hon. member for Okanagan-Kootenay (Mr. Johnston), and the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre (Mr. McKenzie), has been filed with me, pursuant to section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the Report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the Province of British Columbia.
In accordance with the previous practice already adopted by the House, I would assume that we will print the text

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
of the objection as an appendix to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: The motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) having been put forward, may I ask whether it is the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Never!


Mitchell William Sharp: Mr. Speaker, I move this motion with some reluctance.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It had been my hope that the House would have been ready before now to refer this bill to the standing committee where there would be plenty of opportunity for hon. members to ask questions, to propose their amendments, and to listen to the amendments that might be proposed by the government. However, I did seek agreement among the House leaders under Standing Order 75A or 75B under which there could have been an agreed allocation of time but, as I said last night, I failed.
It will be clear to the House-although it did not seem to be clear to the CBC this morning-that this motion does not put closure on the bill.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: It simply provides an additional five hours for discussion on second reading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mitchell William Sharp: This bill-I am sure it is well known but I seem to have to impress this upon the House-will still be considered in committee, it may be considered at the report stage, and it will certainly be considered on third reading. All we have done is to bring to a conclusion the debate on second reading, and this is simply a motion to refer the bill to committee.
So that the government is not accused of having throttled debate, let me put on the record the length of the debate on second reading and the extent of the participation by hon. members so far. I say "so far" because there will be another five hours of debate, of which I have no doubt hon. members will wish to take advantage, and we will have an even longer list, this altogether apart from the discussions that will take place in the committee, on the report stage and at third reading.
This bill was introduced on July 8, 1975. Debate on the motion for second reading and reference to the standing committee took place during 11 days for a total of 30 hours.

I would now like to indicate the number of hon. members who have participated.
There have been altogether 63 speeches and there have been 56 members who have participated in the debate, 8 from this side of the House, including the minister and the parliamentary secretary, 32 from the official opposition, 13 from the NDP, and 3 from the Social Credit party. Of the above, 1 Liberal, the parliamentary secretary, spoke twice, once on the main motion and once on the amendment proposed by the NDP, 2 Conservative members spoke twice, and 4 members of the NDP spoke twice.
In justification-which I think I hardly need in the light of this account of the length of the debate and the number of hon. members who have participated in it-I would just like to say that there are a number of other important bills before the House and I trust there is agreement in the House that, in order to deal with them, there is need for reasonable restraint on the length of the debate on any one of them, and certainly on any particular stage.
The government had hoped for agreement by members of all parties. I failed to get it, and we had to take our responsibility. I am sure the public and this House ought to applaud.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I listened with some amusement to the government House leader a few moments ago saying that he approached with reluctance this whole question of closure in introducing this motion at this stage. I hope he will forgive me if I suggest to him that his approach bore all the semblance of the reluctance of a vulture approaching a fallen deer.
I want to say to the minister very clearly that when the hon. member for Halifax (Mr. Stanfield) described this bill as a treacherous act by a treacherous government-I think I quote him pretty accurately-the minister by this motion has merely added to that treachery by attempting to cut off this very important debate at a time when this House is considering a piece of legislation which not only affects the relationship between the provinces and the federal government in Canada-every member of the House knows this-but also affects something that is very basic to Canadians, that is that the burden of what the government intends to do by this bill will fall very heavily on those parts of the country which are less able to afford sophisticated medical care, and the minister knows this.
It was an act of treachery to deal with it unilaterally and without consultation in the course of the budget speech, as the government chose to do. It was another act of treachery in bringing in this bill to change arrangements unilaterally for provinces which in some cases were persuaded, bludgeoned or cajoled by the government to enter into the agreement built their health care delivery services on the basis of it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: There is no treachery there.


Walter David Baker: I am not surprised at the hon. member for Nipissing (Mr. Blais). I believe he would not recognize an act of treachery if he stumbled on one.
March 10, 1976

It was a triple act of treachery, and this is a black day for this parliament and for this country. It seems to have become the rule of the government to cut off debate on a matter of some importance, one which has been before the House since July 8, 1975, and which could have been brought forward by the government House leader, if it is so important, suddenly after only 11 days of debate-


Mitchell William Sharp: And 63 speeches.


Walter David Baker: -involving only 63 members out of 264. If that is deemed to be over debating an important principle, and if that is the position which the government holds, then I think it has lost all sense of reason and direction, not only in terms of the operation of this House but in terms of the feelings of the country.
There is a good reason why there has been a prolonged debate on the bill. It is because there has been large scale and widespread doubt among the public about the utility of this bill. All the provinces have criticized both the substance of the bill and the manner in which the legislation was introduced. At one point one of the provinces, Ontario, threatened to withdraw from the cost-sharing program. The so called have not provinces fear that their own budgetary exigencies will not allow them to take on new services or even to maintain old services. The Canadian Medical Association reacted to it by saying flatly and without equivocation that the actions of the government could endanger the quality of medical services available to Canadians.
Is there any reason to suggest that it is improper in the parliamentary sense for merely a few speakers to come forward and debate this bill? Has the government forgotten that this parliament is not its servant, that the government is the servant of the parliament and of the public we represent? I believe its attitude throughout this debate, in bringing forward the bill in the first place and then having the temerity to move closure, is an indication that it has decided that, unlike the session of 1972 to 1974 it will go back to ramroding legislation through the House regardless of its importance. This bill reflects that style and attitude and so does this motion for closure.
There is no way that the official opposition or any other party in opposition, faced with the objections of the provinces, faced with the objections of the Canadian Medical Association, and faced with the objections of people who are concerned about the level of medicare and the areas where a curtailment would hurt, would not use one of the weapons that it has at its disposal, namely, the right to debate the bill, to point out its inequities, to point out its deficiencies, and to point out the treachery of the government that brought it forward.
It has become pretty self-evident that this bill is dangerous to the level of medicare in this country, and this motion is dangerous to the operation of this parliament. If this is to be the way the government is to proceed on important matters, suggesting it is improper to debate them at length, then the attitude of the government is wrong. The government might remember that not too long ago a similar government with similar attitudes foundered
Business of the House
on the basis of an arrogance which this motion for closure indicates.
The government House leader talks about other House business. Of course there is other House business. I said long before I became the House leader of this party-and I echoed the sentiments of the former leader-that the opposition would not stand in the way and would, in fact, help the government with legislation which is reasonable and sound in principle. However, I want this parliament and the government to know that this opposition does not intend to stand idly by and be beaten away from the right to debate because the government has decided it wants to get a piece of legislation through, if we decide, honestly and fairly, that the principle of that legislation is wrong.
We made the decision a long time ago that this piece of legislation is wrong in principle, is a breach of a contract, and is a vehicle by which medical care will be diminished in terms of Canadians, where there will be an emphasis directed toward regional disparity, and an assault on our confederation. We hold those views today and resist this motion for closure because this motion indicates that the government just does not care. It wants to arrogate more and more power to itself, irresponsibly in a majority situation.
That is the position we take in this matter, and if the government House leader is suggesting to us that we can debate the matter on third reading he is quite right because, unless there are to be substantial amendments, which would be more than merely procedural amendments but which would go to the heart and substance of the bill to put back into the law of this country, or to allow to remain in the law of this country the medical care scheme which the government proposed and which was accepted in good faith by all the provinces, then the government can expect our position to be no different on third reading than it is on second reading.
This bill will be just as irresponsible, unchanged, on third reading as it is on second reading, and the government is just as irresponsible, in terms of the provisions of this closure motion, as it could possibly be. I for one cannot understand what moved the government to this stupidity in the circumstances of this debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, we are totally and unalterably opposed to the motion made this afternoon by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). He has moved this motion under Standing Order 75c, and I want to say again, as I have been saying ever since this rule was forced upon us in July, 1969, that it is a bad rule. Some of my friends are reminding me, as if I need to be reminded, that it was brought in by the use of the other closure rule, Standing Order 33. The entire opposition was opposed to it. There was a special committee on rule changes and we agreed to quite a few things, but the government was not satisfied. It wanted this one more weapon which it could use unilaterally to choke off debate in the House of Commons. It was a bad day or a bad night in July, 1969, when Rule 75c was passed, and I regard the act of the minister today in applying Rule 75c to Bill C-68 as infamous.

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
I do not know whether the ministers opposite want to listen to us over here or not. If those two want to joke, they should go behind the curtain.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister tried to say that this is not closure because it permits another five hours of debate. In other words he is saying he is going to use the guillotine and it will come down on our necks, but not right away, but after five more hours of debate.
The old closure rule, Standing Order 33, which Sir Robert Borden brought in back in 1913 and which the Liberals called everything under the sun but have since used a number of times, provided that on its application debate could go on until one o'clock at night. In other words, under Standing Order 33 more debate on the measure before the House would be guaranteed than the minister is allowing under 75c. If it is closure-and that is what it is called in the book-to end debate at one o'clock the next morning, I suggest that it is closure to tell us that after five more hours of debate the proceedings on second reading of Bill C-68 must end.
The minister also indulged in statistics-and they can always be used on either side of an argument-about the number of speeches which have been made in this debate and about the number who have spoken a second time. The implication in that, of course, is that we have had enough speeches. I say to the minister that I think we have had more speeches already than we should have had, but the purpose of speaking from this side of the House on Bill C-68 has been to try to persuade the government to withdraw the bill.
It is a bad bill. It was well put by my friend David Croll in the other place-he has been quoted often and does not mind it-when he said it is wrong, wrong, wrong. What we in the opposition have been trying to do in the course of this debate is not just to talk for the fun of it, day in and day out, but to persuade the government that the measure itself is a mistake, it is wrong, and that it should be withdrawn.


Mitchell William Sharp: That is only a minority view.


Jean-Jacques Blais: A small minority view.


Mr. Railton:: That is just a pronouncement; it is not an argument.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It happens to be a pronouncement which is true, and I say to the hon. member who has recently joined the Liberal party in this House of Commons that what the government is now doing in Bill C-68 is reversing fifty years of the history of the Liberal Party. It was way back in 1919 when the Liberal party of this country first committed itself to old age pensions, unemployment insurance, and health insurance. It took an awfully long while to get these things. Old age pensions came along in 1926 or 1927, unemployment insurance in 1940 or 1941, but we did not get hospitalization until the middle fifties and medical care until the sixties. It took an awful lot of work and an awful lot of prodding, but as long as we had Mackenzie King, Louis St. Laurent

or Lester Pearson as prime ministers, there seemed to be a desire, even though moving slowly, to move in the direction of providing these things.


An hon. Member:: But they did it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The hon. member says they did it. Yes, they did, and they did it in the belief that it would be good for Canadian unity to have a standard of medical care which would be the same right across the country. For that reason a formula was worked out and a commitment made to the provinces which, in practical terms, means that the federal government pays 50 per cent of the cost of hospitalization and 50 per cent of the cost of medicare. I know in medicare the formula is 25 per cent in one respect and 25 per cent in another, but that is a detail that I will not elaborate on at this point, for it adds up to 50 per cent, more or less.
Up to this point an effort has been made to achieve some uniformity by having medical care equally available across this country. But this bill makes provision in the next few years and down the road even more so, for the government to pay less than 50 per cent of the cost of medical care. It is planning the same thing for hospitalization. It is freezing funds for medical research. The result is going to be that in a few years medical care will not be equal across this country because the provinces will get from the federal government not 50 per cent but 45 per cent, 40 per cent, or 35 per cent. The provinces that can afford medical care programs will have them and those that cannot will have to cut services or put on extra taxes or deterrent fees.
I say to my friends over there who boast of what the Liberals did over a 50 year period-and they should not boast because it took that length of time-what the government under the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is doing is to reverse the Liberal trend that was developed under Mackenzie King, under Louis St. Laurent, and, under Lester Pearson. I say therefore that we who are opposing the action of the government are in effect trying to save the soul, if it has one, of the Liberal party on this issue.
I point out also, Mr. Speaker, and perhaps this is my greater concern rather than the soul of the Liberal party, that I am concerned for what this is doing to Canada. When we get medical care and hospitalization on a basis where the wealthier provinces have it and the poorer provinces have less in terms of service or more to pay, this will do great damage to Canadian unity. That is why I regard this as an infamous act on the part of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), who has bungled a few other things in this parliament as well, to be asking us now to close off debate on Bill C-68.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: The hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott) on a point of order.


Mr. Abbott:: Mr. Speaker, I wonder if the hon. member would permit a question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I have only ten minutes, but as long as the House will permit I will accept a question.
March 10, 1976


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to inform the hon. member that his ten minutes have expired. Will the House allow the hon. member for Mississauga to ask a question?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: With the unanimous consent of the House the hon. member for Mississauga may put a question to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


John Edward Broadbent: Make it a good one.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Mr. Speaker, it may not be a good one but, as a relative newcomer, I want to ask the hon. member, as one who has been in the House as long as he has, is he saying it is an infamous act, after a debate has taken place in which exhaustive interventions have been made by almost every interested member of the opposition, that the government should never be permitted to bring the issue to a vote? Does he think the government should let those interventions go on and on in order to exhaust the government? Does he deny the right of the government to bring this matter to a vote ultimately?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under the rules the government has the right to do it, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) said today that the government is taking its political responsibility in this matter. I say to the hon. member for Mississauga and I say to the government that there are times in human history when minorities are right. I think the minority in this House is right in saying that Bill C-68 ought to be withdrawn.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is why we are opposing this motion under Standing Order 75C.


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, it is rather reluctantly that I take part in this debate, since the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) is now putting this House in a bind by having recourse to Standing Order 75a, 75b and 75c which had been passed by the House or rather imposed on the House by another motion of closure in July 1969.
Today the government uses this procedure to impose a bill which Canadians do not want, not any more than the provinces, and on which it has not been able to obtain unanimous consent of the House. Here is the real situation: the government is doing it alone with Bill C-68, by imposing by force its financial participation in a very important program, by limiting it now at 50 per cent and at less in future years. Thus the government imposes its law, it withdraws from a program it had forced upon the country, and it is taking this decision by imposing its will upon the House of Commons and using the muzzle, the guillotine.
For the moment, neither the government nor any government member can tell whether at least one province has given its full support to the passing of Bill C-68. In fact, discussions have not even begun. No province has given its agreement. The federal government does not care anyway.
Business of the House
They are the federal government. They go over the provinces, and we see now that they will go over Parliament, and that after five hours of discussion, three quarters of which will be taken up in procedural debates, this legislation will have to be passed by this Parliament. Why? Because the government rely on their parliamentary majority, but they cannot pretend that they represent the majority of Canadians. That is not true, Mr. Speaker.
In that way, democracy is altered. The Liberals represent only 47 per cent of the electorate, and thus the majority of the population is on the opposition side. Whether the electoral system makes them the majority party is a different matter. That is why we find ourselves today passed the point of no return, that is we are simply facing closure. Let the provinces fend for themselves! It is up to them now to find the money required to finance the difference in the medical care cost, no matter whether or not it is the federal government which put them into this mess.
When the government introduced the anti-inflation legislation, it ordered a freeze on one item, among others, in order to put money aside because, it said, we had to save money. Well, what did it freeze? Family allowances. To save $200 million, the biggest budget cut was made at the expense of children. Now they are going to cut the social affairs budget again. What is rather surprising is that the government keeps changing its position on social security and this unilaterally. It strictly imposes its rule.
Mr. Speaker, that kind of attitude is non-parliamentary and non-democratic. Once the guillotine has fallen, that's it, we are soon going to vote this afternoon, and with the majority, the force of numbers, Bill C-68 will certainly be adopted. We will see the usual scenario being played. We will hear government members burst into applause. But the day those same members and ministers are on the opposition side, they will be the first to use the same language we are using today.
Mr. Speaker, almost everything is allowed in this House except when it comes to preventing a member from talking on behalf of his fellow citizens. Standing Orders 75(a), (b) and (c) are infamous since they deprive members of the House from the right to express their opinion. Mr. Speaker, I do not want to take very much time talking about this since several other members will certainly want to state their views. The Liberals are arrogant. They impose their legislation on us. And when something is not to their liking, they resort to heckling, shouting and applause to impose their legislation.
A few years ago, they tried to make us believe that medicare was extraordinary-I know this since I was in the gallery at that time as secretary to the leader of the Social Credit Party. I recall that time very clearly. Today the government is using closure simply to withdraw unilaterally its participation in the financing of the health insurance scheme. In the next election, these same Liberals will use fine sounding words to proclaim that because of them Canada has the best and the greatest social security system in the world.
Mr. Speaker, this is nonsense. The attitude taken by the President of Privy Council in imposing his social security legislation, the attitude taken by Prime Minister Trudeau

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
last weekend in Quebec City concerning a provincial premier, all this amounts to the same thing. It shows that this government thinks that it is infallible. Liberals have been in power more than 47 years out of 56. This shows their arrogance, and it is time for democracy to really come through in Canada. Mr. Speaker, the way the government imposes its will is revolting.


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


André-Gilles Fortin: The hon. member for Levis is protesting because of the way I am talking. Mr. Speaker, with all due respect, I would point out to him that I have the right to say what I want in this House during the time alloted to me under the rules laid down by his party. I imagine that one day the same member for Levis will be in the opposition. I hope so for his sake. It will do him good, Mr. Speaker. He will fall back on his feet in democracy and stop thinking he is someone else because he is on the government side. At that time he will probably talk in the same way as I am doing, and he will be given the chance to either sit in the opposition or stay at home. I urge him to try and understand the Canadian parliamentary system and stop flouting the right of members to express openly the opinion of their voters.
Mr. Speaker, the use of the closure in an area as crucial as social security in a field of jurisdiction where there is so much money involved as medicare shows how little social security matters to this government. To them, they are only words uttered in a strictly electoral purpose. Mr. Speaker, unless it changes its attitude the days of this government are certainly numbered.


Mr. Bob Kaplan (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The hon. member for Lotbiniere said at least one thing on which I agree. He pointed out that if the opposition were in the place of the government it would do precisely the same thing the government is doing now, that is opposing-


André-Gilles Fortin: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. Mr. Speaker, I am really quite surprised by what my hon. friend who misinterpreted my words just said. I suggested that if the Liberals were in the oppostion, they would probably say the same thing. But I am not surprised the hon. member should, intentionally twist my words to use them. When arrogance reaches the point where closure is imposed, one can resort to just about anything.


Raynald Joseph Albert Guay: I wonder if the words of the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin) were not misinterpreted, Mr. Speaker. First of all, I thank him for having proclaimed my election in 1978 by telling me that, either in the opposition or in power, I shall then sit in this House. I thank him very much.
I am told now that there is talk of closure. We have had a debate, Mr. Speaker, on this bill, for eleven days now. Is that democracy, is that reaching decisions or is it filibustering? If that is what the hon. member for Lotbiniere is suggesting to the Canadian people, then I wish he would go and say it outside the House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Withdraw the bill.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. That is not a point of order, that is a point of debate.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I apologize to the hon. member if I misunderstood his remarks. I did not intend to misinterpret, and I apologize if I did.
It is important to make the point, as the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) did, that this is not to be the end of debate on this bill. The bill has a long way to go. We are only on second reading. It must go to committee, where, as the minister said, amendments will be moved. The bill will be reported back to the House, and there will be further opportunities at the report stage as well as at third reading for discussion. Any who say that limiting debate at this stage will be the end of the bill and that the government is arrogantly going its own way are totally misrepresenting the facts.
On second reading we deal with the principles of the bill. Surely the opposition cannot dispute that it has made known its views on the principles of the bill. Thirty Conservative members spoke once, and two spoke twice on the principle of the bill. Of the NDP, nine members spoke once and four spoke twice on the principle of the bill. Without doubt, the country has been given the opportunity to know the views of the opposition on the principle of the bill, and the government has had full opportunity to understand the opposition's view on that principle. I ask, when will debate end? When will the government be allowed to exercise its responsibilities?
I am, as you know, parliamentary secretary and have had the pleasure of listening to the entire debate. From time to time I have tried to discover if and when the debate is to come to a natural end. I have checked with members of the Conservative party, and met with virtually the same response every time, "There are 15 more speakers." Well, there were 15 more speakers on the first day of debate, 15 more on the ninth day, and 15 more on the last day we debated this bill. I asked NDP members when they thought debate on this bill would come to a natural end. I learned that the NDP does not want debate on the bill to come to a natural end. It does not want debate to end. It wants the bill to be withdrawn.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: NDP members are entitled to their opinion but are they entitled to prolong debate forever and prevent a vote on the bill?


An hon. Member:: Sometimes the opposition is right, you know.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: If hon. members opposite think that is their right, they misunderstand the role of the opposition in this Chamber. Their attitude makes it impossible to deal with this legislation. How can one pass legislation if it is not allowed to come to a vote? The NDP are entitled to want the bill withdrawn, and entitled to so argue. But there are rights on the other side. Surely they have no right to prevent a vote on this bill, they cannot prolong debate so


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!

March 10, 1976

long that parliament will be obliged, in following its natural sense of priorities, to turn to other pieces of legislation. Surely this is not the purpose of parliamentary debate.
Conservative party spokemen complained they had not enought time to debate the bill on second reading. They do not suggest what is enough time. How much time do you need to show how you feel about the principle of the bill? When the government learns there is an indefinitely long line of members waiting, ready to speak on the bill and fill the time of the House, it is entitled to draw its own conclusions.
I remind the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that when the government recently resorted to Standing Order 75C, two members of his party spoke in support of the use of it. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) said on December 2 of last year-I am paraphrasing-that the opposition should be given a fair chance, but it is necessary for the government to govern. He said he would do the same if he were in the government's shoes. The hon. member for Waterloo-Cambridge (Mr. Saltsman) said much the same. In other words, both hon. members agreed that Standing Order 75C is a legitimate device which the government may use at a certain point.
After the opposition has made its points and expressed its objections, one hopes it will allow the House to proceed with its business. We must change from being a debating society to being a legislative body and do what must be done with legislation. Having inquired with hon. members opposite, it appears to me that they do not intend to let this debate come to a natural end.
Infamy has been alleged; treachery has been alleged. It has been said that parliament is the servant of the government and not the servant of the people of Canada. Certainly, parliament should not be the servant of the government. But should it be the servant of the opposition? Shall members of the opposition determine when parliamentary debate shall end, when a principle shall be considered as established and when bills shall be proceeded with? The President of the Privy Council indicated that there is much other business on the order paper. He is right. And there is a lot of other business which should be on the order paper.
We should dispose of this legislation, we should pass it through our normal procedures and move on to deal with other important matters which affect the people of Canada. Parliament is the servant of the people and I would urge members of the opposition not to prolong this debate to the full two hours permitted, or to the additional five hours. Let us get the bill in committee and then proceed to other business in this Chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, I take part in this debate as one who did not speak during the discussion on the second reading of the bill. I may say I take strong issue with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), and with the parliamentary secretary who has just spoken. My position is certainly far removed from theirs.
Business of the House
It seems to me the government demonstrated a desire to downgrade parliament as an institution and to downgrade the right of each of us here to speak on behalf of our constituents. This is one of the issues which brought me into politics. When the government decided to bring forward this motion under Standing Order 75C it seemed to me it was not only missing the spirit of the rule but abusing it to a serious degree. Clearly the President of the Privy Council has the right, within the rules, to bring forward such a motion if no agreement can be reached with respect to the progress of legislation. In a technical sense he has acted in accordance with that Standing Order. But I submit that he, and the members who support him, miss the whole point of that rule.
The concept of closure was indeed established here by Sir Robert Borden, but hon. members should bear in mind that this was during the first world war at a time when an external threat was facing our country. Closure was not envisaged merely for the purpose of facilitating government business, as seems to be the case now. It was not used merely because the government was dissatisfied with the speed at which a particular piece of legislation was progressing. We have a duty and an obligation to speak on measures such as Bill C-68 when we feel it is in the interests of our constituents to do so.
The President of the Privy Council talks about 63 speeches having been made. Well, 63 speeches out of 264 is still a low percentage. What is going to happen when we have 400 members as a result of the redistribution proposals? I suppose the whole question of the rights and privileges of members will have to be redefined at that point, but I do not think it is incumbent upon the government to invoke closure under a provision of this sort whenever it feels a bill is not moving as quickly as it would like.
I have to agree with the parliamentary secretary to some extent. I found the attitude of the New Democratic Party toward this issue to be disappointing. I thought the NDP did a disservice by making it clear that it was their intention to filibuster the bill, appearing in the Chamber with large filibuster books, and so on. This, naturally, would egg on the government and play into its hands. I do not think the NDP did any good by showing such a flippant attitude toward the legislation, by having those books displayed in the House of Commons indicating they intended to participate in a filibuster.
The motion put before us by the President of the Privy Council is becoming an increasingly common procedure. It is becoming a mark of Liberal administration. I recall my first involvement in politics when I was a university student; it was brought about by the arrogance of the government in imposing closure at the time of the pipe line debate. I have just finished reading a book written by a former member for Bonavista-Twillingate, Mr. Pickersgill, in which he indicated that when he and his cabinet colleagues moved closure at the time of the pipe line debate in 1956 they worried and fretted for a long time because they did not want the Liberal party to be identified with the imposition of closure.
What do we find today? The only reason the minister gives us for his action is that the bill is not progressing as quickly as the government would like. If the government is

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
dissatisfied with the progress of legislation the way to deal with that situation is to come forward with constructive suggestions with respect to amending the present procedure, not to abridge the rights of individual members to express their points of view freely.
Some time ago before I came to this House the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred to members of parliament as nobodies when they were 50 yards away from Parliament Hill. That was some time ago, so perhaps he has changed his mind since. But my concern is that he should be treating us as nobodies when we are, in fact, on Parliament Hill. The government has demonstrated its arrogance, as has been pointed out by the press on a number of occasions recently. The government should be careful about pressing its luck this afternoon. Supported by its majority, it has forgotten the lessons learned while it was a minority government. It has forgotten the motion of dealing reasonably with the opposition. We have not yet concluded the longest session in the history of our country.
There has been no Speech from the Throne for a period longer than ever before in history. This demonstrates that the government is incompetent when it comes to running the business of the House. I attribute it to the fact that the government cares nothing about the House of Commons; its flippancy and arrogance with respect to all these matters and, some people say, even with respect to approaching the judiciary, have been without parallel since Confederation. Mr. Pickersgill claimed that as a Liberal he was concerned about the use of closure. I can only say that a lot of real Liberals would be whirling in their graves today if they knew the attitude the government was taking toward the curtailment of the rights of members.
The reason the government is taking this step is clear. It wants to ram this bill through so that when the provincial ministers of health get together in Ottawa they can be told exactly what the federal government proposes to do as far as the allocation of funds is concerned. This summarizes the whole approach of the government toward the provinces. In other words, the attitude of the government is one of confrontation as opposed to discussion and negotiation. The government is to be not only chastised for this attitude; every member of the House should give very serious consideration to permitting this kind of procedure to be introduced with a lack of thought for a most important piece of legislation and without giving every member of the House an opportunity to speak on the legislation. Even backbenchers should have that opportunity. They should be able to express the point of view of their constituents-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired.


Mr. T. C. Douglas (Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands):: Mr. Speaker, when the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp) introduced this guillotine motion he said he did so with reluctance. And well he might. Not only should he have a feeling of reluctance; he ought to be ashamed at introducing a motion relating to a matter on which only about one quarter of the members of this House have spoken and which has far-reaching consequences for the people of Canada.
[Mr. Hnatyshyn.l
What we ought to ask ourselves is why this closure motion is being introduced. It is being introduced to enable the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) to sit down and negotiate with the provincial ministers of health with a loaded gun on the table. As a matter of fact, there will be two loaded guns. The first gun will be the termination notice that the government issued last June with respect to its contributions to hospital insurance. The second loaded gun will be Bill C-68, which is to limit the contribution that the federal government will make to national medicare.
The government is anxious to get this bill through second reading so that when the provincial ministers of health meet with the federal representatives this legislation will have passed at least through second reading and the minister will be able to say to his provincial conter-parts, "Parliament has approved our position; you can either take it or leave it".
I think it is important, Mr. Speaker, to look at the sequence of events which have taken place and the moves which the Minister of National Health and Welfare has made to avoid meeting the provincial ministers of health until he has this legislation through second reading. Let me remind the House that in May of 1973 the federal government proposed to the provincial governments that the federal government's contribution to medicare should be tied to the gross national product. We have only to look at what happened to the gross national product last year to realize what would happen if the provinces accepted that proposal. But in September of 1974 the provinces unanimously rejected the proposal. They not only rejected the proposal, they made an alternative proposal. They said, "We can help save money both for the federal and the provincial governments by having lower cost services, and we are prepared to sit down and discuss that".
At the last federal-provincial health ministers' conference in January, 1975, the Minister of National Health and Welfare agreed with the provincial representatives that this was the best way to go about cutting down costs both with regard to hospital insurance and medicare. As the minister admitted in the House on January 28 of this year, it was agreed that officials of both the federal government and the provincial governments were authorized to get together to begin working out programs by which lower cost services would be introduced, thereby eliminating many of the high cost services. That was a good arrangement, one that was entered into in good faith by both the provinces and the federal government.
On June 23 last the federal government pulled the rug from under these arrangements by announcing in the budget of the minister of finance, first that it would give a termination notice with regard to hospital insurance, and second, that it would introduce the measures contained in Bill C-68 to put a cap on the federal government's contribution to medicare.
The provinces were aghast. They felt they had been cheated and betrayed and they discontinued discussions. They felt there was no value in holding discussions in view of the two decisions that the federal government announced in the minister of finance's budget. I do not wonder that the provinces are outraged.


Samuel Victor Railton: What do they want today?
March 10, 1976


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: I will tell the hon. member what they want today. They have asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare to hold a federal-provincial conference of health ministers. The minister promised that the conference would be held in October. He put it off until December, then he put it off until January of 1976, and the conference has not been held yet. Why is the Minister of National Health and Welfare afraid to meet his provincial counterparts? I have no doubt why-they would accuse him of bad faith, of breaking the commitment he made in January, 1975. He does not want to go to them unless he has a bill that has been approved in principle by parliament, which would give him authority to say, "This is what we are going to do; you can either like it or lump it".
The minister is asking the House to allow him to ram this legislation through so that he can go to the provinces with a fait accompli and say, "This is what you are going to do and you will have to do it". I say that this is contrary to all the principles that the government has so eloquently espoused on co-operative federalism. This is arrant arrogance and nothing less. That arrogance was further expressed today by the President of the Privy Council in bringing in a closure motion so as to permit only another five hours of discussion on second reading of Bill C-68.
When the President of the Privy Council and his parliamentary secretary get up in this House and say, "Ah, but you will have plenty of opportunity to discuss this matter in the standing committee, on report stage and on third reading", we have no assurance, Mr. Speaker, that a closure motion will not be used again in the course of the passage of this bill through the House. The government is using its muscle to ram legislation through the House without giving the provincial governments the opportunity at a federal-provincial conference of health ministers to express their opinions or explore other means-and there are other means-by which the cost of both medicare and hospital insurance can be reduced. Rather than meet the provinces, this group of people who have grown so mighty that they do not need to sit down and talk to the provinces now want parliament to give them the authority to force the provinces to do what the federal government wants them to do.
A Greek playwright-I think it was Sophocles-said some 2,300 years ago: "Whom the Gods would destroy they first make mad". This government is mad with power. The government's arrogance has gone beyond anything I have ever seen in any government over the last three or four decades.
The provincial governments, which are unanimous in opposing this legislation, and the people of Canada once they understand the implications of it, will be roused as they have not been roused for a long time. The government may win this vote today by invoking closure, but it will not convince the people of Canada that the action which it is taking is either fair or equitable. The Canadian people know perfectly well that all the federal government is seeking to do is to transfer the financial cost of providing health service in this country over to the provincial governments so that it can evade its just responsibility.
Business of the House


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr.   J.-J. Blais@Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council: Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas) has done, I will try to speak to the motion before the House. The speech made by the hon. member is admirable, one that he should repeat during the five hours that will be allocated after this motion has been accepted by the House. I note he is not on the list of the 13 speakers who have spoken on behalf of the socialist party. Undoubtedly he will have an opportunity to deal with this particular-


Thomas Clement (Tommy) Douglas: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member better get his facts straight. If the rest of his speech is going to be as inaccurate as his opening statement, it will be a very bad speech. If he will look up the list of speakers he will find that I did speak in this debate on second reading. I was ready to speak again on the amendment motion had the government not introduced this closure motion.


Jean-Jacques Blais: I note, Mr. Speaker, from glancing at the list that the hon. member was the third speaker on behalf of the New Democratic Party. I stand corrected. It was probably one of the better speeches because, as the debate progressed, the quality of the speeches decreased. That is understandable when the indicated aim of the NDP is not to present arguments that will persuade any member to change his view, but to try to persuade the executive to withdraw a particular piece of legislation.
I will now turn my attention to the remarks of the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn). I would have expected that, as a young member who is very interested in matters of procedure in this House, he would have taken a more reasonable and tempered attitude vis-a-vis what the government is attempting to do in this instance. Contrary to what the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands failed to do, the hon. member should have recognized that what the government is doing in this instance is trying to give effect to the changes in the rules passed in 1969. They, in effect, attempted to shift the attention of the House from second reading, which is approval in principle, to the committee stage by the creation of committees with wider powers, and then to the report stage, which is the report stage from the committees, including amendments, and then to third reading.
That has basically been accepted by the House leader and the hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin). They both indicated in papers presented to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization that they felt, as did the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), that there was a great waste of time in the House and that there ought to be a better allocation and administration of time so that legislation would be dealt with expeditiously.
I draw Your Honour's attention and that of the House to statements made in committee by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp). I quote from page 30 of issue 9 of the committee proceedings:

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
Since it is the government's program, the government must take the responsibility for taking steps to put it through parliament. At the same time, the Commons must be in a position to resist arbitrary actions and to attempt to mobilize public opinion.
These two principles are well accepted. As a parliamentarian of more recent vintage than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands, I hope they will guide this House in the future when both hon. members will not be with us.
In Canada, the principal battle on a bill has usually been fought at the second reading stage. This makes little sense since the second reading stage is really merely a motion to refer a bill to a committee.
Yesterday when dealing with a point of order on Bill C-83 the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre confirmed that view. He indicated that there are two portions to the second reading stage, second reading being the first, and referral to a committee the second. He attached quite a bit of importance to the latter part, namely, referral to a committee for study.
The quotation continues:
A delay at second reading not only creates log jams down the system, but it results in undue pressure on committees, when they get difficult bills, to proceed in a more hasty and more partisan manner, thereby detracting from the serious work of hearing representations and making amendments.
Here again this is crucial to the procedures of this House. The committee is set up with a limited number of members and is ready to deal with a specific subject matter. They are usually more informed with reference to the particular subject matter. I refer here to the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs. The committee will deal with this bill and receive representations from interested parties who wish to attend before the committee to testify in the hope of persuading the members of the committee to present a report different from what has been submitted to it for consideration.
I continue to quote:
The committee stage becomes a rather repetitive and boring (and unobserved) prelude for an equally repetitive and boring report stage, when the House is often asked to spend much time re-confirming the partisan positions taken in committee. Ironically, by the time the third reading stage is reached, i.e. the stage at which the House is asked the essential question, "Shall the bill pass?", opposition to a bill has usually worn itself out and, if there is any debate at this stage, it is a dreary denouement. While the political effects of this system can be impressive, it usually does little to improve the bill and nothing to assist the over-all legislative program. The system to be sought should be aimed at preserving the political potentials but, at the same time, increasing the likelihood of improving the legislation.
That is fundamental to this debate. The facts are not in dispute. This bill has been before the House for 11 different sittings. There have been 30 hours of debate on second reading.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Kaplan) indicated that after five additional hours of debate this bill will proceed to a committee. Every member of this House is permitted to attend the committee and to present amendments. Those amendments will be deliberated and voted upon. If they are unable to get the committee to accept the amendments, prior to the matter coming before this House at report stage, they can move any amendment that is in order.
[Mr. Blais.1


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is in order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Yes, that deals with the subject matter of the bill, including a motion to repeal or do away with a clause or to reject a whole clause within a particular bill.
We had the same experience when dealing with Bill C-68. Members on the government benches introduced at the report stage major amendments that were debated at length if not ad nauseam. After this particular matter is dealt with at that stage we will then proceed to third reading. This is not closure. This is simply an allocation of time on an elementary portion of the debate, second reading.
We have heard from the opposition, time and time again, expressions and mouthings of good intention relating to changes in the rules of this House. If the attitude manifested by speakers at this time is any indication of the success we will meet in effecting these major rule changes I am indeed very disappointed. The effect of what was said by the President of the Privy Council is not disputed by anyone. I am a parliamentarian and have a good deal of respect for this place, but I am also interested in having here a quality of debate which is worthy of the institution. Filibusters are not conducive to a high quality of debate despite the preachings we get from opposition members. We hear rantings, ravings, repetition, and remarks of absolutely no worth or weight.


Robert Jardine McCleave: What about your raving?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I heard the co-chairman of the Committee on Statutory Instruments, who was a deputy speaker of this House. He is well aware of the feelings in respect of the rules of procedure. I would expect him to agree with the view I expressed.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but his time has expired.


Mr. Gordon Ritchie (Dauphin):: Mr. Speaker, I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he stated that even at the time of the introduction of closure in the Borden years during the First World War more time was allowed for debate than there will be at this time. I think this is significant.
This is a very important piece of legislation. We really are starting all over again the medical care and hospital care debate. I suggest one of the great weaknesses of the government is that it has not brought forward a throne speech to indicate how it will react in respect of the financial, economic, and social life of the country. This is the longest period in which we have been without a throne speech. We have no indication concerning the direction in which we are headed. I think it is high time there was some direction.
The internal deficit of something in the order of $6 billion is throwing some of the cost of programs on to the provinces. In addition there is an external deficit of something in the order of $6 billion. This and the rise in the
March 10, 1976

value of the dollar make the situation more difficult in respect of our exports and easier in respect of imports.
There can be only difficulty ahead. The government does not make known its intentions in respect of dealing with these serious problems. I do not think it is possible to debate this particular piece of legislation intelligently without knowing what the government has in mind and how it intends to face the over-all situation. The talk at this time about repatriation of the constitution is so much rhetoric. It is like saying we should paint the lifeboat while the main boat is sinking.
In this bill the government really has neglected the interests of the provinces. It has given no indication of an attempt to reach agreement with the provinces. The reduction in the amount of money available will mean a reduction in the services the provinces can provide. The government has not indicated that it has even attempted to reach an agreement with the provinces. The action has been unilateral. It has been indicated by other members that the government intends to go to these provincial conferences with a fait accompli, saying that the provinces will be cut back unilaterally.
This is one of the most anti-provincial pieces of legislation we have seen. The BNA act gave the provinces jurisdiction in respect of health, welfare, and education. I feel that, on the whole, this was a wise move even if 100 years later we have a different social order. What was not clear at that time was that the federal government would usurp most of the tax structure to its own advantage. In effect the provinces have been left with large social problems and debts in respect of the provision of health, welfare, and education, without the corresponding tax structure with which to take care of them.
There have been a series of agreements whereby the wealthier provinces, through the tax structure, have given to the less wealthy provinces grants from taxes collected through the federal treasury. This has reduced some of the strain on Confederation. In my opinion the usurpation of health, welfare, and partially education, has created the greatest strain we have had on Confederation. I think the federal government of ten years ago decided the provinces were not to be trusted to look after their citizens to the best of their ability, and therefore they were not to be trusted to evolve medical care plans, health care plans or hospital plans that would be suitable.
The government forced on the provinces the most expensive type of hospital and medical care plans, on a 50-50 basis, whereby a province which would not take advantage of every health service found that its citizens were contributing to the general tax structure in Ottawa but were not receiving from it. The shared-cost program lead to over-expansion and over-utilization.
The government has given no hint concerning what it thinks the health care situation should be and how the provinces can carry the burden of health care. Is it willing to give up tax points and, if so, how many? Is it willing to make uncommitted grants which the provinces may use as they see fit? I agree that the cost of health care, medical care, and particularly hospital care, is severe. It is a problem that must be faced by this country. But there is no point in merely trying to attempt to slough off the burden on to the provinces which already are over-burdened and
Business of the House
which do not have the tax structure with which to continue.
We shall have to make some decisions. The government must accept guilt for the burden of programs that are beyond the ability of the tax structure to bear. This bill should not pass until the government has given some indication of the situation this country is in and the serious financial burdens that are ahead of us.


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, I have listened to the filibuster in respect to Bill C-68 with increasing puzzlement. We have heard statements of how the government is about to do dreadful things to sick people.
What has been proposed in fact is that, instead of having the present open-ended situation in respect of health costs, some reasonable figure should be set. The escalation being discussed is 14 Vi per cent the first year, 11 per cent or 12 per cent the second year, and 10 per cent thereafter. These really are not ungenerous figures. They are figures which run ahead of inflation. They are in line with the whole thrust of medical practice at the present time which is very much in the direction of looking at preventive medicine and the low cost alternatives which often are alternatives that best suit the sick person, such as care in the home with additional nursing care, rather than the use of expensive teaching hospital resources which are sometimes inappropriate and unnecessary.
We find that the Canadian Medical Association is quite ready to join the government in looking at constructive alternatives. The president of CMA appeared before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs and indicated a willingness to try to find ways of reducing costs while not reducing the quality of care.
Opposition members have also been saying that they want to see more efficiency in government sponsored programs and a reduction in government spending. That being so, it is a puzzle to me why they are not prepared to allow this bill to go to committee where amendments can be made and where, if the bill is as imperfect as they say, it can be improved.
With regard to the motion under Standing Order 75C, we have heard very harsh words about the government imposing legislation under the provisions of that Standing Order. What has in fact happened? The request is that the bill be sent to committee for a careful clause by clause examination, which surely must be an improvement on the broad generalities which we have heard from the opposition in the debate up to now. If the bill is imperfect, then surely what the opposition should want is to send it to committee where it can be improved by amendment. There will be opportunities for amending it again at the report stage or on third reading.
We have also heard much said this afternoon about respect for parliament, but how can the public respect parliament if parliament continues to be as inefficient as this in doing its business? Some of the opposition members who have been here for 20 years may not realize how the system appears to those of us who have come here more recently and who have really been surprised at the repeti-
11686

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
tive nature of many of the speeches and at the reading-in of quotations from newspapers in speeches made at the second reading stage.
I should like to echo the words uttered by my colleague earlier on when he said that some opposition members would like to use this House as a debating society rather than as a legislative body. During some of the other filibusters to which I have listened in the 18 months that I have been here I noticed that precisely the same speech is often made at the second reading stage, at the report stage, and at the third reading stage, not to mention in committees.
In contrast to all this are the very constructive and thoughtful suggestions that have been made in the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization by opposition members, many of whom seem to have taken the position that it would be a great saving to have the major debate on bills at third reading. Many members from both sides of the House have suggested that the second reading should be preliminary, with committee and report stage investigative and orderly, and the major debate coming at the third reading stage after hon. members have had the opportunity to study the intent of the bill carefully and to give it a clause by clause examination.
Some members of the opposition have said today that the government side is confrontational in its attitude. I do not think that any party has a monopoly on confrontation, but I think it is a matter of great urgency that there be more co-operation on all sides of the House and that we stop these absurd filibusters and get on with the business of the nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Aideen Nicholson: I recognize the right of the opposition parties to make known their points of view clearly, but not to delay and indulge in repetitive and lengthy speeches which are quite devoid of constructive suggestions. Sending work to committees is one of the methods that was devised to deal with parliament's ever increasing work load. May I suggest that it would be in our interest to send this bill to committee and for those members who wish to improve it to move amendments there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: Cease your applause, you fellows, you are cutting down on my time.
I was very interested in the remarks of the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). It is nice to have the contribution of a lady's comments in the House, even though she views the situation through rose coloured glasses. When she speaks about preventive medical care as something which we see every day in medical practice, the fact is that so far as looking after all the ills of humanity is concerned preventive medical care in the context referred to by the hon. member for Trinity is years down the line. She also referred to the presence of the CMA president before the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs, but she failed to mention that it was not in the context of Bill C-68. That bill was not before the committee then, and that will be the time for the hon. member to make that statement. It certainly does not apply right now.

Let us get on with the problem of Bill C-68 and why we are talking about it today.


Aideen Nicholson: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker. Would the hon. member accept a question?


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will accept a question but only after I have finished my comments in ten minutes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: May I remind the hon. member that if he speaks for ten minutes he will need unanimous consent to reply to the question.


Robert Hylton Brisco: I will take that chance, Mr. Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Chicken.


Robert Hylton Brisco: It is patently obvious that on the subject of closure the skulk of foxes on the other side have turned into a flurry of rabbits. Last night the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde) informed the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs that on March 16 and 17 a contingent of provincial deputy ministers will arrive in Ottawa. And certainly they do not want to be greeted by the fact that Bill C-68 is still before the House at second reading in April, on the 27th and 28th, when a contingent of provincial ministers of health arrive in Ottawa. It would be the hope of the government that it could by then have forced this bill through committee and through third reading. That is why we are going through this exercise.
The government House leader today complained bitterly about the filibustering of this bill. He said it has been before the House since July 6. I remind the minister that Bill C-58 was before the House from April 5 until very recently. There was no attempt at that time to filibuster; he failed to mention that.


Mitchell William Sharp: I used 75c on that bill too.


Robert Hylton Brisco: The comparisons are just not the same. Let us consider the terms of Bill C-58 and Bill C-68. Which is of the most national importance, the health of Canadians or whether we read Time and Reader's Digest?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Hylton Brisco: What it really amounts to is a question of priorities and the old game of confrontation. The hon. member for Trinity referred to confrontation. Let me assure the hon. member that there is only one party in this House which can engage in the game of confrontation, and that is the government party. We cannot engage in it. We engage in valuable debate, and if hon. members would care to read some of the intelligent remarks made by hon. members on this side they would understand why we have addressed our concerns so sincerely and in such a dedicated fashion time and time again with reference to this bill. They just do not get the message. It is the old game of Liberal arrogance and confrontation.
We saw the same thing when the former minister of finance introduced federal mining legislation taxing all mines and raw resource industries. That was the old game
March 10, 1976

of confrontation with the provinces, and this is the same thing. It is historical. It is endemic, and a disease which I think is bred into the party sitting on the other side.
What is the stance of the provinces? It is very interesting that in not one address given by hon. members on the government side which I have read have they made reference to the fact that there is not one provincial government in this nation which has approved of this bill. Surely there must be some province, perhaps a little one like Prince Edward Island, or a big, wealthy one like Alberta, which feels that it can stand the gaff, but that is not the point. The point is, who will this type of program affect? It will affect the poor. And who are the poor? They are the sick. I have said before in this House in debate on this same bill that the sick get sicker, the poor get poorer, and the pensioner gets it in the neck because he is often the one who is both poor and sick.
What options has the government offered? I noted with interest last night in the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs that the minister made a remark with regard to guaranteed annual income, that carrot he has been dangling before the Canadian public for many years. In making reference to that I can only ask, when he feels the Canadian people and the government can afford it and when it does come in, how long will it be before there is a deduction for medical costs or a deduction because of pensions, old age, veterans or whatever?
Why can the government not introduce legislation concerning the health of Canadians which it knows will be valid, stop messing around with the health of Canadians, and stick to its guns? Why get into a program of a guaranteed annual income if the government cannot afford it? If only there were some hon. members on the other side of the House who would just take the time in caucus to ask the minister why this is going on and why the Conservatives, members of the NDP, and the Creditistes are speaking so vehemently and sincerely about this bill. Are hon. members opposite afraid of a little self-examination?
I congratulate those hon. members on the government side who have contributed in debate. It at least indicates that they have done some measure of homework, but frankly I think that the majority of hon. members opposite just do not care. They do not understand the thrust or effect of the bill. They do not recognize the fact there is not a province in Canada which approves of the bill. They do not accept the fact that there is not a medical association, be it federal or provincial, which accepts the bill. They do not understand that there is not a paramedical organization in Canada which approves or endorses this bill. They do not understand these things because they have not bothered to pay attention. Well, so be it.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said in committee and in the House-and how true it is-that you do not mess around with the health care of Canadians without the chickens coming home to roost. Hon. members opposite cannot say they have not been warned, and it will be the ultimate delight for me to see those chickens come home to roost when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) faces the people in the next federal election.
Now I am prepared to answer the question of the hon. member for Trinity.
Business of the House


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member is quite correct when he points out that this bill has not gone to committee. That is the point of today's exercise, I trust.
However, is the hon. member aware that the provisions of Bill C-68 were foreshadowed in the June, 1975, budget when guidelines were laid down, and that acceptance of those guidelines was indicated by the president of the Canadian Medical Association when he appeared before the standing committee, I believe in October, 1975?


Robert Hylton Brisco: Mr. Speaker, I think I can confirm in part what the hon. member has said, having served on the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs since I came into this House in July of 1974. I and all hon. members of this House are well aware that that allusion was made by the then minister of finance, now Mr. Turner, but the simple fact remains that if the hon. member for Trinity would care to read the documentation and the material available from the Canadian Medical Association at this time, its posture has indeed changed, and I can well understand why.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Mr. Speaker, in line with my usual philosophy, since I understand there are probably at least two other hon. members who wish to speak before the debate closes at 5:35, I will try to shorten my remarks, make my points as quickly as possible, make points which I do not think have been adequately explored here this afternoon, and leave aside the temptation to go down the trails which have been trodden so many times before, although through very exceptional speeches. I have no quarrel with any one of them, though I have some quarrels with some of the ideas which have been expressed in them.
First I should like to make the point-and it really is the role of an opposition in a very major debate and one which does not come along very often in any session of parliament-and to ask the question, how far is an opposition allowed to go to express its displeasure with a measure which is proposed by the government? Perhaps it becomes a little more complicated when one is dealing with a person such as the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Mr. Lalonde). I have decided to make my argument on a generality, however, and not allow myself to get sidetracked by the personal preferences and disposition or way of doing things that certain of the ministry have followed; so I shall take it as a general issue and not mention the Minister of National Health and Welfare in the next ten minutes.
The measure we are debating amounts to one-sided divorce, Mr. Speaker, that is, it is a decision by one of the partners to a federal-provincial partnership in the field of health care to change its role, to change the amount of money it is willing to put into the partnership. It has done this, as far as I can see, without the blessing of any one of the provincial governments, or the two territories. If someone cannot get up in this place and make an argument about that sort of arbitrary procedure, we are not worthy of being considered a parliament at all.
I think the point that has been missed by those who say that once a government proposes a measure and it has been
21419-47V2

March 10, 1976
Business of the House
debated for a few days the measure then has inevitably to come to a vote, is that we have to reach beyond the press gallery-I see two of them here this afternoon, which is double the advantage we usually enjoy at this hour-and go to the people of Canada to whip up public opinion on whether the measure is a good thing or a poor thing.
In this respect I suggest to the press, to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), and to the parliamentary secretary that the government has failed. There has been no compelling rush of public opinion on this matter saying that the measure should pass because it has been thought up by a wise and omnipotent government. As far as I can see the government does not have a friend across the land on this issue and until it can show me some-I do not speak about friends on the other side of the House because obviously it is full of friends-then I think we can argue this case until the end of this year or any year. I think it is that important. Ministers have not made a case. They have taken an arbitrary position and decided to impose it on provincial governments and territorial governments, scream as they will. I think that is wrong, Mr. Speaker.
I would immediately remove that side of the argument from any abstract of the will of the majority prevailing. If the will of the majority were to make itself known to the people of Canada, the people would say, "Let us call a general election and get rid of these people who obstruct the will of the majority."
I say this as a corollary to what I have said so far: must opposition always be considered to reflect the minority view? Is there not a point that my colleagues, myself and some people on the other side, should stand up to show that we somehow do happen to reflect the will of the majority of Canadians? I think we did it with regard to Reader's Digest in some ways. Somehow an accommodation on that particular issue was found within the government. Why can it not find it on this particular issue?
I spent most of my early life in politics fighting over the issue that I thought nobody should ever be sold down the drain because of illness within the family. I always thought that medicare and hospital plans were two of the brightest adornments of this particular parliament. If it will please anybody, one of them was the work of a Conservative prime minister and the other the work of a Liberal prime minister.


Mr. Benjamin:: After Tommy Douglas.


Robert Jardine McCleave: Yes, indeed. May I pay my respects to the hon. member for Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas)? I thank the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin) for his intervention; he is quite right. It was the work of a good number of well meaning people, some of whom did not have a role in government but at least had a role in the public conscience. I am saying the public conscience is very much at stake in the argument we are getting into now.
I promised I would try to divide my time with other people, Mr. Speaker. I should like to answer the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson) about cures being made in committee. But let us face it, that is not always practicable or possible under the scheme of things. With our very aggressive whips such as the hon. member for St. Boniface (Mr. Guay) I am sure a cure in committee would

be as likely as reduced taxes before the end of the current parliament.
I have other thoughts but the time runs short, Mr. Speaker, so I will sum up what I have attempted to say. There is a public conscience on this thing that is not reflected in the very arbitrary action that is proposed here this afternoon.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Although it is not written into our Standing Orders, I am looking at the clock and see there are 13 minutes left before the taking of the vote on this matter. I would be ready to recognize the hon. member for Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin). I saw two hon. members interested in speaking, and now I see three. I hope they might consider allowing other members a little time so that they can share whatever time is available.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. I shall try to take only half the time remaining so that hon. members to my right may have an opportunity to speak.
I want to say that even with a majority government there still is and there has been in the past the odd occasion, the rare occasion, when a government should decide not to proceed with a measure it has been attempting to get through parliament, not just because opposition parties are united in opposition to the measure but because it is so apparent that not only every province but the great majority of Canadians are opposed to the legislation.
This is one of those rare occasions of unanimity among all provinces and unanimity among all opposition parties- which by the way represent a majority of the voters in Canada. Given that unanimity, given what has been said by medical authorities, members of hospital associations and those associated with health care, surely this is one of those rare occasions when the government should not proceed with a measure which it originally thought was worth while. Surely it is now obvious to the government that this should not be proceeded with.
In a democratic system majority also means responsible government. I submit that the attempt by the government to bring in rule 75c, the attempt to proceed with this legislation, is the height of irresponsibility. The government keeps claiming it is second to none in fighting for national unity, in standing for Confederation, in consulting for co-operative federalism with the provinces, etc. But here we see a betrayal of the principles of Confederation and co-operative federalism. What do the Liberals say now about national unity and Confederation?
Surely in these times when the government says it must practise so-called restraint to fight inflation we should not attack the health services of this country. They are basic to the well-being of our citizens. They should be the last to feel the effects of restraint. We should spend more on them, not less. Not only should the government spend more on the program; it should embark with the provinces on other shared-cost programs for pharmacare, dental care, preventive medicine, home nursing care, and so on. A host of measures is yet to be enacted, measures which countries much poorer than ours have already adopted.
March 10, 1976

The government wants to chisel. It wishes to cheat the people of this country of their right to available, accessible health services. It wishes to bring down the guillotine, to limit debate on second reading of this measure. That makes the chiselling worse.
Sometimes the opposition is right, Mr. Speaker. Sometimes even my friends opposite will concede that the opposition is right. In this instance all three opposition parties are unanimous in opposing this bill. Provincial governments of all political stripes are unanimous in condemning the government. Surely that is signal enough. Surely the government House leader and government members are aware of representations of provincial governments, including Liberal provincial governments, to the effect that this bill should not be proceeded with. Surely it is patently obvious that this is a rare occasion on which a majority government should be courageous enough to withdraw a measure.
I readily admit that it takes courage to proceed with an unpopular measure. It also takes courage not to proceed with a measure, and it is patently obvious that the government should not proceed with this measure. The government's invoking of Standing Order 75c makes its refusal to withdraw all the more horrendous. At least let it have the decency to allow debate to proceed normally. But no, it will not listen. It ignores the wishes of all opposition parties and all provinces of Canada. I hope the House will defeat this attempt to impose closure.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, in the few minutes available I shall expound a little ancient history. I am disappointed because I have been unable to speak in the debate, and am disappointed because I will not be able to speak in the remaining five hours allotted, if the motion passes. Not only am I disappointed; I resent it deeply. This afternoon I shall say concisely what I hoped to say at greater length in the normal debate. I resent being gagged and not being able to make known my views.


Anthony Chisholm Abbott: Where have you been?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I have been in the House, attempting to get on the whip's list. Because of the widespread interest in the legislation many wanted to speak and I was unable to get on his list. I understand that. I say, for the benefit of the hon. member for Mississauga (Mr. Abbott), that I am still unable to get on the whip's list; it is too long.
Some feel that the federal level of the government is the senior level of government. Yes, I know some look down their noses at other levels of government. But let me tell you, Sir, that in many ways junior levels are more realistic and responsive simply because they are closer to the people.
I want to remind the House of the attitude taken more than ten years ago by two great Canadians on medicare. I am referring to Hon. Leslie Frost and Hon. John Robarts, and I wish, in the short time available, to tell the House what they thought.


Mr. Guay (St. Boniface):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I assure the hon. member-what's his riding-
Business of the House


Stanley Howard Knowles: Northumberland-Durham.


Joseph-Phillippe Guay: I assure the hon. member for Northumberland-Durham (Mr. Lawrence) that he will have an opportunity to speak on the bill. I will put him on my list. He can speak in the allotted five hours.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, because the government is to gag us I shall be unable to say in full what I wanted to say in a normal debate. As I said, between ten and 15 years ago the leaders of the political parties in Ontario foretold exactly what is happening today. I well remember John Robarts saying to the people of Ontario, "You will regret the day you let the federal camel into the provincial medicare tent."
Some 15 years ago 85 per cent of the people of Ontario were covered by a privately financed medicare system.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Which was a mess.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: At the same time everyone on welfare who could pass the means test was eligible for medicare paid for by the province.


An hon. Member:: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps, as time is limited, the hon. member should be allowed to continue.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Mr. Speaker, plans were afoot in Ontario to make certain that 100 per cent of the population was covered by an efficient medicare plan, a plan which would not involve the waste, abuse, administrative machinery and extravagance resulting from the federal government's blackmail and coercion of the provinces. The government forced on the people of this country a plan not needed, required or wanted. Nevertheless provincial governments, aided and abetted by provincial NDP and Liberal parties, had to give in to the blackmail at that time.
Now the chickens have come home to roost. The government foisted on the people of this country a blundering, bungling medicare system. The government now sees the error of its ways and is trying to pull the rug from under provincial governments. That attempt, and its attempt to impose the guillotine, are despicable.


Mr. Fred McCain (Carleton-Charlotte):: Mr. Speaker, the behaviour of the government in this matter calls in question the morality of government. The government placed before the House legislation which it knew was not acceptable. It then complained when the House debated at some length-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Fred Alward McCain: You don't like what I am saying, so you just don't want to hear any more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Privilege! A question of privilege, Mr. Speaker-

March 10, 1976
Business of the House


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member's question of privilege after the vote has been taken.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It being 5:31 p.m., the two hours provided for consideration of the motion now before the House pursuant to Standing Order 75c have now expired. Therefore, pursuant to that Standing Order I must interrupt the proceedings and put every question necessary for the disposal of that motion.

The question is on the motion in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp).
All those in favour will please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Speaker:: Before calling those opposed to the motion, may I indicate that, in my view, Mr. Demers was identified as Mr. Caron.
After the taking of the vote:


Mr. Speaker:: I therefore declare the motion carried. Motion (Mr. Sharp) agreed to.




Mr. Speaker:: Order. It is my duty to inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for Vil-leneuve (Mr. Caouette), Roberval (Mr. Gauthier), Shef-ford (Mr. Rondeau), Kamouraska (Mr. Dionne), Champlain (Mr. Matte), Lotbiniere (Mr. Fortin), Temiscamingue (Mr. Caouette), Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), Brome-Missisquoi (Mr. Grafftey) and Moncton (Mr. Jones) has been filed with me, pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act.
March 10, 1976


FILING OF OBJECTION RESPECTING PROVINCE OF BRITISH COLUMBIA
Mr. Speaker:: May I also inform the House that an objection signed by the hon. members for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt), Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), Broadview (Mr. Gilbert), Nanaimo-Cowichan-The Islands (Mr. Douglas), Regina-Lake Centre (Mr. Benjamin), Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Hogan), Winnipeg North (Mr. Orlikow), Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent) and Halton-Wentworth (Mr. Electoral Boundaries
Kempling) has been filed with me pursuant to Section 20 of the Electoral Boundaries Readjustment Act, chapter E-2, R.S.C., 1970, to the report of the Electoral Boundaries Commission for the province of British Columbia.
If the House agrees, I would suggest we follow past practice and print the texts of the objections as appendices to this day's Votes and Proceedings. Is this agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, March 11, 1976