1978-11-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that CN Express has arbitrarily proceeded with the construction of a $2 million terminal in Dartmouth, Nova Scotia, thereby effectively destroying the employment opportunities of 14 express employees presently residing in Bridgewater, Liverpool, Shelburne and Yarmouth, even though the record shows that these operations provide a profit to the CNR, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay):
That the House directs the Minister of Transport, who has already approved the shutting down of the passenger service and the car-loading centre at Bridgewater, Nova Scotia, to stop the erosion of transportation services along the south shore by retaining the express terminals at the locations mentioned.


Mr. Speaker:: The Standing Order requires unanimous consent for the introduction of such a motion. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Andrew Brewin (Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, I rise pursuant to Standing Order 43. The Canadian government has indicated its intention to proceed with the purchase of 125 to 150 fighter planes, at a cost of $2.3 billion, the bulk of which would be used for replacing Voodoo fighters in North America and the balance in conjunction with NATO ground forces in central Europe.
In view of the urgent necessity for cutting down and restraining unnecessary and wasteful government expenditures, and the wide-sweeping nature of proposed cuts in other
government services, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House requires the Minister of National Defence and the cabinet to reconsider the proposed purchase of the Fighter planes for use in North America and to postpone or cancel the orders, bearing in mind the fact that a threat against which the Fighters might be employed, namely, an attack by manned bombers from the U.S.S.R., is so remote as to be virtually non-existent in the missile age, and that the proposed expenditure is therefore a colossal waste of public funds and taxpayers' money.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the presentation of such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

t Translation]


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Mr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, I ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a question dealing with an important question of pressing necessity.
Considering that higher interest rates generally exert pressure on prices and raise the level of inflation; considering that for the sixth time since the beginning of the year the Bank of Canada has announced a one half of one per cent increase in its discount rate; considering finally that chartered banks will soon react likewise and that consumers will have to bear the burden, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Roberval (Mr. Gauthier):
That the House urge the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chrfctien) to bring his authority to bear on the Bank of Canada so that it agrees to reduce its interest rate to stimulate economic growth and control inflation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
80065 -5 214

November 6, 1978


CANADA GAME ACT
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter or urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the export of certain wild game and meat from the Northwest Territories without a permit or licence contravenes the provisions of the Canada Game Act and the Northwest Territories Act, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Brandon-Souris (Mr. Dinsdale):
That the Prime Minister determine whether or not the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development has breached the law by importing caribou meat from the territories and, if so, take the necessary steps to discipline the said minister.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion requires unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REDISTRIBUTION
Mr. Ralph Stewart (Cochrane):: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to move a motion, under Standing Order 43, for which party agreement has been obtained. In the second session of this parliament a bill was introduced by the government to rectify an anomaly created by the redistribution of northern Ontario ridings. The government bill received support on all sides of the House but time did not permit it to be finalized.
With a postponement of the anticipated general election, it might be appropriate for the House to give its consent to correcting these anomalies at this time. The effect would be to maintain the present boundaries in northern Ontario without affecting the redistribution of the other constituencies until the next redistribution takes place. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That government Bill C-60 of the second session of this parliament, 'an act to readjust the representation of Ontario in the House of Commons and to readjust the electoral districts in Ontario, be reintroduced this day at the appropriate time at introduction of bills and be proceeded with through all stages and disposed of without further debate.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion for debate at this time, pursuant to Standing Order 43, can be done only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEVASTATION IN PARTS OF NORTHERN B.C.-DESIGNATION AS DISASTER AREA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. G. H. Whittaker (Okanagan Boundary):: Mr. Speaker,
1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the unprecedented rainstorms which have dumped over 11 inches of rain in a few days and are ravishing parts of the constituency of Skeena, British Columbia, namely, the Terrace and Kitimat areas, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro):
That the federal government, in conjunction with the provincial government of British Columbia, declare this region a disaster area and take all reasonable and necessary steps to alleviate the suffering and damage being experienced by the people of the area.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion in the House at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Mr. Sinclair Stevens (York-Simcoe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. In view of yesterday's announced bank rate increase, the fourth such increase since the April 10 budget, and this afternoon's increase in the Canada Savings Bond interest rate to 9.5 per cent, would the minister indicate when we may expect his budget, bearing in mind the fact that he has put the country into utter confusion with respect to the interest rate structure and the general position of the government today in relation to the over-all unsatisfactory condition of our economy?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I hope I will be able to state to the House to morrow or the day after the date on which I will table the budget.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, I am disappointed that the minister still is not able to give a definitive date. In the meantime, would the minister indicate to us why he felt it was warranted to raise our bank rate to the historically high 10.75 per cent, such as was done yesterday, bearing in mind that if the only excuse is the present rate in the United States, that country now has unemployment down to 5.8 per cent com-
November 6, 1978

pared to our unemployment level of 8.6 per cent, and in view of such totally unacceptable high unemployment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I received a recommendation from the governor of the Bank of Canada yesterday on this matter. We have discussed it, he made his recommendation and I did not disagree with it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed again to the Minister of Finance. When the minister discussed this matter yesterday with the governor of the Bank of Canada, did the governor make it clear that the 10.75 per cent bank rate which we now have in this country means that we have the highest bank rate of any of the major industrialized western nations, certainly higher than Italy and Great Britain and higher than Germany, which is down to 3 per cent? If he made it clear, did he point out to the minister, also, that we have the highest unemployment of any of those nations?
If that was made clear, why did the minister not ask that the rate be kept to the historical ratio of one point above the American rate, instead of the current I'A points?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we discussed it on Friday, Saturday and Sunday. We looked at all the implications of that. Of course, with the balance of payments deficit in Canada, we have no choice but to make sure that the bank prime rate in Canada is higher than that in the United States. It is the lowest spread in many years. Some years ago the prime rate in Canada was four points above that in the United States; now it is only three-quarters of a point.


REASON FOR INCREASE IN CANADA SAVINGS BONDS' INTEREST
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Finance. Is the new rate of 9.5 per cent assigned to Canada Savings Bonds today an attempt to spur the lagging sales which the government has been experiencing, caused by the public's lack of confidence in the financial policies of this government?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, we had to revise the Canada Savings Bonds' interest rates to make these competitive with other instruments used on the Canadian market and that is why we decided to raise them by one quarter of one per cent this morning.


HIGH INTEREST COSTS-EFFECT ON EMPLOYMENT
William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, could the minister tell the House what remedies the government envisages to overcome the effects of high interest costs on the construction industry in Canada, which is an enormous
Oral Questions
employer? Also, what will the effects of that be on the unemployment rate in Canada?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course we are aware that the increase in interest rates is causing some problems in the economy. We had to act because we had no choice, having a balance of payments in a deficit position in Canada.
I hope this situation will not last very long. If the Canadian and American dollar stabilizes, of course, eventually-perhaps in the short run-the interest rate could go down. We do not know as yet. We hope that showing responsibility will induce more confidence. There are various fluctuations upward and downward in interest rates and some day it will go down.


Some hon. Members:: Some day.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Mr. Speaker, since the effect of the interest rate increase is reflected by a shortage in the cash position of the government, can the minister say if the government will reconsider, now, the disposition of certain Crown corporations in order to give some relief to that situation?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I think the comment of the hon. member, to the effect that it is difficult for the government to raise money, is not true at all. We have many ways to raise money.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Which force up interest rates.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: For example, our cash balances are very good and I am not worried on that score.


REQUEST HOUSE BE INFORMED OF REASONS FOR RAISING INTEREST RATES
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview):: Mr. Speaker, I also have some questions for the Minister of Finance arising out of the news on Sunday that the interest rate was increased to 10.75 per cent. In view of the fact that the result of this interest rate rise, inevitably, will be a restriction in growth, can the minister say when he decided to raise interest rates and if he had available to him any estimates of the effect that this rise would have on growth and industrial development? If he did, will he share those figures with the House?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a slight correction: I did not raise the interest rate; the governor of the Bank of Canada has that responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: That is the law of the land. I did not write this law.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Did you object?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I have discussed that with him. I said just a minute ago that this will cause some problems. We hope this will not last forever. It is a problem we have to face because of

November 6, 1978
Oral Questions
high interest rates in the United States and a balance of payments deficit in Canada. These are facts we have to live with. Since our main competitor is the Americans, it has kind of a neutral effect in terms of our trade.
Of course, the performance of the Canadian economy on the trade side at this time is very good. I hope some of these temporary problems will cure themselves. We will take that into account in writing the budget.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, since the Minister of Finance is here, presumably he is taking responsibility for the decision and not shifting it over to the Bank of Canada.
In view of the fact that it is the lower growth rate that will have an inevitable and devastating effect on unemployment, would the minister please tell us whether he is now going to come clean with the Canadian people by indicating precisely what effect this change in interest rates will have on the unemployment rate?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the best advice I have received is to the effect that it will have a marginal effect on the performance of the Canadian economy at this time. I would like to repeat to the hon. member that the law of the land calls for responsible monetary policy to be handled by the governor of the Bank of Canada. Of course, he consulted with the federal Minister of Finance and, as 1 said earlier in the question period, I did not disagree.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, in view of the fact that it is our overreliance on foreign investment that has caused the problem in respect of interest rates and it is the relationship of our economy with that of the United States, so amply demonstrated by events over the past five days, that causes the interest rate to go up almost automatically, would the minister indicate whether in the months ahead he will be presenting policy to create an industrial strategy for Canada that will reduce our dependence on foreign investment?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, of course, anyone can argue that this perhaps is a problem; but there is the reality that 70 per cent of our trade is with the United States and if Canadians were to try to isolate themselves completely from the United States economy, the situation would be much worse than it is at this tfme.
Bank of Canada. My question is therefore: in view of this decision which, according to him, is aimed at improving the situation, can the minister tell the House whether he believes he was adequately informed by his advisers that this action will stimulate construction, which is one of the major sectors of our economy?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I obviously discussed this problem at length with my advisers. I recognize that in the short term there are disadvantages to increasing the bank rate. The whole thing is due to other factors, namely the present stability of the Canadian dollar which was very much affected last week by the United States' decision to increase its interest rate; because of the numerous economic relations between Canada and the United States, this affects us directly. But this is a short-term solution, and if we take the necessary action to stabilize our economy, if world currencies stabilize, then of course the interest rates will go down.


EFFECT OF INCREASE IN BANK RATE ON GROSS NATIONAL PRODUCT
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to ask a supplementary question.
Considering the explanation just given by the minister, would he say to the House that one of the means of stabilizing our economy and facing interest rates which could be established by our neighbours would consist in increasing by all possible means the gross national product so that we could be in better competitive position vis-a-vis other countries? If so, could he confirm before the House that the temporary action that has just been taken is likely to stimulate this increase in the gross national product?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, it is obvious that if we stabilize the economy, we would be more competitive on foreign markets and we would stimulate our internal trade and, in doing so, we would increase production within the country itself. That is why I suggest we should take all necessary means to make sure that both our currency and the economic position of Canada remain stable.


INQUIRY WHETHER INCREASE IN BANK RATE WILL IMPROVE CANADA'S BORROWING POSITION   INQUIRY WHETHER INCREASE IN BANK RATE WILL BENEFIT CONSTRUCTION INDUSTRY
[Stage Direction]
TMr. Adrien Lambert (Bellechasse): Mr. Speaker, my question is direced to the Minister of Finance.
I was surprised to hear him say a moment ago, as if to wash his hands of any blame, that it was the governor of the Bank of Canada who in fact decided to increase the bank rate. That is beyond mC. Lalways thought that the Minister of Finance was accountable before the House of Commons for the acts of the
Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I have another supplementary question for the minister.
Given the fact that we are now considering Bill C-7 in clause 2 of which the minister asks parliament to grant him borrowing authority for a sum of $7 billion, could the minister tell the House whether the raise announced by the Bank of Canada is likely to cause an increase in the interest rate on the borrowing the government is planning to make by means of Bill C-7?

November 6, 1978


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, the interest rate of the Bank of Canada obviously has an effect on the interest rate prevailing in the market and this raise in the rate of the Bank of Canada is going to cause a corresponding increase in the rate charged to the government on its borrowing.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Transport. On December 9, 1977, an aircraft crashed at Churchill Falls at about 6.50 o'clock in the evening, and eight people died.
There is now a magisterial inquiry under way in Newfoundland into that crash and the evidence shows that although the aircraft was only two miles from the runway, two people did not die from the impact of the plane with the ground but from exposure to the cold, some two hours later. The helicopter pilot on the scene has testified that if that aircraft had had an ELT, they could have been located and saved that evening.
Why did the minister permit his officials to change the findings of the Aviation Safety Bureau, as approved by the independent Accident Review Board on July 20, which say:
-the removal of the aircraft's emergency locator transmitters seriously delayed the search and rescue activity and may have caused unnecessary loss of life.
Why did the minister's officials interfere in a matter where some blame was being ascribed to his department?


Hon. Otto E. Lang (Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice):: Mr. Speaker, to put it more accurately, the various texts of the report to which the hon. member refers were going through final drafting before presentation to the public of the exact situation. I made it very clear to my officials that I was not very satisfied with the procedures which were adopted in this case.
We have taken steps to ensure that the version of the report approved by the Accident Review Board will be the version which the public has to deal with, and that will certainly be the case in the future. Of course, in this particular situation the various things that are being said before the inquest also emerged in the course of the earlier inquiry and are contained in the report.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the minister's officials changed that finding to state:
-on the assumptions that there had been at least one serviceable ELT on board, that it had been activated as a result of the impact or by other means, and that there was the capability at Churchill Falls of homing to the point of origin of the ELT signal, the rescue activity may have been expedited.
Oral Questions
That is bafflegab and gobbledygook. Has the minister suspended any officials for interfering with the conclusions of this independent inquiry and the board? Do we understand from the minister, now, that in the future that board will be treated independently and that the findings approved by the Accident Review Board will not be changed by the Department of Transport?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, when listening to my last answer the hon. gentleman was still reading his earlier prepared supplementary and did not notice that I had, in fact, confirmed that there would be no changes and that that procedure had been established. I would also like to tell the hon. member that I trust that his language will not lead him into dispute with his leader, and that the use of "gobbledygook" is not necessarily grounds for firing in this government.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, the minister, by his answer, has agreed that there is a real conflict of interest in the whole area of accident investigation. Will the minister now go further and say that legislation will be brought before this House of Commons to provide for a completely independent investigation procedure into accidents involving aircraft, with the minister and the DOT having no power or authority over it whatsoever?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, once again, I do not know where the hon. member has been, but that has been clearly stated and announced government policy which 1 announced in this House some time ago.


An hon. Member:: When are we going to get it?


USE OF LITHIUM BATTERIES WITH ELT TRANSMITTERS
Mr. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a supplementary for the Minister of Transport. The two ELTs on that aircraft were removed pursuant to an order which was issued in October, 1977, as a result of the danger caused when the lithium battery used in this device corrodes.
I wonder if the minister has undertaken to investigate why that instruction was issued for the complete removal of the ELTs with these kinds of batteries, rather than giving a warning to the owners and operators of aircraft that if any lithium battery did corrode, there was a danger of explosion. Could the minister also indicate what the present policy is with respect to ELTs, as I understand that half of the aircraft flying now do not have the functional ELT on board?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as hon. members may know, our department took a lead role in identifying the ELT as being a very useful device, and required it to be present in aircraft because of its helpfulness in locating aircraft that may be lost in circumstances where it is not clearly known where they went down.

November 6, 1978
Oral Questions
When it became apparent that the ELT and its lithium battery itself was a source of danger, the people anylysing safety concluded that it was wrong to maintain in aircraft a real source of danger. Several of these ELTs had exploded, in addition to those which had been found corroded. As a result, rather than allow them to be the cause of an aircraft accident simply because they are useful in locating an aircraft which has been in an accident, the officials judged that it was better to have them removed while the search went on for a battery which was satisfactory. That search has been going on, and in many cases an appropriate battery has been found.
Where that has happened, the ELT may be returned to the aircrat. We have not yet been able to require them to be carried in all aircraft until the complete identification of adequate batteries is made and when we are sure that the battery itself will not be a source of accident. I would hope hon. members would recognize that avoiding an accident was a very important ground for not continuing the use of ELTs in aircraft.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: A further supplementary question, Mr. Speaker, 1 am simply asking the minister why they did not issue the order in October, 1977, which they issued in February, 1978, and which allowed for that provision. I would also ask the minister why they did not actively consult with the aviation industry. If they had, they would have found out that there was another way around this and perhaps we could have prevented this unfortunate accident.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that may be a matter of opinion, but I believe the right judgment was taken to see that the batteries which were a danger to aircraft in flight were removed. Since that was the battery which was in common use, in almost universal use, it was wise to get them out of aircraft as quickly as possible in order to avoid their causing an accident. I can imagine the uproar that would have occurred-including from the opposition-if there had been an accident as a result of such battery being in an aircraft, quite apart from the desirability of having a working ELT to identify where an aircraft is.
The fact of the matter is, at that time there was no satisfactory battery that was safe. Now, when such a satisfactory battery has been developed, obviously we have moved into the middle position where we encourage the use of the ELT with that safe battery; but we are not yet in a position to require it in every case.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg South Centre):: Mr. Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport. As the 1980 World Congress of Rehabilitation will be held in Winnipeg and many of the 4,000 to 6,000 delegates attending will be

handicapped persons in wheelchairs and, as the organizers of the congress have stated, Winnipeg international airport will be an embarrassment to the city unless facilities are built to handle large numbers of handicapped people, I should like to ask the minister if his department is taking steps to provide facilities by 1980, or sooner, to handle handicapped persons.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the long-range planning for Winnipeg airport is going forward in terms of changes that are required. It may well be that those extra changes will not be complete or in place by 1980.
The hon. member knows that Transport Canada and this government have been very careful to provide facilities for handicapped people in all new facilities almost everywhere. Certainly, our airport facilities are built with that in mind. In the absence of the improved new facilities which will one day be present in Winnipeg, we will, of course, be looking at the question of what we need to do to accommodate the needs of passengers who arrive in numbers before that time.


A. Daniel McKenzie: A supplementary question. Mr. Speaker, the minister was not too clear about whether they had precise plans to provide facilities by 1980. I should like to ask if they are planning to improve the facilities. Actually, there are no facilities right now to handle the handicapped and the elderly at Canadian Customs. Is that area going to be looked at, and are there decisive plans to provide facilities by 1980?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in my answer I gave the hon. member the assurance that we would be looking at exactly that kind of question.


FORESTRY
Mr. Lloyd Francis (Ottawa West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State (Environment): it concerns the Canadian Forestry Service. Can the minister confirm that the Canadian Forestry Service is currently negotiating a $750,000 agreement with the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada to undertake research in forest biomass for energy? Could not some or all of this money be diverted to the Forest Management Institute which is threatened with closure and has the expertise to undertake this type of research?


Hon. Len Marchand (Minister of State (Environment)):: Mr. Speaker, the answer to the first part of the question is that negotiations are going on with FERIC, the Forest Engineering Research Institute of Canada. I suppose some or all of the work could have been done by officials in the Forestry Management Institute, which has a very talented group of people, but the Government of Canada has a policy of contracting out where possible to the private sector. In this particular instance,
November 6, 1978

it was felt that this work could best be done through one of these contracts in the private sector.


THE CANADIAN ECONOMY
Right Hon. J. G. Diefenbaker (Prince Albert):: Mr. Speaker, listening to the Minister of Finance speak about the recent increase in interest rates resulting only in a temporary slow-up, I would remind him that we have heard the same story from successive ministers of finance for four long years.
My question is simply this: in view of the fact that apparently the government had nothing to do with the increase and it was purely a decision of the Bank of Canada, when did the Minister of Finance and other ministers of the government become aware that this last increase was going to be made? It can only have the effect of slowing development almost to a stop in production, particularly of new industries and the like. When did he find out?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Mr. Speaker, I said it is a decision of the governor of the Bank of Canada and that he discussed it with me and I did not disagree. It is the law of the land that was passed some years ago, and I think the right hon. member was associated with the device, that he has to consult with the minister of finance.
I said he has consulted with me. We discussed it on Friday, we discussed it on Saturday, and the final decision was made yesterday, Sunday. I was well aware of it. I just said that he made a recommendation to me that I accepted, so I was quite aware. I did not want to wash my hands of it; I just wanted to explain that it is the governor of the bank who makes the recommendation and I can disagree if I want. I did not disagree.


John George Diefenbaker: Mr. Speaker, the minister became aware because the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce showed an unusual capacity for prophecy and prescience when he announced the increase in advance. I thought I ought to direct the minister's attention to that. Apparently nobody knew anything about it but the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the Minister of Finance. I would also point out to the minister that following the revelation of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, it began to look as if the Prime Minister had him on waivers.


FORESTRY
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of State (Environment) and concerns his decision not to close the Petawawa forestry centre,
Oral Questions
but to reduce its staff by 20, and to transfer half the staff of the Forest Fire Research Institute and the Forest Management Institute from Ottawa to Petawawa and lay off the other 50 employees at the Ottawa centres.
Can the minister explain the scientific rationale behind this decision, after repeated government studies have shown that their location is more effective in Ottawa because of their access to advanced technology here?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, that is not the advice I am getting. If the hon. member has some papers which support him in this rationale, I would like to see them. My advisers have indicated to me that this move of the Forest Management Institute and the Forest Fire Research Institute will be a very good one. It will be good for those two institutes and good for Petawawa. It will, in fact, make Petawawa one of the most important forestry research centres in the country.


Reginald Cyril Symes: The minister's answer confirms that he has not been receiving the studies from the Canadian Forestry Institute which have shown exactly the opposite of what he claims, that indeed these cutbacks are irrational and are destroying the forestry service.
My supplementary question is this: the minister has announced that the government will save $3.3 million by turning over its only two wood products' research laboratories to private industry. Given the fact that any financial support given by private companies will be tax deductible and, therefore, the net saving to the government will only be $800,000 and not $3.3 million, does the minister still maintain that this minimal saving is more important than preserving the impartiality, independence and national focus that only government laboratories can provide?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, it just happens that I met at noon today with the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council, which is made up of representatives of the provincial governments, industry and universities. As they reminded me, privatization of these two particular labs was one of the recommendations made in 1973. Therefore, there is a large body of opinion which very much supports the privatization of these two particular forestry products laboratories. One of the things we will do is maintain the independence and objectivity of these labs. We will, in fact, strengthen these two labs by having participation of the private industry and, I hope, the provincial governments in them.


IMMIGRATION
Mr. Yuri Shymko (Parkdale):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immi-

November 6, 1978
Oral Questions
gration. On October 17, 1978, the minister announced that special measures would be taken involving the admission of Lebanese to Canada. Specifically, he said:
Those who are in Canada as visitors will be allowed to apply for landed-immigrant status from within the country. If they are unable to gain landed-immigrant status, they will be permitted to stay as visitors.
Recognizing the political if not strategic difficulty posed to residents of eastern and central European countries in approaching Canadian embassies, as well as recognizing the obstacles threatening their civil and human liberties when they request permission to emigrate, will the minister allow the Lebanese precedent of special measures to visitors to Canada from countries in eastern and central Europe?


Hon. Bud Cullen (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Mr. Speaker, on more than one occasion I have met with representatives to try to determine the best method to meet their requirements. At one point we talked about putting an office in those countries. That was discouraged. As a matter of fact, it was shot down.
Second, they talked to me about a quota system. They indicated that might not work so well either, because which quota would be used-the quota determined by the country from which they were leaving or the quota determined by Canada? On that basis, we indicated that we would bring about the sponsorship system where five individuals would have the opportunity to sponsor people who came from eastern European countries, that we would do that on a trial basis to see if it would work and accommodate the people we are hoping to accommodate in this area.


Yuri Roman Shymko: Mr. Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary since the minister did not answer my question.
I would like to know whether the minister is aware of the number of cases where people from central and eastern Europe came into Canada with a tourist visa, the only effective means available to them to go out of their country, and once in Canada made an application to our government for either political refugee or immigrant status, only to be forcibly deported from Canada to their country of origin. If indeed there are such cases, does the minister consider that a humanitarian action?


Jack Sydney George (Bud) Cullen: Mr. Speaker, I guess it depends on one's approach. There was a time when tourists were not allowed to come into Canada; they were not allowed to leave their own country. We had to decide whether to interfere in a direct way with that particular movement, as a lot of people want to come to Canada as tourists or visit families and go back to their own countries. If we set up a regime that would give easier access and destroy that particular mechanism, we might do more harm than good to those who want legitimately to come here and visit. Therefore, we have to look at these on a case by case basis.
[Mr. Shymko.J


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Mr. Bill Jarvis (Perth-Wilmot):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Justice in his capacity as Attorney General: it relates to the conviction and sentence of Keith Richards of the rock group, Rolling Stones. Without making any representation about conviction or sentence, I wish to ask the minister about remarks attributed to him indicating that any appeal from conviction or sentence on behalf of the Crown would be in the hands of the provincial authorities. If I quote him correctly, I believe he said, "I think McMurtry can look after himself", presumably referring to the attorney general of Ontario.
Will the minister take this opportunity, to correct those reports, if they were inaccurate, and to acknowledge that any appeal on behalf of the Crown lies, as it has traditionally, solely with the Attorney General and his agents?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, in any criminal case, of course, the matter lies strictly with the provincial attorney general. In this particular case, the matter was prosecuted by federal Crown prosecutors. The question of appeal will come before me in due course. I do not yet have a report on the matter.


William Herbert Jarvis: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for correcting earlier statements. I just wonder, in view of that answer, if it was a Freudian slip. The minister knows that prosecutions are carried on in large part by agents selected from a list of underprivileged lawyers supporting the Liberal party.
Provincial attorneys general have been asking for the power to prosecute for quite some time. Is there now some indication in the Department of Justice that a more favourable attitude is developing toward that request, so that provincial attorneys general may prosecute drug cases as they do all other criminal cases, as the minister quite accurately pointed out?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, the broad question of prosecution by federal or provincial attorneys or agents is a matter of discussion among us. There are times when the provinces may resist the prosecution of offences falling under federal statutes. That is a matter which causes me a good deal of concern. We will be attempting to resolve it in further discussions among us. It is not, therefore, a clearcut question of prosecution by federal or provincial prosecutors, but a resolving of the whole issue of jurisdiction.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Herb Gray (Windsor West):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Just recently, the Congress in the United States passed, and President Carter of that country signed into law, a bill which in
November 6, 1978

part calls on the American secretary of state to try and negotiate a treaty with Canada to attempt to fight transboundary air pollution. It has also been reported that the third annual report of the Michigan-Ontario Air Pollution Board indicates increases in certain kinds of transboundary air pollution in these areas.
Will the government immediately take the initiative to open negotiations for a treaty with the United States to enable both countries to fight transboundary air pollution more effectively, bearing in mind the relatively successful example of the treaty to fight Great Lakes' water pollution which has been in existence since 1971?


Hon. Donald C. Jamieson (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Yes, Mr. Speaker. We will, of course, be pursuing the initiative which President Carter referred to recently and which we have been discussing jointly through the International Joint Commission for some time.
This gives me an opportunity to announce to the House what I know will be welcome news. It is that Secretary of State Vance will be paying an official visit on the twenty-first and twenty-second of this month. This will be one of the matters we will be discussing.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Eldon M. Woolliams (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport: it has to do with his responsibility for the Wheat Board. I ask this not only because of complaints from people in the cities, but the rural areas, the fact that rapeseed is outside the jurisdiction and control of the Wheat Board which controls quotas and sales, and the fact that farmers are anxious to get some cash flow because there is no grain moving.
Would the minister approach the Wheat Board with reference to rapeseed, to see that it will move? I would remind him we are not affecting rail transportation because much of this rapeseed will be moved by trucks.


Otto Emil Lang: Well, Mr. Speaker, rapeseed moving by truck has not caused any difficulty at all for the Canadian Wheat Board, to supervise space generally the Wheat Board, indeed, does have to look at quotas including, in relation to rapeseed, the point of view of assuming that there is adequate space and equipment available for the movement df wheat and barley as well.
Over the years, the Wheat Board has been very careful to assure that the fullest possible space was given to rapeseed, and I do not think anyone can make a case that it was anything but lenient toward its movement, as distinct from the movement of wheat and barley which is the board's major responsibility.
Oral Questions


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That is very good rhetoric on the part of the minister, but if he inquires of the producers-and some of them live in the cities as well as the country-he will find out that they are not able to move the only cash crop on the prairies. I am asking the minister, now, whether he will contact the Canadian Wheat Board with reference to this matter, as there is no cash flow at all to enable those producers to meet their expenses.


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, rapeseed, as with wheat and barley, had an opening initial quota and under those quotas farmers were able to deliver their grain. The rapeseed quota is every bit as large, if not larger than, for instance, that for barley. So the hon. member, although he says he has some constituents in his city growing rapeseed, should not overlook the fact that we have to be fair to wheat producers and barley producers as well, even if they do not all live in Calgary.


FORESTRY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of the Environment. The answers he gave the previous questions concerning Petawawa and the other institutes were not very satisfactory. He did not provide the rationale, first of all, for the closure of Petawawa and then the reversal of that decision. I would hope he would take the opportunity at some convenient time to do so.
Meanwhile, he was talking about privatization, and I was wondering whether he would give some indication to both the House and the nation of what progress he is making with the privatization of such research facilities as were at Petawawa and are going to be there in a reduced size, and also at the other institutes. Perhaps he would, at the same time, mention-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure what else the hon. member was going to ask, but there has never been any talk about privatization in connection with Petawawa. We were talking about privatizing two labs, one in Vancouver and one here in Ottawa. These are forest products labs, and in answer to a question previously asked by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie I indicated I had met at noon today with the Forestry Advisory Council and they reminded me that the privatization of these two labs was one of the recommendations they had made back in 1973. So we are very much looking forward to the achievement of the privatization of these two labs.
As a matter of fact, we now have the wheels in motion as a result of the report of Dr. Solandt and we felt that with the involvement of industry and the universities and of the provincial governments we can strengthen these two labs.


Donald W. Munro: That has to do with the recommendation in 1973 and the privatization in 1978. The

November 6, 1978
Oral Questions
hon. gentleman has not given any indication whatsoever that there are private interests interested in privatizing these operations. Second, the question of monitoring. In the second place, the hon. gentleman was talking about making them more effective because they were going to be very strictly supervised: how do you supervise privatized industry, and make them more effective?


Len Marchand: Mr. Speaker, the answers to these questions will become a lot more clear as the recommendations of the committee I have set up come in to me. There are different options being considered. One is perhaps the establishment of a Crown corporation of some kind.
I would remind the hon. member that the total budget for those two labs was $7.3 million. We are cutting some $3.3 million off and privatizing that part of it. The federal government will still make a contribution of some $4 million to those labs, and as such we will have a monitoring role to make sure that as far as the objectives we have are concerned-the objectives of the forest industry and the country-they are achieved.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Transport along the lines of the question put to him earlier by the hon. member for Winnipeg South Centre. My question is based on correspondence the minister and I have had about this matter over two or three months. I put it to him as urgently as I can.
In view of the fact that the government's long-term plans to provide for the needs of handicapped people at the Winnipeg airport do not seem to be in line for implementation until after 1980, when the World Rehabilitation Congress will take place, and in view of the fact that it has been suggested to the minister that temporary elevators be put in the Winnipeg airport from the second floor down to the first floor in the space near the baggage carousels, may I ask the minister if this suggestion is receiving active consideration?


Otto Emil Lang: As 1 indicated in earlier answers, Mr. Speaker, we are most concerned to provide adequate facilities and we are looking at all possible solutions, which would include the one mentioned by the hon. member. As soon as I have any information on the question of how we will be able to solve the problem, I will let the House know.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Will the minister undertake, as a matter of priority, to have something done before the World Rehabilitation Congress meets in Winnipeg in 1980?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, that is certainly our objective.


CANADIAN NATIONAL RAILWAYS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Mr. Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Transport and Minister of Justice and Attorney General and Minister responsible for the Wheat Board, but my question is in relation to his responsibilities as Minister of Transport.
Since the CN Express terminals at Bridgewater and Shelburne, in Nova Scotia, have consistently shown a profit every month for the past eight months of 1978, which indicates the outstanding service provided by these facilities, as well as the dependence of the business community on CN Express, especially during the recent mail strike, would the minister indicate the reasons for phasing-out this profitable operation and, in light of their record, will he take whatever steps are necessary to retain these facilities along the south shore of Nova Scotia?


Otto Emil Lang: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the day to day operations of Canadian National are not interfered with by me as minister. The interest we have, of course, in maintaining good service from our railways, whether it be from CN or another, privately-owned, railway, is clear. General management, however, is in the hands of management which also has objectives in lowering costs and assuring that through the use of the newest possible techniques, productivity is increased and freight rates and other charges are held as low as possible to the Canadian public.
Those are objectives which they attempt to put together in terms of management judgments, and I think that over all we have to agree that Canadian National has been doing an extremely good job of moving more and more freight over more and more distance at a cost which is very, very good as compared to rises in costs generally. That, I think, has to be the situation. Obviously, if there is any real deterioration in service which is affecting the community, we would all be concerned and representations can be made known to the management of CN.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have two procedural matters to deal with today. The hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) has given me notice of a question of privilege, and I will hear him in one minute. In addition there is an outstanding point of order with respect to the application of Standing Order 43. I understand that there has been a consensus that that matter will be discussed as well. It has been held in abeyance pending a convenient opportunity for argument to be delivered to me on Standing Order 43.
I wonder if the parties involved in both these procedural questions would agree that we might, for the benefit of the

November 6, 1978

House, attempt to clear away routine proceedings before the calling of these matters because I would not like to create the impression of keeping the entire House waiting for them. However, it depends on the nature of them. If I have the consent of the hon. member for Greenwood, I will deal with routine proceedings and then call his question of privilege immediately as the next item following routine proceedings.


Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, that is agreeable.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Roger Young (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, I ask that all questions be allowed to stand.


Mr. Speaker:: Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


PRIVILEGE
Francis Andrew Brewin: Mr. Speaker, as Your Honour has said, I gave the Chair notice of a question of privilege which I wish to raise. It affects the Solicitor General (Mr. Blais), who is not in the House today. I happened to see him this morning, and he said he could not be in the House today. I therefore ask that the matter be stood over until tomorrow.


Mr. Speaker:: That is perfectly proper, and the hon. member can raise his question of privilege, having given the Chair notice, at a time when he and the Solicitor General are in the House, tomorrow if possible.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
MR. MacEACHEN-OPERATION OF STANDING ORDER 43
Mr. Speaker:: As I indicated, there has been agreement to proceed now with the discussion of the outstanding point of order regarding Standing Order 43.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and President of Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, you will undoubtedly recall that on October 20 I raised a point of order on a motion which was attempted to be put before the House by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees). I rose
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen on that occasion because it seemed to me that that that particular motion was an excellent example of the extent to which proceedings under Standing Order 43 had developed in the House of Commons. I use the word "developed" when I really mean the word "deteriorated." I believe it is very appropriate to draw attention to the concerns which we on this side of the House feel with respect to the operation of Standing Order 43.
The history of the Standing Order is straightforward. It was first introduced in 1867. It was revised in 1927 by the addition of the requirement of urgency for seeking unanimous consent to put motions without prior notice. It is interesting to recall that until 1969 the rule was used sparingly, but following that year, for some inexplicable reason-maybe not so inexplicable-there suddenly developed in Canada a flood of urgent and pressing matters.
In 1975 the procedure committee decide to revise Standing Order 43 by providing a 15-minute limit, and the proceeding was placed before the question period. That recommendation of the procedure committee was concurred in without debate or amendment. As Your Honour has indicated, the time limit introduced in 1975 introduced a self-policing feature. Requests for unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 cannot take more than 15 minutes, and presumably hon. members are encouraged by their colleagues to restrict their motions to genuinely urgent matters, and not to waste time with frivolous motions.
The theory that Standing Order 43 motions are restricted to genuinely urgent matters because of the limited time period has not proved valid. All the 15-minute period has policed is the period itself, and it has had little affect on what happens within that period. I believe that the content of the motions now proposed requires critical attention on the part of members of the House and, with due respect, of the Chair as well.
It is not my intention to limit the use of Standing Order 43. Fifteen minutes are set aside for private members to use this proceeding, and as far as I am concerned it can be used to the maximum. What I am concerned about is the misuse of Standing Order 43. When hon. members rise under Standing Order 43, they are asking the House to waive the normal requirement for 48 hours' notice to put motions before the House, on the ground that the matters involved are of pressing and urgent necessity.
The first requirement is that a matter must be so urgent and so pressing that the House will waive notice, and the motion can be put before the House with consent. I submit that the rule has not been used properly because hon. members have ignored the requirement of urgency. They have misused the rule by delivering speeches in the guise of lengthy preambles and lengthy motions. They have misused the rule by proposing frivolous motions. I can give examples.
Hon. members have misused the rule by making unsubstantiated allegations which cannot be replied to without debate, which is not normally possible and which, if it were possible, would waste valuable time of the House which could otherwise be used for public business.

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
The operation of the Standing Order has suffered greatly because its basic procedural purpose has been ignored regularly. Motions under this Standing Order must be of such urgency as to warrant asking the House to waive the normal notice requirement and to interrupt the normal order of business so that they can be considered. If a motion does not meet the criterion of urgency, it should be dealt with under the normal rules of the House by way of private members' motions, with 48 hours' notice. The result of the failure to observe the rule of urgency is that genuinely urgent matters which might deserve consideration are submerged or drowned in a flood of nonurgent, frivolous, and blatantly argumentative motions. This is a very troubling feature of these motions.
Let us consider, for example, the motion put by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) last Monday. He raised the question of social insurance numbers. That matter has been in the political atmosphere since 1965 at least, and it could hardly be described as an urgent and pressing matter. But within the preamble and within the motion itself there are a number of what I would regard as argumentative, unsubstantiated, and unfounded allegations.
The hon. member alleges that the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) is actively encouraging the expanded use of social insurance numbers by all levels of government, contrary to longstanding commitments by the Government of Canada. These are points of view with which we disagree. I have no objection to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar stating his views on this point-views with which I and other members of the House disagree-but when do we have an opportunity under this proceeding to say that we do not agree and that these are not the facts as we see them?
Within the motions and within the lengthy preambles all sorts of argumentation are contained, with no opportunity for hon. members on this side of the House to state the facts as they see them. I regard this as a very fundamental weakness of the present proceeding, that it is possible, under the guise of alleged urgency and pressing necessity, to put forward argument, debate and partisanship, all of which is quite acceptable provided there is an opportunity to deal with it by members of the House who disagree with the point of view that is stated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I ask hon. members to tell me where the urgent and pressing necessity is to be found in the motions put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar, by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) on October 27, and by the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mr. Baker) on the same day, concerning trends in mortgages. Are these motions of such pressing necessity that the normal 48-hour notice should be waived? Obviously that is not so.
Also, take the disguised speeches that we hear from hon. members. Many motions go beyond the clear statement of urgency and they develop into detailed speeches. I ask hon.

members to look at two of the most recent blatant examples, one put forward by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), in which he uses almost half a page of Hansard to put forward a carefully constructed speech under the guise of stating the urgency and pressing necessity. Or take, on the same day, the artistry-I can call it that-of the hon. member for Champlain (Mr. Matte) who included, in the preamble of his motion, probably as much constitutional argumentation as, or more than, the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) could put together in a 20-minute speech.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: All this is done in the name of urgency and pressing necessity. They are disguised speeches.
Then there are the frivolous motions, and they are very entertaining, mostly from the hon. member for Oshawa-Whit-by (Mr. Broadbent) who provides us with regular entertainment, his latest attempt being on October 19. I am sure he will be willing to concede that if this proceeding is a good one and if private members should have the opportunity to present motions, they should not waste that opportunity by putting forward frivolous motions.
Take the motions and the arguments which contain unfair allegations. Really I have reached, on my part, the end of my patience, and I believe I have an almost inexhaustible source of patience-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -when it comes to suffering through the antics of members of the opposition. But my patience came to an end when the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings rose under Standing Order 43, as he said, asking:
That the government cease its present efforts to downgrade the role of the monarchy in Canada and, instead, give strong support to the Queen and the royal family as they carry out their duties with such dignity and effectiveness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings asked for consent to put a motion instructing the government to cease its efforts to downgrade the monarchy. That was a patently false allegation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has demonstrated on a number of occasions. I have no objections to the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings being unfair, as he was on that occasion. What I object to is the lack of opportunity we have on this side of the House to rise and say, "That is untrue." It is very important that that be said because, if it is not said, those who are reading Hansard and those who are watching the televised proceedings of the House might conclude from the silence on this side that we were really accepting the analysis of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings.
November 6, 1978

There are numerous such examples, but I think that was the most blatant one when the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings, under the guise of a motion of urgent and pressing necessity, asked the House to give its consent to instructing the government to cease its efforts to downgrade the monarchy. Hon. members on the other side with any fairness would realize that this is really going too far.
There are numerous examples of this tactic; some are the result of the co-ordinated effort of hon. members opposite, under the co-ordinated authorship of many of these House tactics, but some of them are the handiwork of individual members. I do not want to go into all the cases-we have them all documented-but I would say that the examples I have mentioned of ignoring the requirement for urgency, of bootlegging speeches under the guise of motions under Standing Order 43, of frivolous motions, and of unfair allegations, are just too numerous to list.
I just want to say that if this type of abuse is not curtailed, either by self-restraint on the part of members or on the part of the Chair, then the government will have to start putting its objections to these motions immediately when they are raised before the House.
I believe, quite frankly, that we on this side of the House up to the present time have been negligent in not raising points of order when these motions have been put before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We have been negligent in not assisting the Chair in ensuring that the rules be observed because it was a tradition-we have seen the reaction of the Speaker, when it was apparent that the matter was not of urgent and pressing necessity-to stop the member in his tracks. I think we will have to go back to that unless members begin to co-operate and restrain their use of this Standing Order in the way it has been used. I hope that we can extend the self-policing feature of the proceedings to the content of the motions as well as to the 15-minute period, but I want to make clear to hon. members that we do not intend to accept the constant repetition of allegations that are unfair, and charges that are unfounded, under the guise of these motions, when we believe that legitimate points of order could be raised when they are put forward.
I would argue that every example I have put forward of these motions could be grounded in a legitimate point of order, and we have not taken advantage of that opportunity. I should like to refer to Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 70(2), which reads as follows:
Any member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order.
Unfortunately my conclusion is that there has been a breach of order in many of these motions, and we on this side of the House have been negligent in not bringing that forward on a more systematic basis.
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
I realize other hon. members will want to contribute, but I should like to deal with one aspect of this rule. Undoubtedly we will hear from hon. members opposite that my objective is to curtail the rights of private members.


Some hon. Members:: That is right.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We will hear elaborate and indignant statements from hon. members opposite indicating that my purpose is to restrict the opportunities of private members. Let us improve the operation of Standing Order 43 so that an increasing number of private members will be able to put forward motions under this rule.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: If hon. members opposite are honest-and I admit they are-


Mr. Alexander:: I am glad you added that.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -they will admit that the flowering of all these members at two o'clock every day, when a large number of members rise almost simultaneously to put forward motions under Standing Order 43, is not really the result of individual, spontaneous conclusions by each individual private member. It is part of a co-ordinated publicity effort.


Mr. Paproski:: Prove that!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is part of a co-ordinated publicity effort aimed at putting party positions on the record on a day to day basis. For this reason, the abuse or misuse of the rule is not as important to hon. members opposite as getting their message to the media, getting political points scored, and getting party positions on the record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: .Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: 1 do not blame hon. members opposite for doing that. I blame hon. members on this side of the House for not stopping them earlier as they built their image through a systematic series of motions under Standing Order 43.
Occasionally the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) presents a motion under Standing Order 43. He does so usually to pre-empt the hon. leader of the New Democratic Party when an issue suddenly comes to the fore. That is all right too, but I should like to refer to the record of the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby. According to him, these are matters of urgent and pressing necessity, so important that the normal rules of notice have to be waived in order to get them before the House. During the last session, which was comprised of 151 sittings, he managed to dig up no less than 60 matters of urgent and pressing necessity.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Was he right or wrong?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: He presented one urgent and pressing matter for every three sittings of the House. That is really a

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen record, and it is the result of a very prolific caucus research bureau. Undoubtedly each day there is a great bustle of activity in order to put together matters for presentation to the House which might be regarded as urgent and pressing.
Let us continue to use Standing Order 43. Let us give hon. members on both sides of the House a wider opportunity to use this device to bring important matters before the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We are all in favour of that, but the use of lengthy preambles and motions containing arguments, false allegations, and unfounded charges, is a matter which has caused considerable trouble. In the future we intend to rise, when these abuses occur, in an attempt to enforce the rules of the House.
The rules of the House of Commons with regard to urgent and pressing necessity should be followed more carefully. If that is done it will not restrict the right of private members, but it will provide a greater number of private members with opportunities to take advantage of that critical period during the first 15 minutes of each sitting of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Walter Baker (Grenville-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, 1 gathered we were to discuss the rule of the House of Commons. My feeling is that the overriding problem of the hon. government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) is not so much the manner in which the rule has been administered, but the subject matter of some rather embarrassing issues which have been raised concerning the government's policy in many matters.
It is interesting the issue which gave rise to the explosion the other day by the government House leader was the motion by the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) requesting that the government cease its present efforts to downgrade the role of the monarchy in Canada. That day I was of the impression that either the motion of the hon. minister was synthetic, on the one hand, or legitimate on the other. As my friend is never synthetic, I believe the rage of the government House leader on that occasion was genuine. What has happened is that the government has been found out concerning its feelings about the monarchy in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: In fact the government is so sensitive about the matter that it included a note of faithfulness in the Speech from the Throne, unheard of heretofore. It had to listen to the representations in caucus of a number of hon. members, including the hon. member for York East (Mr. Collenette). As well, it had to listen to the Senators who appeared before the committee dealing with Bill C-60. They decried what they regarded as the intent of the government respecting the role of the monarchy.

Today we are not facing a mere procedural matter. We are facing an attempt by the government House leader, in his usual skilful manner, to turn the point of the spear away from the tender spot in the armour of the Liberal party, that is, the monarchy. That is what worries me.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Another matter which worries me about the manner in which we are approaching this is the question of fairness. When the government House leader raised this issue in the House, he said that the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings had made a number of false statements, and that he was concerned about the fairness of debate in parliament. You will notice that he accused members of this party being the ones who have been unfair.
I was interested in the list of members to whom he referred. He referred to the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broadbent), who is not a member of our party, and we do not want him, but he did refer to members of our party and others as being unfair. He said it was the hon. member for Sas-katoon-Biggar (Mr. Hnatyshyn) who was unfair. He said it was the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings who was unfair. Who else did he say was unfair? He said it was the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) who was unfair, and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) who is unfair and is engaged in this conspiracy, to which he referred, to operate a co-ordinated political attack.
What he forgot to mention was that it was the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), and the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who the other day tried to imply that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was somehow the only political leader in Canada who is prepared to negotiate sovereignty association with a province, and that was unfair. I have no doubt in the world that that conspiracy was a co-ordinated attack. The two occasions on which the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier rose in the last few days were, I am sure, an attempt to embarrass.
The hon. government House leader has to be very careful when he talks about this matter of fairness. He asks why, in 1969, there was suddenly a flood of motions under Standing Order 43. I will tell you why there was a flood, sir; it was because the government changed the rules of this House of Commons in 1969, diminishing the right of private members, and had the temerity to push that change through by closure. That is what happened.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: What happened on that occasion was that the rights of private members were not only curtailed, they were damaged and diminished. The rights of private members on all sides of the House to ask questions were reduced. As a result, private members turned to whatever weapons they had. Certainly there are private members' motions and there are private members' bills, but there is also
November 6, 1978

the procedure for motions under Standing Order 43. That is a right of a private member.
I am not suggesting or arguing at all for one moment, sir, that every member of this Elouse has faithfully observed the rules in respect of Standing Order 43, but I am saying to my friend, the government House leader, that when he talks about this he ought to be fair. If it is improper for us to embarrass by motions under Standing Order 43, that impropriety ought to be attached to both sides, not just this side. If we cannot make political points under Standing Order 43, and if that is to be the way he wants the rule to operate, then he should stand up on his points of order, as he says he intends to do, and include reference to his own colleagues who make these points under the Standing Order.
Standing Order 43 is an order that is generally not understood in this House. It is not understood in parliament generally; it is not understood by members in the press gallery, and it is not understood by the public. At a time when parliament's rights are being diminished, and at a time when the government, never mind by its own words, but by the things it has asked this parliament to do, is slowly diminishing the right of private members to speak, I say it is very important that private members not lose this right under the Standing Order. While my dear friend says he does not want to diminish the right of the private member to speak, he shows that he does if what is said embarrasses the government or touches a sore spot. As a matter of fact, he is going to rise on a point of order, and that is what he really will be saying.
What Standing Order 43 says is this:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given-
Such a motion can be made without notice under the ordinary standing orders of the House of Commons. The important thing is that there must be, unlike Standing Order 26, a previous explanation by the mover of the motion. It can be a motion without notice, and is, therefore, unusual under our rules. The House must be asked to give its consent, and it is the duty of the Chair to ask whether that consent is given before the motion is even put at all. If the House decides that the substance of the motion is such that it ought not be put, whether the motion is embarrassing to the government or to the opposition, that is a decision of the House. It is the decision of the House whether the motion ought to be put.
There is another duty, and that is a duty of the Chair. I say, with respect, that the Chair has a role in this process. This is quite an uncomfortable responsibility, but it is a responsibility of the Chair. The Speaker's role, I respectfully suggest to you, is not to decide whether the matter addresses itself to something of urgent and pressing necessity. The Chair does not make that judgment. However, the Chair does make a judgment as to whether the member has addressed the question of urgency in the explanation he gives. If the Speaker finds that the member has not addressed the question of urgency, then I would be the first to say the motion should not be allowed. This is a responsibility of the Chair. A judgment has to be
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
made quickly. This is an onerous responsibility, but it is one that rests with the Chair.
Once the motion has passed the scrutiny of the Chair, then the question as to whether it is to go to the House is a question left to the House to decide. It is not left to the government to decide on the basis of embarrassment, or anything else. It is not a decision left to the opposition or to any other member. In my judgment, this is the way the rule should operate.
There are matters which cannot be discussed under Standing Order 43. I think they are obvious. Something that is not within the competence of the Government of Canada is probably outside the ambit of Standing Order 43. Something that is of continuing concern may be outside the ambit of Standing Order 43. I suggest this depends on the wording of the motion, and I refer again to the use in the Standing Order of the word "may".
If the motion itself involves an expenditure of money it may well be outside the realm of Standing Order 43.1 put it to you, sir, that if the form of the motion is such that it requests Her Majesty, the Queen, or her representative, for the royal recommendation in respect of the expenditure of money, that might be a different thing. If the motion engages in partisanship, is declaratory, or includes innuendo, these may well be cases where the Chair will find the member has not addressed the question of urgency in his explanation. That is the important thing.
If there is anything that would underscore what I am saying on this matter of the Chair's position in respect of Standing Order 43, it is a contrast with Standing Order 26. Standing Order 26 does in fact involve the Chair in deciding the question of urgency. The rules must be applied by the Chair. On many occasions when members have proposed motions under Standing Order 26, and have given the appropriate notice, the Chair has for various reasons ruled against them, perhaps on the ground, that there have been other occasions when such matters could be debated, or the matter involved a continuing concern and was, therefore, not urgent.
Under Standing Order 43 the rule, as I interpret it, and I say this with respect, puts an onus on the Chair to decide whether the mover of the motion has, in his explanation, addressed the question of urgency. If that has been done, then the motion must be allowed to go to the House, whether or not it is embarrassing to the government, whether or not the government has a right to reply; regardless of those things, that is the conclusion of the rule.
I do not know, Mr. Speaker, if you are prepared to allow us to argue the question left open the other day of the priority of Standing Order 43 at the beginning of the question period over Standing Order 45(2). It is extremely important that this matter be settled because you, sir, did make some observations last week with respect to the arguments put by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I believe you called them considerations which we would have to consider at some time. I hope that that is your position, sir, because I think there is a

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen great danger, not only to the members of the opposition, in taking the position which you observed may be taken, of our entire practice falling down.
I presume that Standing Order 43 was not put there merely to have yes or no said to the issue raised, and the motion left at that-it is finished and, just for the record, if the answer from the House of Commons is no, there is no consent given. It is extremely important, whether or not there is consent, that we consider the rules of the House in a way that debate by members will not be diminished, the House having expressed itself.
I have some difficulty in concurring with the view that, merely because we have interposed a fixed period of time with respect to the question period-that it run from 2.15 to three o'clock-you, sir, are thereby in the position of having to wipe out the question period on the one hand, if the House says yes, or of wiping out consideration of the motion if the House says no. With respect, sir, it just is not so.
I would like to repeat in short form the arguments put forth by the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. I re-read what you said on that day, sir, and I do not believe that you came to a conclusion with respect to the matter. I do not regard the position of the question period being fixed by time under our Standing Orders as any different than private members' hour being fixed by time. In this situation consideration of the matter before the House is interrupted-by a vote that may be fixed by consent, or by Standing Order of the House, or by agreement of the House-but it is no different than an interruption set by Standing Order for lunch adjournment on Friday, or the dinner adjournment on Monday, Tuesday and Thursday. There is merely an interruption, and the time is subdivided, as the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar said.
There is no confusion, as there seems to be in the mind of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) with respect to a so-called collision between Standing Order 45(2) and Standing Order 43 regarding the time limit for the question period. It is quite clear that Standing Order 45(2) was not changed by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization, not because they did not think of it or overlook something, but by virtue of the traditions of this House that a motion then before the House would go over to government orders. That is all it says. If the House has decided that it is going to adopt Standing Orders which say there will be a question period at a certain period of time, a private members' bill at a certain period of time, an adjournment for lunch at a certain period of time on a certain day, and if motions to concur in committee reports can go over this hurdle, then why does a motion under Standing Order 43 not have the same position? What is so magical about the question period? It, too, is set by the rules in terms of time. If all the other proceedings which happen here can take that hurdle, why is it that for some reason a motion under Standing Order 43, regarded by some as the lowest form of parliamentary debate, cannot take that hurdle as well?
If Standing Order 43 is not the same as a concurrence motion, in terms of an interruption, then I think there is a

diminishment of the rights of this House and, indeed, an encouragement by the government to deny the rights of this House to debate motions under Standing Order 43. The Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization did not forget the interruption during the debate, the merely considered Standing Order 45(2) and its traditional application in this House. This is a practice which has gone on over the years with respect to the interpretation of Standing Order 45(2), and we cannot suddenly change that interpretation for the convenience of the government.
With respect, Mr. Speaker, I do not see that Standing Order 43 running into the question period is any different than a motion to concur running into a dinner adjournment, which is the time set by the rules. As I have said, we have managed to leap that hurdle on the concurrence motion, and I cannot understand why we cannot do the same with respect to motions under Standing Order 43.
If you use my interpretation, sir, the duty of the Chair is to decide, first of all, whether or not the hon. member who has raised the motion has addressed the question of urgency. Once the Chair is satisfied that the member's motion is acceptable- a motion on a matter which may be affecting the hon. member's constituency, the country, or a whole host of areas within the national life of the country-it is up to this House then to decide whether the substance of the motion is such that we can in fact interrupt the proceedings of the House, to use the words of my friend, the government House leader.
Once the House has decided that the matter is of sufficient urgency to interrupt proceedings, then there should be no interpretation of the rule with respect to time, since there are so many other areas of the rules where there are time interruptions. Rather than using time as an impediment to debate, we ought to be using time and the consideration of rules with respect to time as a way of facilitating debate with respect to the matter. There is a host of interruptions which could occur. Black Rod could come in and interrupt, and do we then cease dealing with the matter before the House? There are the prearranged divisions, the private members' hour, the dinner hour, a whole host of areas.
If we have managed to interpret the rules of the House of Commons to get ourselves over that hurdle of interruption with respect to all the other proceedings, I do not see how Standing Order 45(2) and its so-called collision with Standing Order 43 somehow becomes a hurdle over which we cannot leap and that therefore when a matter has been found to be of urgency that this House cannot debate it-or can debate it but the price is loss of the privilege of question period and other penalties. I do not think that was ever the intention of the rules.
What disturbs me is what Your Honour said on October 26, 1978, as reported in Hansard at page 489, at the bottom of the second column, as follows:
November 6, 1978

It seems to me that we had two choices at 2.15. One of them was, by virtue of having put a motion pursuant to Standing Order 43, to set aside the question period at 2.15 because the debate was under way.
I respectfully say that was an observation, not a ruling, and I respectfully suggest that observation was not correct. I say that with great respect, because that is not the choice.
Your Honour continued:
Obviously the danger with that is that if we set aside the Question Period and the debate carries on-for example, until three o'clock or later-we would need the consent of the House to restore the question period.
I do not think you need the consent of the House. What you have now are rules and Standing Orders which would restore the question period. And then Your Honour said:
So, the risk is that if we continue with the debate at 2.15 we wipe out the question period-
I suggest not, Mr. Speaker, I do not think parliament is faced with that Hobson's choice. I say it would be appropriate, with respect, that in any interpretation of the Standing Order the 2.15 question period set by time, the private members' hour set by time, the dinner adjournment set by time, or the luncheon adjournment set by time, is no different than the question period set by time.
Since you left the question open, I feel it is important because it relates to the ability of this House to debate this motion. The question is what we do about it. There was some suggestion that we might go to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to discuss this, but I do not think that is necessary. All of us have duties in this House: the Chair has onerous duties and difficult responsibilities, my friends on the other side have duties and we have them as well. Ail of us have the duty to attempt to frame our motions as best we can, whether from this or the other side of the House of Commons; that they are reasonable having regard to the urgent aspect of them, the representations that are made, the lack of innuendo and a host of other things-these are duties on all of us and we have the standing orders to guide us in the operation of the House of Commons.
If we are to achieve the sense of fairness and the sense of justice that the minister has indicated he wants, I think that capability is within the standing orders and their enforcement. If the matter is urgent and the House itself has ruled the matter urgent, then it should be debated if the House chooses to debate it. That is where the fairness is. The unfairness my hon. friend complains of is in the fact that he did not have an opportunity to answer. The reason he did not have an opportunity to answer is that when the question was put to him in a particular case, he said no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I never said no.


Mr. Speaker:: With respect, on that particular point the hon. member is indicating that the yes or no must be made before the hon. member has an opportunity to answer. That is the fundamental difference.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I am saying that once you have decided the mover of the question has
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
addressed the question of urgency and that therefore the matter should be put to the House for consent, at that point there lies in the hands of every member of the House of Commons the responsibility and/or liability to say no to that. If the word is no, the issue ends there, but if the answer is yes on any matter, then the debate begins. It is in that debate that the issue can be discussed. Of course, if the Standing Order 43 motion is embarrassing, is an improper representation, if it contains innuendo, if it is a speech-all of those things are out of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: They are out of order from both sides, so my friends opposite should not cheer too loudly. They are out of order, and there is a responsibility on the Chair to make the judgment on whether the question of urgency was addressed in the first place. I think there is that power in the rules.
I started off by saying there was a sense of responsibility on the Chair with respect to that first decision. It is the responsibility of the Chair. I hope, sir. that you will consider that. I submit that with the respect I have tried to impart in bringing that point of view to your attention. I hope you will also consider very carefully the observations you made in answer to the hon. member for Saskatoon-Biggar. My respectful submission is that if we have to make the Hobson's choice I spoke of, then the House of Commons itself, not just the government and not just the Leader of the Opposition, could be in great danger of either falling back on its motions under Standing Order 43, which is diminishing its rights, on the one hand, or losing the question period on the other. I suggest we should no more lose the question period than there should be more importance given to one break over another or any subdivision in the parliamentary day. Those are the submissions I have to make with respect to this very important matter.
Finally, sir, I want to say that we look to you as the protector of the rights of private members in this House. Through a variety of circumstances over the years, which the Chair has not been part of, the rights of private members have gradually been diminished. I hope, sir, that you will consider the question with respect to Standing Order 43 motions, the propriety of them coming forward, and the question as to the time limits and how they apply to impede the business of the House as consented to by the House. I hope you will consider very carefully the judgments you will make which may and could remove one of the rights of private members, that is, to have a motion accepted and debated in the ordinary course, and also the right to question the government during question period.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I suppose we need to have this debate every once in a while, but I am not sure it is getting us anywhere today. If the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) feels the debate is taking too much time, he has only himself to blame. If he had not raised the point of order and asked for a day's debate, we would be on government business now. I was a little sorry he

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
took after the hon. member for Oshawa-Whitby (Mr. Broad-bent) for bringing in frivolous motions, not just because my leader is not here today. He will be back shortly and can speak for himself. I think some of the frivolous motions brought under Standing Order 43 have made the point a lot better than some of the serious ones. If the government House leader is suggesting that we have to curtail our sense of humour around here, then I should like to have a little talk with him. I think a little more sense of humour might do us a great deal of good.
As for this debate today, there are one or two things I want to say first to clear the air. The government House leader several times talked about the 15-minute period. He did not say it just once. Five or six times he talked about that crucial, precious 15-minute period from two o'clock to 2.15. I remind him it is a seven-minute period, eight minutes at best.
The rule book states that motions can be made under Standing Order 43 starting not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers. It takes a while for the bell to ring in order to get a quorum. On many days the Speaker has to sit and wait until some ministers arrive so that he can say prayers. After all, who needs the prayers more than the ministers?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The bell then rings again for more members to come in. We sit around. Finally, at 2.07 or 2.08 we get to motions under Standing Order 43.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I accept your point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says he accepts the point. Why then did he go out of his way to make out that somehow or other we had this 15-minute period, when he knows it is only seven or eight minutes?
Something else I want to say about the whole business of Standing Order 43 is that no parliamentary body can operate without a rule like Standing Order 43. I notice the government House leader has not proposed that it be abolished. As he said in his statement, it has been there under another number since the rules first started in 1867. That probably means they had it in the Assembly of the Province of Canada from 1841 to 1867, and probably had it in Lower Canada before that.


An hon. Member:: Were you there then?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I will have to check. All that Standing Order 43 says is that with all of the strict and tight rules we have as to how things can get before this House, anybody with half an ounce of common sense knows there are times when something urgent will come up. If the House was tied by its strict rules and could not deal with anything new, we would be in a bad way. Therefore, we have the rule set out in Standing Order 43 which, as the minister says, has been there since the year 1.
I recognize right away that when it was put there it was for that purpose to which I have just alluded, namely, so that the

House is not tied by its own rules and prevented from dealing with something that is urgent. It was not put there as a device to give private members an extra opportunity to do something on the floor of the House. Incidentally, that has actually developed over the years. The minister said something to that effect, and the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) spelled it out at some length.
My friends across the way were teasing me a moment ago as to how long I have been here. I can say that in the first ten or 15 years I was here there was almost never a motion under Standing Order 43. If the government had something urgent, it just said so and got it by unanimous consent. It was not until a number of years in my experience here that members started putting motions under Standing Order 43. Why did they do it?
Limitations began to be imposed on the question period. Other things were cut out such as grievance procedures. Members reached the point where they were chafing at the bit to make their points. They could not get into the question period. They could not get their bills or resolutions discussed. Therefore we have Standing Order 43, and members use it precisely for that purpose. Frankly, I do not see anything wrong with that.
I do not see why the President of Privy Council thinks he is saying something high and mighty when he says these are part of a co-ordinated publicity effort. Members are using motions under Standing Order 43 to make their points. I do not know what the other parties do, but I know that my colleagues draft their own Standing Order 43 motions, and so do I. I was a little bit offended that when the minister quoted some examples today he did not quote any of mine. Are mine so perfect that he cannot find anything wrong with them?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: They are pretty good.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Maybe he should have quoted them and given them as examples. That would have been better than this tirade against the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) and the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). At any rate, what are we doing here as members? We are here to express our points of view, to make our views known, to say the things we think ought to be said on behalf of the Canadian people.
If there are not opportunities to say those things in speeches because the debates are limited to certain subjects, and there are not opportunities to say them on supply motions because that is something else that was cut out, members grab these opportunities. It takes much less time than some of the other things we used to do. I think it is an improvement.
I remember the old days when we did not have the practice of using motions under Standing Order 43 and we did not have late shows. Members would make a note matters they wanted to raise. They would wait for the appropriate estimate in committee of supply, or wait for a grievance procedure at the end of the debate on a motion that Mr. Speaker leave the Chair for the House to go into committee of supply. We lost those procedures. They were taken away.
November 6, 1978

In addition to the question period, private members' bills, and private members' resolutions, there are two ways for members to make points and make them quickly. One is by the use of Standing Order 43. The other is by transferring their questions to the late show.
I do not see what all the fuss is about. These things are good. I admit they get abused. Sometimes speeches are made in the late show period that are speeches rather than questions. At least the time limit there of seven minutes polices the proposition.
My experience is that the Chair seems to like the fact there can be a late show. He knows that if he sits a member down as far as his questions are concerned, that member can apply to have them put on the late show. Good use is made of that.
At times there are abuses of Standing Order 43. When my colleagues bring their Standing Order 43 motions to me to look at them, the usual practice is for me to strike out a paragraph because they are too long. My main reason for doing that is so that somebody else will have an opportunity to get one presented.
There are abuses, but let us not have that interpreted as though it is something contrary to the whole spirit of parliament or that it is something wrong because we have Standing Order 43. That order was not built that way in 1867, but it has developed that way. It is an opportunity for members to make points. They hope to get some publicity, to be noticed by the press, the media, or by people watching television.
We are here to make our points of view known. This is not a one party situation where the party that won the election runs the show for the next four, five, or six years, or however long this government plans to stay. This is a place where the importance of the opposition and the importance of private members are very great. We express that importance not just by sitting here and voting on matters that come before us, but by getting our ideas across.
I am glad we have the question period. I am sorry more members cannot get in. I admit if we lengthened it to an hour or an hour and a half, it would become dull. I am glad we have the late show for members to make their points, and I am glad we have Standing Order 43.
If anything comes of this discussion, I hope it will be that members shorten the preambles to their motions under the Standing Order 43. I suppose the reason the minister did not quote some of my motions is because I make them without a preamble. I believe you can say what you want in the motion.
1 admit sometimes there is a bit of abuse. However, I do not know why the minister adopted the cry-baby attitude that they cannot answer. They can say no.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: There are ten paragraphs of false allegations on the record. "No" does not answer that. That is the point.


Stanley Howard Knowles: If there is a long paragraph containing certain things with which the minister
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
agrees and one thing with which he does not agree, he can say no to the whole works.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is not debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The minister says that is not debate. If the minister wants debate, he can say yes and we will have a debate on the matter.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: One of your men may say no, as one of the opposition members said today. I have been living in the House. I know what is going on here.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is all right, Mr. Speaker, I still have the floor. This debate may amount to something yet. But it strikes me the whole business of raising these motions under Standing Order 43 is not bad, not against the tone and purpose of parliament, and I was glad at least that the government House leader did not propose that the order be abolished. As a matter of fact, he did not propose any amendment. He suggested more self-policing of it. Mind you, I think he went a little far when he said he was going to get up on points of order. Mr. Speaker might have something to say about that. After all, Your Honour simply listens to the motion before putting the question whether or not there is unanimous consent. Once in a while, as the minister did the other day, an hon. member raises a point of order and so we have a discussion such as we are having today.
If there is any value to this discussion it is that members generally will look more carefully at the motions they seek to present. But I urge strongly that no attempt be made to cut out altogether the presentations of these motions. We did the right thing when we changed the rules, when we set aside a special time for the presentation of motions under S.O. 43. The person who benefits most from that decision is Mr. Speaker, because when motions under Standing Order 43 were made after the question period under motions, they could go on all afternoon-Mr. Speaker found it difficult to cut them off, yet he had to cut them off somewhere. Now that they are dealt with in a prescribed period from about 2.07 to 2.15 p.m., Mr. Speaker knows that even though some of them are abusive of the order and not quite in line, come 2.15 p.m. it will all be over. So I have to question where this discussion is taking us. I wondered if it was taking us anywhere, but maybe it will help us do our own policing of the motions we make under the standing order.
Now I turn to the subject upon which the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton spent a fair amount of time. I agree with him that, this is an important issue but I do not think the simplistic solution he put forward will solve it. He argued for quite a while about the fact that we have things that run into the dinner hour and we hurdle the dinner hour. We may hurdle it as far as debate is concerned but, we do not cancel the dinner hour. When we reach the point at which the book says that at six o'clock we take dinner, we do not cancel it because there is something interesting or vital under discussion. We adjourn. Similarly, when we reach five o'clock and

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
the rules say we should go on to private members' business, we do it no matter what is before us. How he can turn around from that position and say that when we reach the point in the book where it says that at 2.15 we go to question period we do not need to follow the book, well, that is a kind of lawyers' logic that I do not quite understand!


An hon. Member:: You don't like lawyers!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Forgive us if in our
party, we are impressed by the fact that we have doubled the number of lawyers we have in our caucus.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We have to defend ourselves against them!


Francis Andrew Brewin: Your arithmetic is wrong.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My legal friend from Greenwood says my arithmetic is wrong. We had two until a couple of weeks ago-the hon. member for Greenwood (Mr. Brewin) and the hon. member for New Westminster (Mr. Leggatt). Now we have added the hon. member for Humber-St. George's-St. Barbe (Mr. Faour), and the hon. member for Broadview (Mr. Rae). That makes four instead of just two.


Mrs. Holt:: That is 25 per cent lawyers. Too many! You are in trouble!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Another voice being heard from! My lawyer friends got me off the track for a moment. But let me get back to it.
I think the statement made by the hon. member for Gren-ville-Carleton, which got him off the track, was his attempt to say that the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in 1968 did not overlook the matter. He was not on that committee. I was. I am one of those who must make the confession. As a member of the committee I say we did not solve the problem. We made provision for motions under Standing Order 43 but we did not consider what the effect of what 45(2) would be. So we got ourselves into a tight situation. Now I thoroughly agree with the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton and my friend from Timiskaming may have something to say on this and he will press the point very strongly. But once the House has decided, by consent, that a matter is to be debated, then the House ought to debate it. But just saying that the House ought to debate it does not solve the problem of what we do at 2.15. I think that's the one thing about Standing Order 43 on which the procedure committee should meet and do something. It should not change the rule. Let's not try to build the policing into the rule. But I do think we have to make a provision as to when a debate should take place if there has been consent and the motion is put.
There was an example just the other day. My hon. friend from Sault Ste. Marie presented a motion on Arts Day and got

consent for the motion to be put. The Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) got up and spoke until 2.15 p.m., and that ended debate for that day. It has now been transferred to government orders. It sits on the order paper, I think as No. 1 under government orders. Now how long is it going to sit there? It sits there until the government calls it. It might have been better to have called that today instead of this debate. It will sit there for the rest of this session.
I think we should solve this. We solved the problem of what to do about debate on motions to adopt a committee's report. That grew out of the flag debate back in 1964. But if a debate is allowed today, it goes under government orders and the government has the right to call it or not. But these private members' motions under Standing Order 43 which have been interrupted at 2.15 p.m. because the book says we have to go to question period, ought they to be at the mercy of the government House leader as to when they are called?
As I have said already-and perhaps I should wind this up now-I do not want to see the procedure committee trying to recast rule 43. I do not want us to try to write the policing mechanism into the rule. But I do think we should have a rule somewhere that specifies when the debate is to take place on a motion under Standing Order 43, once it has been allowed. [Translation]


Mr. Gerard Laprise (Abitibi):: Mr. Speaker, when listening to the minister presenting his argument at the outset of this debate I told myself that a government that fears criticism is a guilty government. The government House leader nearly lost his temper with the opposition for criticizing the government's administration through motions introduced under Standing Order 43 and using such motions to criticize the government. He is complaining about the government not having an opportunity then to answer those criticisms. Mr. Speaker, I think that if the government House leader wants to abolish Standing Order 43 because of the embarrassments it might cause the government, then maybe he should also consider abolishing the question period because it too tends to blame the government's administration and call for amendments to legislation and corrections in the government's administration.
Mr. Speaker, in his argumentation the government House leader blamed certain members of the opposition, particularly the leader of the New Democratic Party, for using Standing Order 43 to criticize the government's administrative failure. I think that at one time or another all opposition parties in this House have used that standing order to criticize the government. If we use Standing Order 43 to deal with matters of urgent necessity, it is because there is an urgency in a lot of areas of the government's administration because day in and day out we are able to see the government's administrative failure. We were able to see it right from the opening of this session because we had to deal with emergency legislation to provide for the resumption of postal services, emergency legislation to provide for the continuation of shipping, emergency legislation to provide the government with borrowing authority-three major pieces of emergency legislation we had to deal
November 6, 1978

with at the start of the session. This illustrates quite well the situation the government's administration is in, and I think the opposition has the right to use all means available to show first to the government that it knows all the bad aspects of its administration and also use that standing order to make public opinion aware of the ill effects of that administration.
I listened attentively to the solution that the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) proposed. I agree with him only in part because if we accepted what he proposed several times in his speech I think that could lead to situations contrary to what Standing Order 43 is meant to be used for. As far as I am concerned, if when a motion is introduced under Standing Order 43 and that motion is accepted-that happens from time to time when you put it to a vote-I believe the mover himself does not always want to have his motion accepted, but rather discussed.
For instance, there have been motions to congratulate the Montreal Canadiens on winning the Stanley Cup. When such motions are introduced-and I have seen this-they are accepted without debate. The motion is accepted, but without debate. On the other hand, when there is a wish to debate a motion which has been accepted, as on October 26 last, I believe you could choose to postpone the debate either until after question period or until some more appropriate time on the same day. I believe this would be satisfactory for all the parties and would not deprive the opposition of its right to make the criticisms that it considers appropriate about the administration of this government.
Mr. Speaker, I can recall that until a few years ago certain ministers would occasionally come to us in the opposition, mostly, I think, in the Social Credit Party of Canada-in any case this happened a few times-and suggest that we ask such and such a question. This no longer occurs, probably because of the televising of the debates of the House. Such messages are probably made on the side of the government. I believe that hon. members on the side of the government have the same privilege as we do in the opposition. They can also move motions under Standing Order 43, and occasionally they do so. However, Mr. Speaker, I think it would be somewhat embarrassing for a government member to introduce motions concerning urgent matters because the government or some department omitted to apply the law as they should have done.
Mr. Speaker, 1 believe we should not forgo this practice of using the provisions of Standing Order 43 to attempt to debate urgent matters. Another one of our rules, Standing Order 26, also contains provisions to this effect, but I believe that since the implementation of Standing Order 43, which enables members to introduce a motion at the beginning of each sitting, we make much less use of Standing Order 26 than before. Mr. Speaker, I believe that on one side or the other, we are not losing anything and we may be gaining something. I think we should continue to use the provisions of Standing Order 43 and I believe that Your Honour should decide, as the
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen hon. member for Grenville-Carleton requested, whether a matter is urgent or not, and whether it should be debated. I believe that this could encourage all the members who want to make use of Standing Order 43 to better prepare and better use the motions that they want to move.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, I have some sympathy for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) when he talks about his years in this House. I am nowhere near being in his class, but I am in my twelfth year as a backbencher, and this rule has concerned me.
In introducing the debate this afternoon the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) said that there has been a concerted effort to get publicity. 1 will go a little further and say that the real reason we are having this debate this afternoon is that television cameras are in the House of Commons.
This rule has been abused. It was interesting to me that my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), did not attempt to deal at length with that point. He admitted that the rule had been abused, but he seemed to glory in the fact that hon. members opposite have managed to put accusations regarding the monarchy on the record. He said that these were sensitive government matters and that he was proud that under Standing Order 43 it was possible to embarrass the government in this way.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton was not very happy when my colleague, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), pointed out that the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) did not exactly have a mandate to negotiate the separation of Canada, even if a plebiscite showed that 60 per cent were in favour. The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton felt that that was an abuse, and possibly it was, but surely the point of this point of order today is to call attention to some bad practices which have crept into our procedures. They will have to be corrected.
The abuses take four basic forms. It has ably been pointed out that preambles to motions under Standing Order 43 are long, and that the matters raised are not necessarily urgent. They are often frivolous. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre says that frivolous resolutions are often better than serious ones. If that is the case, that is a poor reflection on this parliament. I do not think the hon. member presents frivolous resolutions any more than I do, but surely the frivolous resolutions which have been presented have not been the high point of humour in this House.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, would the hon. member permit a question?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Certainly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Does the hon. member recall the time I had the privilege to move a motion, after Mr. Benson said that people could live on $30 a week, suggesting that he do so for six months and report back to the

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen House on the success thereof? Did not the humour make the point?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the kind of thing with which we have to deal now.
Allegations put on the record without the opportunity for anyone on the government side to reply, represent the fourth line of abuse. We have seen a number of examples of this. I have one in front of me now. On December 8 the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton moved a resolution which would have been acceptable-


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: What year?


Cyril Lloyd Francis: December 8, 1977. The resolution is recorded at page 1671 of Hansard. The wording of the resolution was as follows:
That this House strongly condemns the government of the Soviet Union for violating the provisions of the Helsinki Accord in its imprisonment of Anatoly Shcharansky.
So far so good. Had the motion stopped there, I am sure, that there would have been unanimous support, but then the hon. member added the following:
This House further condemns the Prime Minister and his government for failing to show more concern for the rights of individuals in countries like the Soviet Union.
The hon. member knew that there would not have been the remotest possibility that hon. members on this side would accept that totally false allegation. If the hon. member had really wanted to have unanimous support for his resolution, he would not have incorporated that wording in the resolution. If his objective was to get an expression of sympathy for Shcharansky, he would have gone about it in a different way. I submit his objective was the TV camera, and I think he did it very effectively for his purpose on that day. But it causes a problem, Mr. Speaker. The problem relates to the response on the government side. The government side has the option of saying no.
I listened with great attention to my friend, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton, and I kept asking myself: is he asking for a change in the rule, for the abolition of the requirement for unanimous consent? I really do not know. Having listened to his speech, I think he seemed to be arguing that Mr. Speaker should determine whether the motion was urgent. If the motion were deemed, in your opinion, sir, to be urgent, he seemed to say that it should be allowed to be put. But he carefully skirted the question of unanimous consent.
On another occasion his leader in the House argued that the procedure used by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) in rejecting motions on behalf of the government by refusing unanimous consent, was an irregularity, was something totally wrong. He implied that the hon. member for Drummond did this automatically. Well, there are motions that have been accepted by the House, and that is the proof that it is not done automatically. There are a number of them
and I have the list hqre, which 1 will not read. My friend, the hon. member for Windsor-Walkerville (Mr. MacGuigan), had one not long ago which was unanimously accepted.
Surely the point which the hon. member has to face is whether or not he is asking for a change in the rule with regard to unanimous consent.
Then I think we must look at the consequences. If members on the other side or on this side have the right to put a motion which is deemed to be urgent and which meets the criteria set out in Standing Order 43 so as to have it debated, then what follows? I think that when totally false allegations are placed on the record, it is a temptation for members on this side to say yes and then rise to put the record straight. That will mean there will not be another motion under Standing Order 43 put that day. Maybe we should adopt that as a tactic; it might change the procedures with regard to members on the other side if the first such motion with a totally false allegation were accepted, if we debated it and attempted to answer the allegation, because then there would be no more motions under Standing Order 43 until 2.15. Then we would have the whole problem of the interpretation of the rule.
I submit that the rule is abundantly clear. You, sir, have interpreted it correctly and fairly, in my opinion. Standing Order 45(2) says that such a motion should be placed under government orders. That is what happened the last time the motion was put and the Secretary of State (Mr. Roberts) spoke until 2.15.
If hon. members on the other side want to change those rules, they should put a motion for a referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. If they want to change Standing Order 45(2) to say that the debate be not interrupted at 2.15 but that it be continued at some other time, then we must face the problem which my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre pointed out, that is, when should the debate be resumed? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was much more explicit on March 8 of this year in the House, and he put it so nicely that I could not possibly choose better words. He said:
The difficulty, as I see it, is this: the government, as has been said today-and I agree-must have arrangements by which it can put its business before the House. There has to be a schedule which cannot be upset or interrupted in an unplanned way. I support that position. But it is also true that private members of the House ought to have an opportunity to present their ideas.
He went on to say:
It seems to me if we are to solve the difficulty of getting the proper balance between the government's rights and the rights of opposition members we shall have to find a means to get the government business through a little faster.
I could not agree more with the very concise, clear, and logical statement of the dilemma. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said we must find the time for the debate. When? What time is available? Let us just look at the opportunities that private members have. They were well recited by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, but he missed one or two. He referred to private members' motions, private members' bills, question period, and the adjournment debate. There is also the opportunity under

November 6, 1978

Standing Order 26 which calls for notice; there are supply days and allotted days.
All I can say is that in the time that I have been in this place-I was first elected in 1963-in my opinion there has been a substantial expansion of the opportunities for private members of the House, not diminution. Our practices have changed in some ways, but under Standing Order 43 we have today a very good, frequent and, I submit, for the purposes of the members concerned, effective use of Standing Order 43. However, there is an abuse of the Standing Order which has crept in whereby false allegations are being put on the record, with no opportunity for refuting them. That is a matter which gives the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) concern and which, I submit, gives all of us concern.
The suggestion that this matter should be decided by yourself, sir, that we must develop some mechanism by which we could assist you in the proper interpretation of the rules and procedures of this place, is not really one which adds a great deal at this time. We have to recognize what is taking place. I for one have no objection whatsoever to a referral to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization where we can thrash out the question of the application of Standing Order 45(2), which seems to me to be so clear that there can be no dispute about it, but since some hon. members have raised the question, so the order could be reinforced. I believe your observations, Mr. Speaker, are very appropriate with regard to this.
When we come to the question of the development of unsubstantiated allegations and debating points in prime televison time, made for the purpose of scoring in a situation in which there can be no reply, I submit there has to be a mechanism by which an effective reply to a totally false accusation can be brought forward quickly and appropriately. It is not the same thing to throw it on the late show and have a reply at 10.30 in the evening. I submit we must recognize that where there is this kind of false allegation, someone on the government side must have the right to answer it then and there. That means that a point of order, or something like it, would have to be recognized during the period of motions under Standing Order 43. Hon. members on the other side would not like that.


Mr. Peters:: Sure we would. What is good for the goose is good for the gander.


Cyril Lloyd Francis: The fact remains that false allegations are put on the record in a way in which they cannot be answered. The fact remains that parliament, in consenting to, shall we say, glorifying it as a kind of abuse, is reflecting on itself.
I believe that the rules of the House in respect of Standing Order 45(2) are clear. I believe that the opportunities for private members to participate and make their points have been developed in many areas which are being increasingly recognized. I submit, sir, that there is an abuse under Standing Order 43 with regard to unsubstantiated allegations which, in my opinion, should be examined by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I was interested to hear the remarks of the last speaker and his argument, along the lines mentioned by the government House leader (Mr. MacEachen) that some of the points which are being raised in motions under Standing Order 43 demand a reply. He suggested that we should agree to the proposal of the House leader that he should be able to rise on a point of order, but that this would make opposition members angry. I am sure we would then return to a situation, which lasted for years where a member was able to rise as soon as a point which he had in question was raised. He could rise on a point of privilege, and away it went at any time, at every time, and sometimes almost all the time. If the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) thinks that the government is organized enough to handle that, perhaps he should give it more thought.
Can the dexterous government House leader rise on the spur of the moment, indicate disagreement, and receive a unanimous affirmative vote from his backbenchers so that the matter can be debated for the following 15 or 20 minutes? That is asking more than the government is capable of providing.
Motions under Standing Order 43 were introduced to safeguard the House and prevent explosions when emotions were high. This procedure has many safeguards, time limit being one. When I first came to this chamber, oral questions consisted of one, two or three questions. On other days no government business was done because oral questions continued until the House adjourned.
There was no time limit until 1964 or 1965. If the opposition did not like what the government was doing, it rose on a question of privilege and debated the subject. If Mr. Speaker ruled on whether it was a proper question of privilege, then the Chair was challenged, and there was a four or five-hour debate on whether Mr. Speaker was correct in arriving at his decision. The government House leader remembers those days when there was considerable opportunity for sometimes frivolous, violent, and less than truthful use of privileges. A solution to this problem was reached when opposition members were provided with 15 minutes to present motions under Standing Order 43.
I do not know how other parties make use of this procedure. Perhaps their bright boys from research and other departments engineer their motions under Standing Order 43. In the New Democratic Party it is one of the few things which have been left to the discretion of individual backbenchers. If I am entirely out of touch with my party and do not agree, I can rise and raise a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43. Perhaps it is a matter which is of concern to my constituents, or even of national importance.
This Standing Order has been used by independent members as well. One must remember that they are growing more rapidly than any other party in the House. Not long ago there were no independent members. Now there are four or five such
830

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen members. Soon they will be classed as a party in this House, particularly if it continues to grow.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder who the leader will be.


William Arnold Peters: They can fight about that themselves. Perhaps they will take turns. It would be very democratic; there would be a new leader every day.
An opportunity for debate has been developed. The government House leader would be very unwise to persuade the House, under the circumstances, to give him or any other member an opportunity to rise and object, on the basis of privilege, to a motion under Standing Order 43. Mr. Speaker would be required to take tranquillizers every day, if that were introduced in addition to his other responsibilities.
The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker) indicated that at sometime in the future, we may reach a point where we accept such motions. If the hon. member for Ottawa West is correct, we will accept them with regularity so that they can be debated. If Your Honour finds that motions are of urgent and pressing necessity, and the House gives unanimous consent, what will happen to government orders? One must remember what occurred the other day. The matter was placed on the order paper as government order No. 1. The government or cabinet did not initiate that order; the House unanimously decided upon it. We are obligated to debate and formally conclude this matter. Under normal circumstances it would be called on either the second or third day, and it would be a priority until disposed of by the House. That has not been decided in this particular instance. Perhaps that is the best way to leave this matter.
One must consider that at some point in the future, the House will be faced with a matter which requires immediate debate until conclusion. The subject matter of the last motion in question was important enough to have the support of members of all parties, and it should not have been delegated to a position, where it perhaps will die on the order paper at the end of this session.
Surprisingly motions under Standing Order 43, and oral questions, are now regarded as a best seller on the television screens in Ottawa and other areas. I have had occasion to meet many people in stores who said, "You are Mr. So and So. I have seen you on television." I had never met these people before.
A great deal of enthusiasm is developing for the televising of the proceedings of the House. It is better than "The Edge of Night." It supersedes many other soap operas. It is cheap. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation can afford to run it. It is all Canadian talent. Certainly it has some comic relief for viewers. It has some good debates. Many people are becoming interested in the actual manner in which government is run.
Not only do people watch the question period, but they are tuning in to the debates which follow. In fact many people hurry home and turn on their television sets to follow a
particular debate, in which they have become interested, almost by accident.


An hon. Member:: No commercials.


William Arnold Peters: That is correct; there are no commercials. I should also like to point out that at least a dozen members of the press gallery are now watching the proceedings of the House on cable television. The political party leaders are sitting in their offices watching the proceedings as well. Of course, this is quite different from the situation when the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker) was prime minister and, seriously criticized for snooping on parliament without coming to the chamber.
Your Honour has been given a great responsibility. I am pleased, surprised, and very gratified by the manner in which Your Honour has handled motions under Standing Order 43. Perhaps I do not present such motions often, but I watch them with interest. Your Honour has arrived at some very good snap decisions, and has been taxed by the ingenuity of members who are out to put something over someone. Regardless of the party, the Chair is faced with that problem.
The House leader for the opposition indicated he wanted you, Mr. Speaker, to fulfil an additional role. He wanted you to decide in respect of the urgency and pressing necessity of matters in motions under Standing Order 43. 1 do not think you should be faced with that task. I am quite satisfied that on occasion you stand and say nothing, without putting the motion because it is apparently frivolous. I think there is a role to be played by hon. members, including the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on occasion, in moving motions that are frivolous. Hon. members do so on occasion to make a point, and that is the end of it, and no one expects the motion to go further.
In any event, Mr. Speaker, I do not think you should be asked to assume the responsibility of deciding on the spur of the moment whether there is a matter of urgent and pressing necessity in a motion under Standing Order 43. This is something you are being asked to do all the time, and that is why I referred to television coverage of this chamber. I do not think you should have to make that decision as to whether someone has withheld unanimous consent.
It is very cowardly on the part of a member who objects to a motion to shout no from his seat, when you ask if there is unanimous consent. That hon. member does not have the guts to get up on his feet and say no. The hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. MacFarlane) could stand in his place, and he will be seen when he says no. I think you, Mr. Speaker, should be able to point to an hon. member, and say that the hon. member for such and such a constituency says no. You should be in a position to state that someone has withheld consent. People who do not understand exactly what is involved in asking for unanimous consent, perhaps watching the television, often feel that you have made the decision that the motion is unacceptable.

November 6, 1978

Most motions, no matter how the government feels about them, are important to someone, or hon. members would not be getting up and proposing them. A number of people are watching these proceedings at this time and feel that you, Mr. Speaker, are saying the motion is unacceptable, and I do not think you should be burdened with that responsibility.
If the House leader wants to make a legitimate change, let him remove this responsibility on the part of the Chair so that the camera crew will be able to pick up the member who says no, withholding consent. In that way those hon. members will have the responsibility.
For some time I have felt that your responsibilities, Mr. Speaker, are very onerous. You are now being asked to assume another responsibility, that of deciding whether there is prejudice against the government in the wording of some of these motions. These motions must be short, sharp, critical, and to the point. If they do not offend the government, in some way they are hardly worth mentioning. As the right hon. member for Prince Albert said on one occasion, if a question does not embarrass the government it embarrasses the person who asks it.
If the House leader wants to provide leadership he should support me in my suggestions regarding unanimous consent. If an hon. member does not have the guts to stand up and be recognized as being in opposition to a motion under Standing Order 43, then there really is no opposition. The Speaker cannot recognize opposition to the granting of unanimous consent when it comes in the form of the word no spoken by an hon. member sitting in his seat. No one should be heard when speaking from his position in his seat. If we make this change it might make your job a little easier, Mr. Speaker, and it will certainly make it clear to the public that you are not really running interference for the government on motions proposed under Standing Order 43.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to participate in this debate. I would like to say only a few words on this matter because I am aware that in the discharge of my responsibilities as a member as well as a minister, motions under Standing Order 43 have prevented me from fully exercising my parliamentary and my ministerial functions which are to answer from time to time questions regarding the administration of my department.
I would like to draw your attention to a fact which indeed has occurred repeatedly in many regards and which is probably very relevant to this debate. Indeed, on October 27 last, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) took the opportunity under Standing Order 43 to raise what she considered as an urgent and pressing matter. Of course, as you know, we government members on this side of the House cannot reply immediately to such a question asked by a member of the opposition, specially when it is raised under Standing Order 43. Now, during the oral question period which followed, this same hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton
Adjournment Motion
was recognized by you, Mr. Speaker, which gave her the opportunity to ask a question which, to my great surprise, was quite different from the one she had raised pursuant to Standing Order 43 before the beginning of the oral question period. And the day after, in the Ottawa Journal of Saturday October 28, there was a headline worded as follows and I quote:

Pigott query on vacant houses goes unanswered.

I believe, Mr. Speaker, this gives us another typical example of the abuse which may come from the part that a member of the opposition can play when he takes advantage of the rules. Rising under the provisions of Standing Order 43, an hon. member makes a certain number of points-knowing full well that the government is not in a position to answer-makes unsubstantiated allegations through the many questions put and then the hon. member sits down, satisfied with having played that part, since he knows the government cannot answer. Now I call your attention on this point, Mr. Speaker, because unfortunately I believe there is abuse of the provisions of Standing Order 43 in this regard and it is very simple to prove since the hon. member did not even have the courage to ask me a question on that subject during the question period. I find it urgent and important, if we are to keep Standing Order 43 and if you, as Speaker, are to continue to allow those questions, that you acknowledge at least that members from both sides of the House are on equal terms and therefore that, not during question period where, of course, you recognize more opposition members who perhaps have less chance than some others to ask questions from ministers, but for motions under Standing Order 43 you should at the very least recognize members to your left and to your right alternately in order to allow for better and fairer use of Standing Order 43 by all backbenchers.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Mr. Speaker:: Order. It being five o'clock, it is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker)-Forestry-Task force on future of Canadian Forestry Service; the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankow-ski)-Airports-Food and liquor concession at Dorval; the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes)-Environmental Affairs-Forestry-Closing of government laboratories.
80065-53Vi

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
MR. MacEACHEN-OPERATION OF STANDING ORDER 43
Mr. Speaker:: In case there is any doubt as to what business we will be taking up at eight o'clock, it should be clear that although we are interrupting this point of order at five o'clock we will be returning to it at eight. We must interrupt this debate in order to proceed with private members' business, unless there is some disposition, by unanimous consent, to the contrary.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Speaker:: I understand there is not unanimous agreement to the contrary.
Incidentally, the difference which guides us in respect of returning to whatever business is before the House at this moment, when we do resume at eight o'clock this evening, is found in the language of Standing Order 15, which I will now recite to the House. It indicates, as hon. members will be aware:
(2) Not more than two minutes after the reading of prayers, the business of the House shall commence. Members, other than ministers of the Crown, may propose motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 at this time. Not later than 2.15 p.m. or 11.15 a.m., as the case may be, oral questions shall be taken up.
Here are the pertinent words:
At 3 p.m., or 12 noon, as the case may be-
In other words, at the conclusion of the question period.
-the House shall proceed to the ordinary daily routine of business, which shall be as follows:
In other words, the crisis comes not when we begin the question period, but when we finish it, because at the conclusion of the question period, by the operation of that Standing Order, the House is compelled to go to the business which is on the order paper. The fundamental difference between that and the situation we are in now-going to private members' hour at five o'clock as we are compelled to do by the standing orders-is that there is nothing which directs us in any way at eight o'clock this evening, other than the orders of the House that say that since we are on this business at five o'clock we must, of course, stay on it until we either adjourn that debate or adjourn the sitting for the day. Therefore, the two cases are fundamentally different. That is the reason why, if a motion made under Standing Order 43 happens to be on the floor of the House at the beginning of the question period, once we begin the question period we are locked in at the conclusion of it to proceed to other business. We cannot get back to that debate unless there is some procedural means for doing so.
It being five o'clock the House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS


Mr. Armand Caouette (Villeneuve) moved:: That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to exclude from taxable income all indemnities received by a voluntary fireman in the exercise of his duties, as well as to allow such firemen to deduct from their income all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
He said: Mr. Speaker, it is the second time this year I have had the opportunity to ask the House, as mentioned in my motion, and I quote:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to exclude from taxable income all indemnities received by a voluntary fireman in the exercise of his duties, as well as to allow such firemen to deduct from their income all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
Mr. Speaker, it is the second time this year that I have the opportunity to come back before the House with this motion. I had the opportunity to introduce this motion six months ago, and I have since received many letters and telegrams from all over the country in support of it. Part-time volunteer firemen would want to see it passed or a least referred to a committee for study, so they may come and show the need for that motion to be passed by the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, as I said, and as many people say, it takes a lot of courage to become a fireman and particularly a part-time volunteer fireman. But those who take it up on a voluntary basis must face many common dangers, financial, social and family problems.
Mr. Speaker, those who accept to become volunteer firemen certainly do not do so for the sake of glory. The municipality that cannot afford professional firemen must rely on the good citizenship of its people, so it is only normal that the government should do its share and help those courageous people, and particularly provide financial help for municipalities that face increasing financial problems.
The motion I introduced is designed so not to penalize financially those people who accept to become part-time volon-teer firemen as well as their municipalities. It is true that those people receive a very small indemnity, but because it is an essential service, I would like it to be excluded from taxable income. Right now, Mr. Speaker, the law allows a deduction of some $300. Such a deduction is clearly not enough these days. Those people need the help of parliament and the respect of the people and civic and government authorities.
Mr. Speaker, I referred earlier to the sacrifices that no one can deny. First, when a part-time fireman accepts to go out very early in the morning, sometimes even in unbearably cold weather, and fight a fire, I believe that it is worth considering.

November 6, 1978

And, as I also said earlier, I received several letters from volunteer firemen and particularly city officials, and that is why I say this motion is very important and I ask the members of this House to pass it so it can be referred to committee.
I would therefore like the debate to be short so that this motion may be agreed to. I moved the same motion last year, but it was not agreed to. Because of this, many people and many municipalities were greatly disappointed. For a parttime volunteer firemen, firefighting does not take only courage, but also a lot of money. If the present situation is allowed to go on, people will die in fires, and later on I shall give evidence to the effect that many people do die in such cases.
Many municipalities have enormous difficulty in recruiting part-time volunteer firemen. They have enormous difficulty in finding such people to help the victims of fires and provide a service to which the taxpayers are entitled. To prove my allegations, Mr. Speaker, I would like to read a letter that I received from the Amos volunteer firemen department, which reads as follows:
Following a decision made at our last general assembly on September 22 last, it was unanimously decided to submit to you a request concerning the exemption of all indemnities received by volunteer firefighters for income tax purposes. The reason for that request is that we have a total budget of $28,000 for the 30 firemen who fight fires in our town, regardless of the number of fires that we may have to fight and of practices that we may hold, including preventive measures. You probably know that the majority of our firemen are low wage earners. Moreover, we use our own cars to go to the scene of the fire and we often lose personal belongings (watches, glasses, etc.) and damage our shoes and clothing.
Up to this point, Mr. Speaker, this letter shows that I am quite justified in proposing this motion. The letter goes on as follows:
Another problem which affects our family life is that we must stay on standby during weekends for all summer.
I think there are few people who are prepared to sacrifice their family and their holidays the way our part-time volunteer firemen do. The letter goes on:
It is a service we owe to the population; however, more often than not we do it to the prejudice of our families. Moreover, since you have taxed our members, we have had several resignations which are directly related to this situation. For all these reasons, we ask a total exemption for all volunteer firemen or a minimum of $ 1,000 before tax deduction.
Considering that a Canadian citizen who has less than $1,000 interest in the bank is not taxed, we believed our demand is justified. We hope our elected representatives will settle this matter in the best possible way and thank you in advance for your goodwill and collaboration.
Mr. Speaker, as those firemen demonstrate in their letter, if a citizen who has less than $1,000 in the bank is not taxed, it seems just and reasonable to me to exclude from the taxable income any allowance received by a part time volunteer fireman for carrying out his duties. I am not asking for the moon, I ask a reasonable thing for these people.
Income Tax Act
Mr. Speaker, many small municipalities cannot hire full time firemen to do the job and must hire part time volunteers. Everybody knows that citizens are overtaxed yet we are grateful for the kindness of those people who are courageously fighting fires without begging from their municipality the salary increase that would cover part of their cost. You just have to think of the cost of suits, uniforms if you like, cleaning and so on. Furthermore you know that in an emergency a fireman does not notice the way he is dressed and does not waste time to change before going to the scene of disaster.
Still the Income Tax Act provisions concerning part time volunteer firemen were implemented in 1951. It was based on the cost of living at the time. Mr. Speaker, I do not ask much. I merely ask to study the possibility of renewing this legislation dating back to 1951 in order to take into account the present cost of living. The Amos fire department is not the only one asking for an increase of $300 to $1,000 of the present exemption, or the cost incurred by vulunteer firemen in the exercise of their duties. The Val d'Or fire department sent me a letter dated February 24, 1978. I quote:
We, volunteer firemen of the Val d'Or fire department wish to make the following request:
The Minister of Revenue now gives volunteer firemen a $300 exemption on their earnings for a given year and the balance is taxable. We want that amount to be substantially increased, or that the income not be taxable, or again to obtain the actual cost incurred in the exercise of our duties.
The act concerning the $300 exemption was passed in 1951, 28 years ago. Since then, all costs have doubled, if not tripled, and we have not benefited from indexation.
That work of volunteer fireman is a part time job that is practically unpaid. We must use our private cars to answer emergency calls and our expenses are not repaid. You probably know how much it costs to run a car. Furthermore, we run risks on our way to the scene of a disaster. Any fireman who has an accident on his way to a fire is not considered as driving a priority vehicle, and that is why he must pay for all damages as well as for ensuing actions. Also the clothes we wear for our regular work are often torn or burnt when we fight a fire, and we must pay such expenses.
However, Mr. Speaker, how many letters have we received as members of this House? I gave only two examples. We have also received telegrams not from brigades but from the Quebec section of the Professional Firemen Federation, and I quote:
Quebec Professional Firemen Federation strongly supports resolution of Quebec voluntary firemen claiming income tax exemption for indemnities received when fighting fires.
The telegram is signed by Alfred Morin, the president of the Professional Firemen Federation of Quebec.
Mr. Speaker, voluntary firemen are doing great services to the population. It would only be reasonable that we parliament members, supported as we are by the public, do justice to those firemen by allowing them an income tax reduction. Mr. Speaker, I would like to conclude here because, as everybody knows, that motion must not die on the order paper. I know many members want to have the floor. For the benefit of all voluntary firemen across the country, I hope it will be possible for those people to win their point after the request they made to the federal government through me. In concluding, I would

November 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
like to point out that this request was not made only to the federal government but also to the provincial governments as well. This afternoon I contacted the appropriate department in Quebec city and was told that Bill C-65 will allow voluntary firemen to deduct from their income tax all income they earned in the exercise of their duties. As citizens who may at one time need help from those people, we should do that much for them because we know that we may need their services one day.


Mr. Gaston Clermont (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, I welcome this opportunity to speak on the motion put by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), which reads:
That, in the opinion of this House, the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to exclude from taxable income all indemnities received by a voluntary fireman in the exercise of his duties, as well as to allow such firemen to deduct frm their income all expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
Mr. Speaker, administering the Income Tax Act is a major challenge to the government, which is responsible for collecting revenues in a just and fair way and also for adapting the fiscal system to this country's changing economic needs. At the income tax level, the government tries to ensure fair distribution of the fiscal burden according to each taxpayer's ability to pay, with proper deduction of the individual's expenses to the extent allowed by his earnings.
Where a deduction results in alleviating the fiscal burden of the individuals directly involved, it weighs down that of other taxpayers that do not benefit but must pay the cost.
Mr. Speaker, the government has been constantly striving, even before the fiscal reform, to maintain and strengthen the principle of general, universal and fair administration of the Income Tax Act. However, due to certain economic circumstances and social changes, the government had to entertain exceptions. The eighteenth report of the Standing Committee of Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs on the white paper concerning fiscal reform, published October 5, 1970, had this to say and I quote:
In the committee's view, not only equity but common sense prescribes that exceptions to the ability-to-pay measure, should be made only where a case is clearly made on general economic or compassionate grounds and widely accepted by other taxpayers, who will bear relatively more tax as a result of such exceptions.
I am referring to page 10 of the said report, Mr. Speaker. Moreover, the report finds a relevant difference between the government's point of view and that of the taxpayers about the equity of the fiscal system, a difference which often gives rise to lively discussions. For the reasons stated above, the government considers this notion in a general way whereas, the taxpayers found their general conclusions on their personal cases and needs. Mr. Speaker, I would point out that what the House is interested in today, is that the $300 tax exemption a voluntary fireman can deduct from his income for expenses and disadvantages inherent in the practice of a job, which is very important because it aims at protecting the lives and property of citizens, is in fact an exception to the general rule

which says, that only income related expenses are tax deductible. The act recognizes exceptions to the rule when expenditures are incurred for the welfare of the community or of all taxpayers. The exemption for firemen falls in this category of exceptions.
Many taxpayers have argued that the government should recognize as income tax exemptions, membership fees for sports associations, fees charged for private figure skating or piano lessons, maintenance and operation costs of a snowblower. Such deduction has also been suggested in the case of the salary paid to a maid and as a form of remuneration for a housewife. Although the government recognizes the merit of these suggestions, it is clear that the public purse could not sustain such fiscal losses, Mr. Speaker, unless it could find other sources of revenue. Obviously the government cannot set up a tax system encompassing all the proposals that it receives.
That being said, I will examine the measures taken in recent years by the government with a view to lightening the tax burden of all taxpayers. Since 1974, basic exemptions, running deductions and taxation brackets are corrected each year to compensate for the rising cost of living. The index factor for 1978 will enable Canadian taxpayers to save a total of $850 million in taxes. As previously mentioned, indexing is a taxation mechanism whose value has not yet been fully recognized. For the taxation year 1978, the personal allowance has been increased to $2,430, the allowance for married people to $2,120 and the deduction for old age and disability to $1,520. The deduction-


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order to draw attention to the fact that we are not discussing the Income Tax Act in general. We are discussing a motion directly related to special exemptions for firemen.


Gaston Clermont: I am laying the groundwork for my intervention, and the hon. member will finally see that I share the interest of the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for the work done by voluntary firemen to protect the community.
The deduction for a dependent child has gone up to $460 if the child is under 16 and to $840 if he is over 16. In 1973, the government granted taxpayers a 5 per cent tax cut, subject to a $100 minimum and a $500 maximum. In 1974, the minimum amount went up to $150. For the 1975 taxation year, the tax credit went up to 8 per cent, subject to a $200 minimum and a $500 maximum. The budget of March 31, 1977, proposed an increase in the tax allowance within those limits. Thus, for the taxation year 1978, the taxpayer may deduct an additional amount of up to $50 per dependent child under 18 residing in Canada. Moreover, for the 1978 taxation year, the government has granted a $100 tax allowance to low and average income taxpayers, the minimum 9 per cent federal tax credit being increased from $200 to $300. There are more than 7,500,000 taxpayers who take advantage of this measure


J\P',
'Xfei.
November 6, 1978

which represents a loss of over $700 million for the government.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have ' been listening very carefully. What we are hearing is a summary of what has been done in terms of income tax changes for all citizens. It is very interesting, but the motion before us directly relates to a special exemption for firemen because of their exceptional duties. I suggest the hon. member stick to the motion.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, if, as stated by the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette), he wanted his motion to be carried, having informed the House that he had moved it for the second time, if the hon. member for Villeneuve was really sincere, why did he not move his motion and resume his seat instead of talking for 20 minutes?


William Arnold Peters: Because the last time they talked it out.
[ Translation]


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, if the hon. member for Timis-kaming (Mr. Peters) would give me three more minutes-and if he had not interrupted me, I would have finished my speech and another member on the government side or from another party could have made his speech.
In response to the needs created by new economic realities, the Income Tax Act provides for some deductions for child care, employment and educational expenses, incomes derived from interests, dividends or pensions other than the income from the government universal pension system. Finally the act provides for deductions up to certain amounts for contributions paid to registered home ownership savings plans-RHOSP- or registered retirement savings plans-RRSP. For the information of the hon. member for Timiskaming, I am almost through.


William Arnold Peters: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. This is an intolerable abuse of the rules. The hon. member who has the floor has not once mentioned the subject we are discussing but has been speaking in general terms about the Income Tax Act.
I should like you to bring it to his attention that he should stick to the motion.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: I suggest all members get back to the subject under discussion, volunteer firemen.


Gaston Clermont: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) says that I did not mention to the House
Income Tax Act
the subject matter of the motion; he undoubtedly did not hear me, but I did mention it.
Mr. Speaker, I will conclude by saying this: in order to face these realities and to recognize the very important work done by volunteer firemen, I recommend to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien), as some of my colleagues did on various occasions, that in preparing his budget, the Minister of Finance raise from $300 to $1,000 the deduction which has been in existence for about 20 years.

Mr. Robert Daudlin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary
of State): Mr. Speaker, I think the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) should be congratulated for once again bringing this matter to the attention of the House. I think it should not go unnoticed that this same matter has been brought forward from all sides of the House. I can recall in my short term in this House the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Douglas) bringing up this subject. That was in the last sitting. Great words were said on all sides about what should or should not be done.
There seems to be general agreement that the efforts of men and women who do give of their time in this kind of endeavour should be recognized. They do, in fact, already receive a measure of recognition not accorded to any other segment of our society. It seems that the $300 allowance which is currently received from the government, municipalities or other public authorities for expenses incurred by the firemen is something no other group receives in our society. That these firemen are performing emergency duties, we agree. We agree as well that damage might occur to their personal belongings and that there should be deductions recognizing this kind of expense.
It may be that this is not sufficient. It may be that the suggestion the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Clermont) is making to the minister is one we would have to recognize. But we should not fail to acknowledge that there are other groups which should be considered as well. I think, for instance, of the Volunteer Ambulance Association which has an organization not in my riding but in the riding adjacent to mine. I believe they call themselves the Amherstburg, Malden and Anderdon VAA. This consists of a group of individuals who go out and fight fires and who risk their lives as well. They are out on the highways on call in all kinds of weather, they save their community a great deal of money and they subject their goods, their clothing and their lives to jeopardy.
It occurs to me we might be acting illogically if we were to respond only to the volunteer firemen. I ask this question without diminishing in any way the merit of their case for an increase: Would it be right and just for us to respond to a cry from all volunteer firemen and their associations without bearing in mind there are other groups which deserve the same kind of recognition?
I acknowledge what the hon. member for Villeneuve has said about these groups. I have received all kinds of letters on this from my riding, a rural riding which of necessity has numbers of volunteer fire departments. We all recognize that

November 6, 1978
Income Tax Act
small communities, rural communities, cannot afford full-time firemen in attendance, and as a consequence I have received letters from places like Tilbury and Leamington and I think we have to respond eventually to what they are saying. The hon. member for Middlesex-London-Lambton (Mr. Condon) has shown me letters he has received from places like Petrolia. We have all received letters, I am satisfied. But I wonder whether we shouldn't be looking perhaps at the larger question of volunteerism across the board and whether government should not be acknowledging in some positive way the work of volunteers throughout society, whatever they do, be it responding to fires, be it responding, as in the case of the Amherstburg group, to emergencies of a personal nature, or be it going into hospitals and acting as Candystripers and that sort of thing. It seems to me there is a larger question than whether we should be immediately reacting on an ad hoc basis, as I say, to one particular segment of volunteerism that we recognize is needed and does a service.
It would seem to me, Mr. Speaker, that given the report we have had, the Narcova Report, given that submissions have been made to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) by the national associations of volunteer groups suggesting we should be doing something positive in order to assist volunteerism in Canada, perhaps the time has come not only to take a look at a motion like the one made by the hon. member for Villeneuve or the suggestion made by the hon. member for Gatineau, but to consider whether or not there is a role to be played by government in terms of volunteer associations different from that played up to now. Should it be the role of government to provide moneys to voluntary organizations? Or, rather, should we be giving support to these organizations in other ways? Should we in fact be examining the possibility under the Income Tax Act, if we are going to use that vehicle, of requiring that if we are going to have an exemption-the $100 exemption for charities and religious donations-should we in fact be widening those two categories? Should we be enlarging that kind of deduction so that there would be greater incentive to and reward for volunteers?
This leads us to the question whether we should be exercising the kind of control the government has had in the past over voluntary associations and the spheres in which the volunteers have worked, or whether we should be withdrawing. Should we be allowing space or room for volunteers and voluntary associations in terms of deductions, such as I have talked about, or should we be withdrawing our control of those organizations, allowing them to get more funds from the private sector and, indeed, exercise greater control over their own destinies and ultimate aims?
Along with the other members who have spoken, we recognize the valuable services which volunteers in many fields perform for the good of the community, but we have to be very careful about using the Income Tax Act as the vehicle for recognizing and encouraging this kind of public service. If a deduction is given to the firefighters, as has been proposed, the House would then have to consider recognition in the tax
system for all sorts of other volunteer activities. I think I have pointed that out.
Some hon. members may be aware that the Royal Commission on Taxation examined the question of expense deductions. The commission concluded in volume three of its report dealing with taxation of income that all income in the broad sense should be taxable. As a corollary the commission concluded that only those expenditures incurred in earning income should be deductible. In this context the commission observed that it is difficult to design a simple and fully enforceable system which will preclude the deduction of personal expenses.
The commission recommended that the problem of deductions for expenditures be approached in two ways simultaneously. There should be general rules that deny deductions of personal expenditures, and there should be specific provisions in the legislation which explicity deny particular kinds of expenditures where there is likely to be a substantial personal benefit involved. I think hon. members will appreciate that to rely solely upon general rules would make full enforcement virtually impossible, while to rely solely upon specific provisions denying deductions would place a premium on the skilful manipulation of the affairs of the taxpayer to avoid the letter of the prohibition.
Following the commission's reports and recommendations parliament adopted three general rules to govern the deductibility of expenditures which, I am advised, are now reflected in the tax law. The first of these rules has both positive and negative aspects in that there is some definition as to certain expenditures which should, and others which should not, be deductible. The other two rules are essentially restrictive in that they disallow expenditures which might otherwise be deductible.
The first general rule is that expenditures are deductible only if they are reasonably related to the gaining or producing of income. Thus, any expenditure not so related is not deductible. This rule ensures that expenditures of a personal nature arising out of personal choice or not related to the earning of income will not be deducted by any taxpayer. The second general rule is related to the first and is concerned with the amount of an expenditure. It introduces a concept of reasonable expenses to circumvent the possibility of tax avoidance. The third general rule focusses on expenditures made for personal use or consumption which are not allowed as deductions.
I could get into detail regarding the current tax law, but I would rather not do that. I want to demonstrate my concern, which is the concern of the hon. member for Villeneuve, about the plight of the voluntary fireman by speaking very briefly, sitting down and affording someone else the opportunity to participate. I want to make the same point which was made by the hon. member for Gatineau. There are general rules to be considered over and above reaction to the just demand which is being made by voluntary fire associations. Given the fact that we have been told that a new budget is coming, I think the

November 6, 1978

appropiate route would be for all hon. members to indicate their support for this kind of action on the part of the Minister of Finance in terms of the budget. It might be reasonable to. suggest that the allowance or deduction be raised from $300 to $1,000. While saying that, I want once again to reinforce the suggestion that we should not view firemen apart from the entire context of voluntary work in Canada. There is a greater concern to which this House must address itself, and I have already spoken about that.


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: Mr. Speaker, I would like to add just a few words. I will take only a few minutes because I would like to see this motion tested. The first part of the motion says the following:
the government should consider the advisability of amending the Income Tax Act in order to exclude from taxable income all indemnities received by a voluntary fireman in the exercise of his duties-
That part of the motion might be difficult. The last part reads as follows:
as well as to allow such firemen to deduct from their income ail expenses incurred in the exercise of their duties.
That is a good suggestion. Volunteer firemen in villages, towns and in various places across the country have to buy uniforms. They have expenses. Some are salaried people, some work on an hourly basis, and some may lose some of their earnings unless they are indemnified by their village, town or city. Any expenses they incur should be deductible. I have always thought that the law was unfair in this regard.
Some self-employed people are allowed to write off the cost of their tools. A lawyer can write off the cost of his library and other expenses. Why, then, should a carpenter who is paid by the hour not be able to write off the total cost of the tools which are necessary for his job? This should not be limited to a certain amount. Why should a nurse who has to buy her uniforms not be able to write off the cost? The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says we have to differentiate between those who are on salaries and those who are self-employed. I do not think it would be very difficult to amend the Income Tax Act. People who earn salaries should be able to write off the cost of those things which are necessary to earn that income, whatever they might be.
I support this motion in every detail. If the second part of this motion passed, indemnities are so low and expenses are so high that they would be balanced off so that people involved in volunteer work would likely make nothing. I think we should consider seriously the matter which has been raised. I congratulate the hon. member for Villeveuve for attempting to see that people on salaries are allowed proper deductions. Surely we should pay tax on the money we earn, less our expenses. That is the simple principle of taxation. That is why 1 rose to support this motion, as far as deduction of expenses is concerned.
It is very important at this time to consider this matter, especially in Alberta. Just recently, on Hallowe'en night, the town of Olds sustained losses from a fire amounting to several
Income Tax Act
million dollars. The two main grain elevators and the $1.5 or $2 million sports centre were lost. Volunteer firemen fought the fire all night to save their town, their tradition, and their culture. That is one example of many fire tragedies which have occurred over the years. Those firemen should be able to write off at least the cost of their uniforms and whatever equipment they have. They should also be able to write off any loss in salary. Those are proper deductions against any indemnity, if they are paid. Even if they are not paid an indemnity and it costs them money to do that kind of work for the community, surely their costs should be deductible from any income they earn.
I do not want to be one of those who would talk out a motion which probably should go to a committee for further consideration and possible amendment. Once again I congratulate the Social Credit party and the hon. member for Vil-leneuve for bringing this motion before the House.


William Arnold Peters: Mr. Speaker, I will take only a minute or two to state my support for this motion and to congratulate the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for bringing it forward. The hon. member represents an organization in which people in my riding participate. Our firemen belong to the same organization. For the most part they are volunteer firemen. There is a large number of volunteers as well as a number of permanent firefighters. The volunteer firefighters work with a limited amount of equipment and they have less training than permanent firefighters. Nonetheless, they have done an exceptional job in northern Ontario and Quebec keeping loss of life and property to a minimum.
The hon. member for Villeneuve told us of the expenses incurred by volunteer firefighters. Twenty years ago or so the Income Tax Act allowed a deduction of $300. We are now asking for an allowable deduction of $1,000. It may be easier to get a $1,000 exemption for volunteer firefighters than to get exemptions for all their costs. In cases of large fires like the one mentioned by the hon. member for Calgary North (Mr. Woolliams) costs are often in excess of $1,000. There is loss of time, clothing must be replenished, and risks are taken.
I hope that this matter can be referred to a committee where there will be an opportunity to present the matter forcefully to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) so that he can make that change in his forthcoming budget.


Mr.   Wm. Andres@Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Multiculturalism: Mr. Speaker, I too would like to thank the hon. member for Villeneuve (Mr. Caouette) for providing us with an opportunity to debate the need for an amendment to the Income Tax Act with respect to volunteer firemen. I know what volunteer firemen have to put up with and I am familiar with what services they provide to communities at very little cost. They give of their own time at a time when most of us are out socializing or enjoying the comforts of our livingroom or even the comforts of our own bed. Often they have to brave the weather when it is less than satisfacto-
838

Income Tax Act
ry. In such conditions these men, and sometimes women, go out to protect property and lives.
We are looking for consideration for these men who give of themselves as a service to the community, and not only a service to their community but a service to society. It might well be that they incur costs from time to time; they might also incur losses. It has been suggested that we should at least consider the costs they incur in paying for their uniforms or other clothing, and in replacing articles such as wrist watches which they might lose when they are rushed to fires from whatever place they might be. At times they do not have time to dress properly when there is some urgency.
The government has considered granting them a $300 exemption. This might have been fine some years ago, but as I listened to some of the speeches made here today, I think we have probably missed the boat with regard to where the responsibility lies. We seem to be getting on the treadmill of exemptions. It is dangerous to start granting exemptions to people here and there. Where do we draw the limit on exemptions for volunteers? I appreciate the work these people perform, but there are many volunteers within a community who give of their time and who put in endless hours at great risk to their lives. This is what volunteer firemen do. Also, we have the auxiliary police and various other organizations that give of their time.
I believe that in this regard it is the responsibility of the municipality and the people it represents. In most cases they have assumed that responsibility, such as, for example, the municipality from which I come. We do not have a paid fire department; we have only volunteers, and I must say we have an excellent group of people. I have been connected with that group for many years in my municipal experience and I know about some of the costs they incur. I have taken a very firm stand in asserting that members of the municipality and those who are responsible should ensure that those volunteers who give of their time and effort are provided with all the equipment that is necessary for them to perform their duties.
I am very proud that my community, the town of Niagara-on-the-Lake, makes this available to these gentlemen who protect life, limb and property. I believe we should look all across the country and put a little responsibility on the municipalities to ensure that these volunteers are properly reimbursed for the cost that they incur directly in the performance of their duties.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Mr. Andres:: I will pretend I did not hear that because I have a few things more to say on this motion.
bility lies with the municipalities involved and that is where, I think, we should put a little pressure to get them to accept those responsibilities. I am sure this matter has been discussed many times. It does not matter whether if these municipalities are in the province of Ontario, in the province of Quebec or any other province.


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Andres: I suppose it does not matter whether it is a question on the order paper or whatever else it may be, we hope that the municipalities will come up with a uniform policy whereby volunteer firemen, those people who protect life and property, will be treated equally all across this great country. That is where the responsibility lies-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


William Andres: -and that is where it should be. I do not believe for a minute that we at the federal level should take on responsibilities which are those of the municipalities.
We have been referring to the great constitutional debate and the division of powers. There seems to be a tendency to put more power into the hands of the provinces. Perhaps we should take a closer look at placing a little more responsibility on the municipalities, the grass roots, the people whom they serve. This kind of service cannot be paid for in monetary terms because not one of these people gives of himself for a monetary return. These people are providing a service for the benefit of the community and for the benefit of society.
I am very proud to have been involved with this group of people who provide such a service to Canadian society. I believe we are doing them an injustice if we take away this responsibility from these people who are serving their country so well.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Turner):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. Accordingly, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


William Arnold Peters: You will talk it out.


William Andres: It may be so; that is my prerogative. We cannot put everything at the feet of the federal government and say:	AFTER RECESS
"You owe these people this and that and you should make
exemptions here and there". In these cases the direct responsi- The House resumed at 8 p.m.

November 6, 1978



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
MR. MacEACHEN-OPERATION OF STANDING ORDER 43
The House resumed consideration of the point of order (Mr. MacEachen).
Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Mr. Speaker, I had no intention of becoming involved in what I would call needless debate, but I should like to register my concern about a few matters. We are talking about Standing Order 43 and, as the government House leader has said, the use, misuse and abuse of it.
How did this come about? It is very simple. I have been here over ten years and I have never heard such a tirade of objections, concerns and words to the effect that there has been misuse and abuse of Standing Order 43. The hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings (Mr. Hees) moved a motion under Standing Order 43, and the government House leader took some exception to it, unquestionably a great deal of exception. He rose at a time when he should not have been on his feet in terms of a point of order. Seeing that there have been changes in the procedures of the House, I believe that points of order should be raised at three o'clock. But no, the government House leader was up and blasting away immediately after the presentation of the motion.
The motion came about because of Bill C-60. I do not know what the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings had in his mind, but he was concerned about the role of the monarchy in our parliamentary institution. Bill C-60 has concerned many people. The hon. member was concerned, as were government members. We have heard and read of their concern. The matter to which the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings referred was an urgent one.
I do not have to remind Your Honour of the wording of the motion, but I should like to refer to Standing Order 43 which reads as follows:
A motion may, in case of urgent and pressing necessity-
I look at the government House leader as I say these words. It continues:
-previously explained by the mover, be made by unanimous consent of the House without notice having been given under Standing Order 42.
Apparently Standing Order 42, to all intents and purposes, requires 48 hours' notice. The matter was urgent in the mind of the hon. member for Prince Edward-Hastings. He explained that it was a matter of necessity. Of course, there is a caveat that the motion should not be argumentative and that there should be no statement explaining the substance of the motion. Certainly we all agree with that.
I will not question the motives of the government House leader, because one cannot do that, but it seems to me that polls play a great part in his role at this particular time. There is a sense of desperation, fear and apprehension as to what the future may hold. Therefore, at every opportunity government
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen members will rise and Raise Cain with the opposition. I listened to the government House leader when he referred to misuse and abuse of Standing Order 43, but I noted that he was extremely selective or perhaps forgetful. According to him, the only persons in the House who were abusing or misusing Standing Order 43 were those to the left of Mr. Speaker.
I notice that the minister sitting behind the government House leader is shaking her head. I will not mention her riding or portfolio because I do not want anyone to know to whom I am referring. But it is a fact that the government House leader referred to Conservative members exclusively. At no time did he indicate that his own members have misused and abused the rule. The only conclusion one could draw from his tirade was that members of the Conservative party were the guilty ones; we are with sin and they are without sin.


Mr. Reid:: That is right. You have got it.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I knew I would strike a chord. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has said that I am right. When the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) jumped into the fray, the first thing he did was chastise my House leader, for play acting before the cameras. Then the hon. member for Ottawa West looked directly into the camera and started his little speech. One can see how facetious this argument becomes. Then the Acting Minister of Labour (Mr. Ouellet) jumped to his feet and expressed concern about the comments of the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) respecting Standing Order 43. Apparently he picked up a daily newspaper and found that his department was being criticized to no end.
What is the answer? The government House leader indicated that we were negligent. We are not negligent; he is the one who is negligent. He has sat there for as long as he has held this office without making any comment whatever regarding the prerequisites of Standing Order 43. When we started to talk about the Queen it hurt him, touched him or moved him, and he then wanted to give what he thinks is the true message to the Canadian people. That just does not wash.
What could members on that side have done? They could always have agreed to a Standing Order 43 motion if they wanted to get to the nitty-gritty of it in order to present an argument or a rebuttal. Have you noticed, Mr. Speaker, the pattern of behaviour of government members? They always say: "No, no, no". They do not want to know the truth and they do not want a debate. Now they find that by saying "no" they have precluded the possibility of debate, and they are now becoming concerned.
What else could hon. members on that side have done other than agreeing to a motion under Standing Order 43? At any time at 3 p.m. when an hon. member on this or on that side felt there had been an injustice as a result of a statement by another hon. member, he could rise on a point of order. Perhaps he could not debate the issue, but at least he could bring out what he felt was the truth. Do you, Mr. Speaker,
80065-54%

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen ever hear hon. members to your right standing at three o'clock on a point of order? They invariably allow these things to pass. Why can they not use that usual ploy of giving ministers a planted question, as they so often do?


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: An hon. member says "oh, oh".


An hon. Member:: Withdraw.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: Withdraw what? There is always a time for withdrawal, but we know how the system works and surely the hon. member does not want me to withdraw something like that.
Hon. members can clarify a situation or something that has happened by asking the minister concerned a question. Do we find them doing that, sir? When it comes to something regarding the Queen or a matter of contention, we finally hear something. I suggest they are otherwise all asleep, and that is where the negligence lies.
What else could hon. members on that side possibly do to correct the situation? If they were on the ball, and they have not been for at least ten years, they could issue a press release explaining the circumstances and pointing out why the hon. member who proposed the motion under Standing Order 43 was in error, as well as any shortcomings there might be.


John Mercer Reid: We are trying to cut down on paperwork.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: You are not doing that. All I am suggesting is that it appears to me, for purposes I can comprehend, that hon. members opposite do not want us to speak out too forcefully. The government is trying to muzzle opposition members. Let us be very frank about the situation. There are very few opportunities for opposition members, particularly the backbenchers, as well as backbenchers on the government side, to bring their concerns not only to the House of Commons but to the people in general. Standing Order 43 provides such an opportunity.
I would not suggest there are no members who have abused the practice or misused the Standing Order. However, we should not allow the government House leader to leave the suggestion that we on this side are the only guilty ones; that is, those of us to the left of Mr. Speaker.
This debate today emphasizes one thing. It was stated earlier there was no need for this debate because the House leaders could get together and discuss the matter. I suggest that if anyone should be disciplined for abusing the Standing Order, members on both sides should be disciplined. Hon. members on the government side should not leave the impression that we on this side are the ones who are wrong, the ones who are misusing the rules, or the ones abusing the Standing Order. This is why I register my concern. We have to be very careful in matters like this.
You have a very onerous job, Mr. Speaker, but this Standing Order is very plain. It states that a member may, if he believes his case is one of urgency and of pressing need,

explain his case in terms of its urgency and pressing need and then propose a motion. That is his right. If hon. members on the government side feel the point is argumentative and you, Mr. Speaker, so rule, the hon. member does not even get a chance to continue with his motion. Government members must realize that if they want to complain they must come into this House with clean hands.


An hon. Member:: That's a dangerous principle for you to espouse.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) laughs. With all respect, I suggest that before they complain they should show over some period of time that they have some concern, that they are worried and feel the matter calls for action. What have hon. members opposite done? They have sat silently until a thunderbolt hit them. At that time the government House leader stood up with all his rhetoric, pleasantness and debating ability to complain about the Standing Order. His arguments were subsequently destroyed not only by my House leader but the House leader of the NDP, and I am attempting to help in that regard.
Standing Order 43 is of significance and meaning to many members of the House and it should not be tampered with lightly. We all have to learn how to respect it and how to bring about its use as was envisaged. Following this debate I hope hon. members will realize that it has served a useful purpose in terms of bringing forward the fact that there is a problem. Hopefully we can arrive at a solution acceptable to all.
I have a feeling that government members would like to make more use of Standing Order 43. I am not quite prepared to accept that idea. Those hon. members can always approach their ministers in caucus; I do not have that opportunity. The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River waves his hands indicating there is no communication there either-and therefore they want to use the time of the House for this purpose.
Let me conclude with these words given to me by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald): Let him who is without guilt cast the first stone.


An hon. Member:: That's sin.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: It is guilt the way she has written it.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to let this opportunity go by without making some remarks on this very hot issue. You will surely acknowledge the fact that I have often moved motions under Standing Order 43. The hon. member sitting there on my left and to your right, the parliamentary secretary, tells me so. He can speak from experience. Mr. Speaker, if I cannot speak from experience, I can at least speak from memory because I have witnessed the evolution of the House as did all my colleagues and I can say with pride and conviction that our democratic
November 6, 1978

system is one of the most generous in the world because we have come to the point where the majority is allowed to complain against the minority.
That is just about what I have been given to understand this afternoon by listening to the remarks of the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) and also those of the hon. member who is now the Minister of Urban Affairs (Mr. Ouellet). When the debate was resumed, I would have liked him to continue his remarks because he had made such a good start. We made some very accurate statements and I thought that when this debate would be resumed, he was going to continue making this type of observations.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to refer to certain studies which have been carried out on the role of the private member in parliament. I have here a study which was prepared for hon. members and which is not that old. It dates back to June 1977. In this study the following is said and it is precisely on these points that I would like to draw your attention and the attention of my colleagues, namely the fact that our parliamentary procedure is not just hard and fast but that it can evolve with time according to circumstances and to the needs of this assembly. It is said in that study that historians, legislators and philosophers throughout centuries have sought to determine if the elected representative had first and foremost to be loyal toward his voters, secondly toward his own party, thirdly his country or obey the voice of his own conscience.


Mr. Lapointe:: The first point.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: As the member for Charlevoix (Mr. Lapointe) just said it is the first point, that is first to have a conscience. Over that subject we are in agreement. And I can see the hon. member is now retiring, perhaps to proceed with some soul-searching experience of his own.


An hon. Member:: He will be back.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Aristotle had something to say on the subject we are debating tonight, and so did Thomas Jefferson and others who tried to clarify the matter. Edmund Burke was probably the most influential British writer and speaker.
That being said, Mr. Speaker, it seems appropriate, since we are considering a very serious matter, to refer to experienced parliamentarians, who may teach us some useful lessons as members of this chamber. This is what Burke had to say in a speech he delivered in 1774 to the electors of Bristol which, I imagine, is a riding in Britain. He speaks of the members' tendency to represent private interests. He reminds his audience that parliament is not, and I quote:
-a convention of ambassadors representing various opposed interests which they must defend against others, as officers and lawyers; rather, parliament is a deliberative assembly which represents the nation and shares the same interest, that of the people; local interest and prejudices should not take precedence over
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen general welfare and the will of the people. It is true that the man is chosen; but once a member is appointed he ceases to be the representative for Bristol to become a member of parliament.
Yet, Mr. Speaker, as I always understood it members are elected, it is true, by a certain number of electors in a given riding. But once we are here, when we participate in the proceedings of the House we are spokesmen for the whole nation. And as long as these sacred responsibilities of the member are not recognized, whatever his language, his origin or his religion, we shall find it difficult to build a real country where people will live in harmony and have a good life.
Mr. Speaker, in 1867 at the outset of parliament as we know it the rules of the House of Commons of Canada recognized only the right to ask questions in writing. We have made a lot of progress since that time. Members of parliament later agreed to amend the rules so that questions might be put but not only in writing. However at that time rules were very stict. To ask a question to a minister you had to give him a 48 hours' notice and later it was recognized that oral questions might facilitate understanding and be more expeditive. I have been sitting here for many years and I remember that in the beginning the oral question period was reserved for members sitting on your left. It was a practice that opposition members could ask questions to government members on administration, the use of public funds, the policy considered by the government on such or such matter, even on an international matter.
Everybody seemed satisfied but after a certain time members sitting in the back rows, "backbenchers" as we called them-I do not like that word because I think that a member is a representative of the people just as any other whether he sits in the fifth row or the first row. This is my concept of the member of parliament. We should not belittle the members sitting on the fifth, the second or the first row. Everybody cannot sit at the same place. Sir, you are the Speaker in this House. You have assistants but you cannot all sit in the chair at the same time. It is one thing that must be clearly understood.
So, as time went on we have come to amend the standing orders of this House and tonight we are discussing Standing Order 43 which has been amended many times and we have * changed the business order. The most recent one is the one we [DOT] have for the opening of the House, after the members' prayer which I would like the public in our gallery to attend. That will come one day because such wish has been expressed by the House. It is a matter of procedure. Mr. Speaker, you already wrote to me about it and I understand, but the committee on procedure was quite stubborn. It is amazing how long it takes them to reach a decision and spell out a procedure so that the public could follow our first consideration, the prayer to God. In any event, Mr. Speaker, we did unanimously agree that motions under Standing Order 43 should be presented at two o'clock, after the prayer, until 2.15 p.m.

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
We agreed to this and you once recognized that government members had the same privilege as those who sit on your left to introduce motions under Standing Order 43. I have nothing to say against this. We are all parliamentarians, and I am convinced that government members have the best intentions in the world if they decide to move motions under the provisions of this Standing Order when they consider that it is in the public interest.
Mr. Speaker, like many others I have often wondered why it is that the Speaker rejects a motion and says that there is no agreement when we, at the other end of the House, have not heard the "no" of the member who opposes the motion. You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that I have often raised this point, and I rely on your conscience as the Speaker of this House. I accept your decisions and do not criticize them, but since we have an opportunity this evening to discuss this matter, I want to say that I agree with my colleague for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), who spoke earlier quite honestly and frankly and said that the one who opposes introduction of the motion should have the courage to rise and identify himself, so that the public will know that someone does not agree. We could perhaps consider this matter further, but I believe that eventually-and the sooner the better-we shall need a specific interpretation on this point so that the Speaker will not be put in a difficult situation. I understand that it is not always easy to preside over the proceedings of this House, and I have always respected the rulings of the Speaker. But since we are discussing this matter tonight, I believe that Mr. Speaker has wanted to show generosity towards parliamentarians and allow them to express themselves on this matter so that we shall agree on a procedure which will be acceptable to all parliamentarians.
Mr. Speaker, I was struck by something that the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) said when he stated that government members do not have the opportunity to reply to motions introduced by members on your left. I am in total disagreement, Mr. Speaker, because when you accept a motion under Standing Order 43, every member in this House has an opportunity to be heard. And I do not feel it is quite acceptable that you appear to grant preference to hon. members on your left only, because when you find that that motion was not opposed when put forward, when debated, every member had an opportunity to be heard.
Mr. Speaker, we have come a long way these last ten years or so. We accepted as a fait accompli that government members may put questions to minister during question period. 1 remember in the beginning this met with tremendous opposition. Indeed we tried by every means at our disposal, and I supported this personally, to prevent parliamentary secretaries from putting questions to their ministers. There should be a darned end somewhere-they are continuously-


An hon. Member:: Discrimination!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: Well, now! That may be the hon. member's view, but I should be given a chance to express my views, and then we shall see. I cannot accept as flowing from common sense that an hon. member, a parliamentary secretary may put questions to his minister in this House, when that same member spent the morning with him. This has all the appearances of a gimmick set up for promotion's sake.
Mr. Speaker, particularly since we have had television in this House it seems like certain members-and I do take the responsibility for what I am saying, as I indeed always do, as General de Gaulle would say-


An hon. Member:: Was he a separatist?


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: -no, he was the president of his country, but he was not a separatist. I am a member of parliament for my country and I am not a separatist; I am a citizen of my country, a representative of my fellow countrymen in this House, and 1 want to express myself freely. Mr. Speaker, 1 would not want people to be left with the impression that there are a lot of people in the House when a minister rises to explain the nature of his bill, and members from the other end of the House move in like bees to sit behind the minister and give people the impression that the House is full of members. At that point, Mr. Speaker, if the cameras were to turn to the other seats in the House the viewers would be in for a surprise. I can uphold my opinions even if members are making a lot of noise. 1 am used to it.
I would like to say this, that as genuine democrats we should act openly, sit down seriously at a meeting of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization and discuss whether Standing Order 43 should somehow be amended so we can use it more effectively to consider issues that arise, as that happened today. But, Mr. Speaker, I am so happy to be able to say to the minister in charge of urban affairs how much I shared the opinion he expressed at five o'clock.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: It does not matter, I am paying tribute to him, and he will be told about it. He is the one who said that when-


An hon. Member:: We do not make errands!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: You do not make errands, and I hope you will not make errors either!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Joseph Adrien Henri Lambert: You are free to interpret that as you want.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Urban Affairs said that when a member of parliament moves a motion for discussion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 then he should have the privilege of asking the same minister a question on the same

November 6, 1978

subject. I agree, Mr. Speaker, and there is a certain logic in that statement. I am happy to have the opportunity which has been given to me to take the floor now. I presented a motion under the terms of Standing Order 43 to ask the House to urge the Minister of Finance to use his authority over the Bank of Canada for which he answers to the House as minister. I was a little disappointed to see him wash his hands of the matter, saying that if the interest rates were raised, it was the responsibility of the governor of the Bank of Canada.
Mr. Speaker, after that, during question period I had the opportunity and the good luck, thanks to your generosity, Mr. Speaker, to ask a few questions to the Minister of Finance on the subject and he tried to answer as clearly as possible, but he did not succeed in enlightening me much, not more than the other members of parliament. In any event, with our present procedure, we would not expect more from Standing Order 43. Accordingly, Mr. Speaker, I think we should change our procedure in order to do justice to all hon. members and at the same time to make full use of the time of the House so that it may be more profitable.
How time flies, Mr. Speaker! Last week we were studying Bill C-10 relating to family allowances. Because of some difficulties we faced, we were unable to resume the debate on that bill today. But that is part of our parliamentary system. However, if we really want to keep the House running efficiently, we must get toghether and change some of our rules.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Charlevoix is now playing behind the curtains over there. Frankly, I am sure that deep in his heart he would like it better if we could do more in this House. Today the Liberal party sits to your right, Mr. Speaker, but the future belongs to God. Tomorrow perhaps another party will be sitting to your right, but we will still live with the same rules. Government members who are now playing a game in trying to limit our rights as parliamentarians, maybe just for the fun of it, might have to live with what they find so funny today. Let us be careful. Tomorrow is coming fast.
Mr. Speaker, those are the remarks I wanted to make in this debate. My party and I are prepared to cooperate with the House and the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization in order that everyone may express himself freely, express the will of the people he represents and stand for the interests of his country for it to continue to grow and us to continue to love it, while working very earnestly at the achievement of our everyday duties. Mr. Speaker, I thank you for your patience and I hope that the suggestions I made will be taken under consideration, as I listened to the remarks made by others and to which I am still ready to listen, in order to strengthen our democratic system and make it the best in the world.
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are three members now seeking the floor; they were doing so earlier in the day. While I would not ever want to prevent any member from speaking, perhaps I could indicate to the House, and it may not surprise hon. members, that with all of the great assistance I have had in sorting out the shortcomings of the Standing Order, I scarcely feel the need for any more. I will recognize the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Smith) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I really do not know how long we ought to carry on with this; it is a matter that has been pretty thoroughly canvassed, but I now recognize those members who have been seeking the floor for quite some time. Even with that, I ask them to be brief.


Mr. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be brief, but I point out that you do not make it any easier. This is a very important debate and I believe that the House is quite rightly seized with it at this time at some length. I think it has been a very useful debate.
At the outset I want to make it clear that I share the view put forward by my House leader and the government House leader that we should crack down on the abuse of Standing Order 43. I know it is difficult for Your Honour because you have to be fair to everybody, but innuendo and unfair or unfounded allegations have no business in the preamble to a motion under Standing Order 43. The motion should be able to stand on its own. Indeed, we should perhaps all follow the example of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) in that regard.
I say that because of the importance that I and all members of the House attach to this provision of our Standing Orders. It has assumed a new importance because of the very few opportunities left to private members to put forward grievances. That is very important. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to the previous practice of the House. Prior to the change in the Standing Orders, provision was made in the rules of the House to put a motion that Mr. Speaker do now leave the chair for the House to go into committee of the whole on supply. That was a traditional opportunity for members to put forward grievances. It was used to that effect to great advantage. We no longer have supply in the House. Consequently that vehicle for putting forward grievances is no longer open to us. All we have now are Standing Order 43 and the adjournment motion for hon. members to put forward grievances.
With regard to the argument put forward by the government House leader, there is no other way, apart from the grievance aspect of Standing Order 43, for a private member to put forward a motion under our Standing Orders with the proper 48 hours' notice. Without Standing Order 43, a private member of the House would have no way of having a motion placed before the House.

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
Perhaps it might be worth while to take a look at little ways of improving our procedure without having to refer the whole matter back to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. For the life of me 1 do not understand why we cannot have the adjournment motion between six and seven o'clock, as it was for a short time. It would give us extra time. It would allow for more publicity on the grievance put forward. After all, the adjournment motion is a grievance procedure. It would take into account the fact that we impose an inconvenience on the staff and the table of the House by extending our sitting from ten to 10.30. We would eliminate that extra half hour by having the adjournment motion at six o'clock. Instead of a half hour debate, we should think in terms of making the adjournment motion a one hour debate. If we did that and tightened up the definition of what is within the rules under Standing Order 43, Your Honour's job might be a great deal easier.
Earlier in the debate Your Honour identified the problem that under the Standing Orders you had to call for private members' business, thereby emphasizing the fact that you really had no discretion under the Standing Orders, especially Standing Order 15, with respect to the debate on motions under Standing Order 43. I would draw Your Honour's attention to Standing Order 15(4) which seems to pre-empt any restrictions that would be placed on the Chair by Standing Order 45(2) regarding debates under Standing Order 43. Standing Order 15(4) reads as follows:
Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders, the order of business for the consideration of the House, day by day, after the daily routine shall be as follows:
It then goes on to announce that. That part of Standing Order 15(4) which states "Except as otherwise provided in these Standing Orders" makes provision, I would argue, for a debate to follow under Standing Order 43. It provides for Standing Order 43 to pre-empt the other rules of the House with regard to daily routine proceedings.
Unless we interpret Standing Order 15(4) in that way, there is no possible way that the House can proceed with a debate under Standing Order 43 in the case where a motion is acceptable, receives unanimous consent and a debate ensues. It seems it is not intended by the rules for the debate to become a government order, which is now the case. The debate becomes a government order because under the interpretation Your Honour has placed on the Standing Orders, you must interrupt the debate at three o'clock to get on with the proceedings as set out in Standing Order 15. I lay that before Your Honour for consideration.
In conclusion, 1 repeat the importance to the House and the private members of the House of Standing Order 43 as a grievance procedure. I point out that we have very few grievance procedures left in this House since the right to withhold supply was taken out of the House under these same Standing Orders.


Mr. Hal Herbert (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Urban Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, I have just a few comments to make on this very interesting debate which I feel
(Mr. McGrath.]
has gone on too long. I will try not to contribute any more than necessary to its length. However, there are one or two remarks to which I feel there should be some response.
Both the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Alexander) made the point that we can say yes to a motion and then debate it. Unless I misunderstand your attitude, Mr. Speaker, I believe that in the event the House agrees unanimously to the presentation of the motion, if he or she stood up you would recognize the proposer of that motion. We have already been through the exercise where a person can then continue speaking until 2.15, at which time the debate is terminated by the commencement of the question period. Your Honour might clarify that point.
I do not think there is any way that we can be assured there can be a response to a motion, which is debated between that period some time after two o'clock and 2.15, by the government party, if it is an opposition motion, or a motion from someone of this side which the government may not particularly like.
Your Honour has said on many occasions that one cannot propose a motion which includes the words "without debate" and have it stick. Because the motion is then debatable, there is no way that, between ourselves, we can come to any agreement, even if there is discussion between the House leaders. We have several independent members in this House and perhaps members of both the government and opposition parties who may consider themselves independent in the sense of not agreeing that there will be no debate.
The problem, then, is one of response to a motion which is not approved unanimously, and one of response if the motion is accepted for debate and, as a result, one person decides to continue talking until 2.15 p.m. so that there is no time to hear a responder to the mover of the motion; or, as happened last week, one of the ministers rises and speaks on a motion proposed to the House.
The hon. member of Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) mentioned that all members have the opportunity to express themselves. That is the problem. There is no mechanism under this Standing Order by which members can express themselves on a motion. One point arises in connection with a remark of the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters) who discussed the problem of the negative voice not being identified-the anonymity of the person who says no. He made the remark that this is done by someone seated and who therefore should not be heard. Since the response of yeas and nays is given by hon. members from their seats, I hardly think it is a valid point but Your Honour might like to comment. If it is necessary for a person to identify himself I, for one, would be quite happy to do so. In the twenty-ninth parliament we had a well-known "Mr. No" in the House and there was no way that any motion under Standing Order 43 could be debated in those days.
Personally I consider the exercise a waste of time, but since it goes on I have used it and have been recognized by Your
November 6, 1978

Honour. On occasion the motion was even accepted by the House. It does not make the procedure any better though.
One of the problems, is the question of the preamble. So often the preamble contains a lot of material which is objectionable in itself and puts us in the position, in effect, of saying no to the preamble rather than to the motion itself. Sometimes there is not much relationship between the preamble and the motion. This sometimes puts Your Honour in the difficult position of having to rule on whether the motion would be in order. This may more often be the case in the future than it has been up to this time. In my opinion Your Honour has up to this time tended to accept almost all motions. You did not like one of mine a week or so ago, but nevertheless I think there is a tendency to accept motions on the basis that it is up to the House to decide if they may be put.
If we are to be very rigid about these things in future, we are obviously going to engage in lengthy discussion as to the acceptability of a motion and Your Honour will be called upon to make some difficult decisions. I prefer the practice we have been following whereby the House is called upon to make that decision to an extent. For example, quoting from your response to one of my motions, Your Honour said that there was some question as to whether the motion was a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I am not disputing that opinion; all I am saying is that it is an opinion and therefore we could get into frequent argument as to whether a matter is of urgent and pressing necessity or not.
I raise this point because it is not very often that members, when presenting a 43, do discuss first of all just whether it is urgent or whether it is pressing. I took the trouble on the day I mentioned to give some of my reasons, but I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that I could have gone on at considerable length explaining why the matter was urgent and pressing and trying to convince you that the motion should be regarded as acceptable. I make this point because I do not believe that any of us would wish to put Your Honour in the position of having to make daily decisions, first of all on the basis of whether a matter is urgent and pressing and whether the motion is acceptable. In other words, we could conceivably be facing procedural debates on every 43 brought forward. I am of the opinion that it is probably easier to say no to every 43 automatically and get rid of the problem that way.
It is true, and I admit to it readily, that we are using Standing Order 43 to make a point. I went fishing a week or so ago and I caught a big fish, because the very next day the hon. member for Kingston and The Islands responded, but rather strangely. Her criticism appeared in the preamble to the motion rather than in the motion itself. I found it quite effective in that even though a motion had been proposed- certainly not put because it was allowed to stand for this particular discussion-there was a response, a response, quite frankly, that I was looking for and it came. Even the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) later that day-at three o'clock- spoke of the motion as being a statement of devastating consequences.
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
This brings me to another point, which is that Standing Order 43 does not refer to importance. If we want to take this to an absurd degree, there are many matters in our own individual ridings which are of urgent and pressing necessity on a daily basis but are certainly not particularly important and may not be matters properly for discussion in this House. I think we should consider carefully whether we want to bring all these small details into the House for discussion.
There is only one more comment I wish to make here and that concerns the remarks of the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). He talked about cracking down on the abuse. He said that a motion should be able to stand on its own. We can readily achieve that end by cutting out the preamble completely. Possibly we could reach a ready agreement among ourselves that motions from now on should be presented "neat", that is to say, with no preamble to discuss urgent and pressing necessity, no preamble to set up the motion. The motion should stand on its own and be one which is acceptable to the Chair. That would get rid of the lengthy preamble which, in the minds of many, is the most objectionable feature of motions under Standing Order 43 at the present time.
The hon. member also said that Standing Order 43 could pre-empt the other rules of the House-he was quoting Standing Order 15(4). Whatever your ruling on this, sir, if you agreed with the hon. member for St. John's East it could be of serious consequence.
Of course, one way of getting out of the difficulty automatically would be to make sure that every 43 received a "No". From my own point of view, I believe the problem has arisen not so much because of the multitude of motions, sometimes interesting, sometimes humorous, sometimes inconsequential, as from the attempt more recently to put into such motions matters of serious consequence to the country, to the government and even to the opposition from its point of view. This got everyone excited about the consequences of leaving unanswered a question of grave national concern.
I do not know how we can get around this difficulty. Frankly, at the present time, since nothing has been suggested and we are having a glorified and rather lengthy debate, it seems to me that, whatever Your Honour may have to say in the future between approximately 2.05 and 2.15, some of us will continue to rise and propose motions under Standing Order 43.


Mr. Cecil Smith (Churchill):: Mr. Speaker, I shall attempt to be brief. As a backbencher, Standing Order 43 is the vehicle I try to use when I have to put forward matters of urgent and pressing necessity. I try to keep my motions as clear, precise and to the point as possible.
I come from an area where people do not receive daily newspapers. Crisis situations are brought on by government departments and Crown corporations, and I can cite a couple of them. The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation was being

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
phased out in Churchill. The people of that community did not know that CHFC was to be phased out. I was the first to hear about it here in Ottawa. I telephoned the mayor of Churchill and a general meeting was held there. Everyone was up in arms. It was a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to that community. Standing Order 43 was the only vehicle 1 had at my disposal on the day I received feedback from the mayor of Churchill. Through the Standing Order I was able to bring the matter to the attention of the government.
When hon. members on the government side say "no" to motions under this rule, sometimes neither the minister involved nor his parliamentary secretary becomes aware of what is going on in certain remote areas. People in those areas cannot pick up the Sun, the Globe and Mail or the Gazette, and I think many motions under this rule are the result of newspaper stories.
My constituency does not have the benefit of daily newspapers, and I feel that the motions which I propose here are always on matters of emergency because the people in my constituency do not really know what this government is doing or what is happening. That is why things become matters of urgent and pressing necessity. It is very frustrating to put forward a reasonable preamble followed by a motion and then to hear "no", because I do not have a chance to explain just what the problem is.
Quite some time ago Your Honour did recognize in question period hon. members who earlier had proposed motions under Standing Order 43. That way hon. members could follow up their motions under the rule by asking the government questions. Answers were received. If an hon. member did not get an answer, he could resort to the late show. That was a good system because in one day or within a week a member could follow through and perhaps get an answer. A matter which involves the phasing out of an important service in a small community is something that is urgent and pressing, and a vehicle is needed so that a member can convey the message to the minister involved, who is not always aware of the situation. Taking any of that vehicle away is really taking away a private member's input in this House.
I would like to leave that with Your Honour because I do not feel I abuse the rule. Perhaps there are times when it is abused, but Standing Order 43 is the one vehicle I have. My constituency does not have a newspaper so that I can generate from it motions under Standing Order 43, but I feel that the motions I have proposed have been genuine.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 indicated that I would like to close this discussion with the hon. members who have just spoken. However, the hon. member for Ottawa-Carleton (Mrs. Pigott) was referred to in an earlier contribution in the debate, and I think it only fair that one member who has been singled out by another ought at least to have some time to make a contribution or a counter-balancing contribution.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) has been present during the debate and I believe he was trying to

get the floor before five o'clock. I hope both hon. members will be brief so that we can close the discussion.


Mrs. Jean E. Pigott (Ottawa-Carleton):: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry I was not in the House when a minister criticized my use of motions under Standing Order 43. I feel very sad because I had hoped the minister would understand the grave problems,
I as a member of parliament face when questioning a minister who does not even bring his estimates to committee. Sometimes, I find this minister very hard to question. Where there is smoke there is sometimes fire, and one has to be very careful about that. Sometimes I think the minister protests too much. The minister to whom I refer has three jobs, and he has many responsibilities. As a member of parliament, I have to use every tool at my disposal.


Mr. Blais:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: We are on a point of order.


Jean Elizabeth Pigott: Members of parliament have to use motions under Standing Order 43. They have to use questions, debate and the late show. Hon. members have to do everything they can to get this minister to listen to them. There are serious problems in this ministers' departments. He is responsible for the Central Mortgage and Housing Corporation. There are demonstration projects about which I have questions I want answered. There are questions regarding NCC tendering practices. There are questions regarding York Place. One charge has been laid, but I hope there will be many more. There are hundreds of questions regarding Les Terrasses, and I have to use all the tools at my disposal to question this minister.
Standing Order 43, is a very important tool to backbench members. I appreciate this opportunity to say, that I am glad I have this tool with which to bring matters to the attention of a minister.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, I must say that I am one of those who is a Standing Order 43 enthusiast. I always enjoy the wit and care with which motions under this rule are prepared. I am fascinated by the way the parties opposite co-ordinate their strategies so as to use Standing Order 43, as well as the question period to their maximum effect. However, if anybody was to look in all honesty at the Standing Orders, and compare what they see with what we see regarding Standing Order 43, he would clearly be driven up the wall if he was trying to find out what was urgent and pressing in Canada. The first thing we have to do in looking at this, is to say that the way in which the rule is being used may be appropriate, but it is certainly not the way the rule was written.
The second point I should make is that, like the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I am also guilty of having tried to rearrange the rules of the House of Commons in order to do something about Standing Order 43. I was a party to the move to take it from the end of the question period and to put it before the question period. We

did exert some control over the abuses which existed at that point.
Having listened to the members on both sides of the House who have spoken, I think it is quite clear that there is concern about the abuses which have crept into the use of Standing Order 43. Everyone has agreed, in that regard, and I think we have heard some imaginative solutions to the problem. I really did not worry about Standing Order 43 until I listened to a speech given by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). That speech is recorded at page 521 of Hansard for October 26, and in it the hon. member made an interesting comment, which I would like to quote before commenting further, as follows:
Just the other day a Liberal spokesman, the parliamentary secretary for urban affairs, came up with a very unique solution. His solution-and I have heard no minister repudiate what he had to say-was to discontinue all transfer payments to the provinces for social programs, whether for health, welfare or housing, social policy equalization. He would discontinue the whole lot.
What is important about that is not the criticism of the motion moved by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). That is perfectly legitimate and understandable. What is important-"and I have heard no minister repudiate what he has had to say"-is that there is no chance to repudiate anything proposed under Standing Order 43.
The essence of this place, according to the right hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Diefenbaker), is debate, but there is no debate under Standing Order 43. The problem which faces all of us and which has been discussed by many hon. members is that under this particular procedure there is no opportunity for a fair exchange of views. If we are talking about something which is urgent and pressing and which demands debate but there is no provision for such debate under our rules, there is no discussion. So the rule has become bad. Its utilization has become indifferent. We have something which at one point had importance in our rule book, but which has now become the focus for matters of trivia about which we seem to hear much from hon. members opposite in this House.
Now, Mr. Speaker, I mentioned before that I thought some imaginative solutions had been developed by members on the other side. I think the House leader on the opposition side, the hon. member for Grenville-Carleton (Mr. Baker), made an interesting comment, and it is one with which I personally find a great deal of favour. Basically he said we should look at it from the point of view of the two criteria developed in Standing Order 43. They are that members must rise and explain the reason their motion is of urgent and pressing necessity, how the world will stop if the House of Commons does not stop its other proceedings to debate the motion and decide on it. Then Your Honour would base your decision on whether or not the circumstances outlined by the hon. member were sufficiently grave to allow the motion to be put. If Your Honour made that decision, then the motion could be put and we could dispose of it in the way which has become a tradition in the House of Commons.
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen
It seems to me that the point is well taken because if we look at the operation of Standing Order 26, which has a relationship with Standing Order 43, we see that for example, the same terminology is used. The only difference is that in the case of Standing Order 43 one proceeds immediately with consent while under Standing Order 26 Your Honour decides whether or not the criteria have been met. On that basis, it seems to me that there is no reason why Your Honour could not permit in this case a mini debate to take place on the question of urgency before allowing a motion to be put.
I think that is the essence of the frustration which exists on this side of the House and, I think, among other members who are interested in a number of the subjects brought up from time to time under Standing Order 43. It is patently obvious the way in which this rule, as it has been interpreted in the last few years, discriminates against the very essence of the House of Commons, which is the clash of opposite views and the element of truth as a result of debate. The way we have operated under Standing Order 43 certainly goes against that very principle.
I think that Standing Order 43 at one time played a legitimate function in our rule book. I am sure there were times when the escape hatch of the rule, which said we could deal with a matter of urgent consideration without the necessity of a 48-hour waiting period-which is the normal way we approach things in the House-was used, and it would be a useful rule; but it does strike me that the problem we have to face now with Standing Order 43 is that it does not do what it is supposed to do. It has degenerated as a rule and it makes us a laughing stock in terms of what we do with the rule and what is written in our rule book.
The other point I wanted to make-which was a point made by the hon. member for Ottawa West (Mr. Francis) earlier this day-is this: The reason we are raising this problem is the impact that television is having on our proceedings. Television cameras pick up a member standing up and proposing a motion under Standing Order 43. Nothing is done and people say: "Why wasn't there a debate? Why wasn't there a decision made?"
It seems to me that this is only the beginning of the kinds of questions we must ask ourselves in terms of the way our rules make our chamber look to the audience outside. Until now people who came to watch the House of Commons were itinerant strangers, by and large. Very few people come here for major recreation; very few people follow our rules in debates of this nature. But the fact is that we have opened the doors, some fresh air is blowing in these stale corridors and we have to blow the cobwebs out of our rule book. An examination of Standing Order 43 can be one of the more important steps.
The last point with which I want to deal is the question of private members. I am a professional private member in the House of Commons, much more so than many of those members who have risen to speak on behalf of private members. Because I have been a private member longer than they

November 6, 1978
Point of Order-Mr. MacEachen have, and being a private member on this side is a lot more difficult than being one on the other side. The points I want to make have to deal with that factor.
The first factor is that I have noticed in the last five or six years-but particularly since television has come to the House-the desire, the greed even, of the parties to organize the time to their best advantage. On the basis of that, those of us in all parties who sit on the back benches have lost the rights, the privileges and the time that we used to have in the House. It used to be at one time that during the question period the parties would take up a little bit of the time, perhaps the first 15 or 20 minutes, but I notice that the time the parties are trying to grab now is slowly extending. I am certain that parties have a legitimate function to play in our political system, but it seems to me that we have to look at isolating some of the time that is available to members of parliament in the question period and in the debates of the House for private members on both sides of the House. I find it very difficult to accept the pious remarks on behalf of the private member which are made by certain frontbenchers on the side who have been the plotters and the schemers and who have been largely successful in removing that power away from the private members.
The second point I want to make about the private member is that, while we have more opportunity in the House of Commons to raise grievances and concerns for our constituencies, in theory and in point of fact the parties have again taken over. For example, I look at the utilization of time by the parties in terms of the supply day motions. We used to be able to get some time for grievances when the supply motion was debated on the floor of the House of Commons-not much but some time. Now we get almost none. Maybe members on the other side should present some general motions and just allow the backbenchers some free form operations once in a while to make certain we have a more ample opportunity to express the concerns of our constituents.
My last point concerning the private member has to do with the question period. I mentioned that Standing Order 43 to a large extent has become and adjunct of the question period. It seems to me that those of us who sit on the back benches on this side will want to have more of the fair share of the time that is available to backbenchers in general. I know that since you have been in the chair, sir, more backbenchers on this side have been recognized on motions under Standing Order 43 and on questions. We think that is an appropriate way to go about it. But we think also that government backbenchers-irrespective of which party forms the government-should have a more legitimate right to the question period. My information is that in Great Britain questions are alternated between the opposition and the government, and the same applies in the parliament of Australia, and nobody has been able to convince me that democracy there is in worse shape than it is in Canada. It seems to me that the government belongs to [DOT] everybody and we want our fair crack at it too.


Mr. Speaker:: I indicated on two earlier occasions this evening, I think, that the discussion should end here. I did

want to extend recognition this evening to members who, throughout this debate, have been trying to get the floor. But now I think we have had ample discussion on this subject. Let me say that I want to thank those who contributed this evening for being very much to the point, very concise and very brief, in addition to being very helpful. Of course, the Chair never knows when it is going to get the best help and from what source. I have had contributions made tonight which have indicated on one hand, for example, that we should co-operate in minimizing the misuse of Standing Order 43 in order to strengthen respect for the rule, and on the other hand I have had suggestions and attitudes which have expressed points of view different from what I might have expected in respect of the use of this rule.
It is a very useful rule, one that we use very frequently and one that is an important part of our procedures. However, two or three times this evening I have heard re-emphasized the importance of a grievance procedure of some sort. The absence of that direct confrontation in a grievance procedure has been considered, I think, throughout the long debate this afternoon in the consideration of this rule which I think is so important.
The almost total absence of that grievance procedure is one of the difficulties we face in attempting to use this rule to do something which it was not intended to do but for which nevertheless there is no other convenient vehicle. Therefore, the suggestion that we should respect the rule a little more and perhaps tighten its application, but maintain very carefully the right of members of the House to take advantage of it on a consistent basis, is an observation that is certainly not lost on the Chair.
I wanted to attempt something that all hon. members agree was overdue, and that was, first of all, a very full and complete discussion on this important Standing Order. The second thing that is overdue is, after the discussion, a review by the Chair to pull together some of the salient points that have been made in the discussion of this rule. I will attempt to set them out with the greatest clarity possible.
I do not know if I can achieve it, but within a few days I should be able to respond to this very excellent and thorough discussion by attempting to bring forward a catalogue of the considerations we should have in mind in the use of this rule. We will see what ones we can usefully improve just simply for our own handling of the rule, and what ones might have to be improved in some other way. It is an undertaking which I am glad to embark upon. I only hope that it will finish with some quality. We all need to understand this rule a little better and perhaps apply it a little more with the intention for which it was originally framed. I will attempt to do that. In the meantime, this brings us in our proceedings to orders of the day.
November 6, 1978



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed from Friday, November 3, consideration in committee of Bill C-10, to amend the Income Tax Act to provide for a child tax credit and to amend the Family Allowances Act-Mr. Chretien-Mr. Laniel in the chair.
The Chairman:: Clause 1 is under consideration.
On clause 1-


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, before I defer to my colleague, the hon. member for York-Simcoe, I should like to direct a question to the minister regarding the letter of the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission. The Minister of Finance has had this letter since last Thursday. Has it been referred to the law officers of the Crown? Have the law officers of the Crown satisfied themselves that the provisions of the bill now before the House do not infringe upon or violate the spirit or the letter of the Canadian Human Rights Act?


Miss B6gin:: I have the pleasure to assure the House that 1 have received from the Minister of Justice the assurance that this bill does not infringe upon the Canadian Human Rights Act. Of course, it has been tested as per tradition. It has been certified that it does not contravene the Bill of Rights.


James Aloysius McGrath: I will defer to my colleague in a moment. The minister has referred to the opinion of her colleague, the Minister of Finance.


Miss Begin:: No. I referred to the Minister of Justice.


James Aloysius McGrath: 
Miss MacDonald:: This is the time.


Monique Bégin: The Minister of Justice is not in the House at this time. If the hon. member wants to question him, he will have to wait until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon. I have received from the Minister of Justice the assurance which I gave the committee a few moments ago.


Donald Stovel Macdonald: The letter referred to by the hon. member for St. John's East was written to the Minister of Finance. The Minister of National Health and Welfare is channelling this bill through the House for the Minister of Finance. Since the letter from the Human Rights Commissoner has been read
Family Allowances
into the record and made available to all parties, it is perfectly proper to ask if a response by the Minister of Finance to that letter has been forwarded. If so, will the Minister of National Health and Welfare make it available to us? It concerns very much a point of contention in this debate.


René Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I would like to repeat my statement since I do not think it was understood. If in his capacity the Minister of Justice (Mr. Lang) answers Mr. Fairweather, the Chief Commissioner of the Human Rights Commission, the onus will be on him to decide whether or not he wants to table this document. After the press gallery and the opposition parties received a copy of it, the movers of this bill, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Chretien) and myself received late Thursday afternoon a letter from Mr. Fairweather indicating as I said very ambiguously, that there was possible discrimination. This was proved by the fact that the opposition parties interpreted very differently the paragraph in which Mr. Fairweather expressed his concern. I am neither Minister of Justice nor Minister of Finance. It is our responsibility-and I am speaking on behalf of us both tonight-to state that we are statisfied and my colleague the Minister of Justice agrees with me on this point that the studying of Bill C-10 does not violate in any way the Human Rights Act.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, approximately three days ago I spoke privately to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance. I asked him to be prepared at some future time to give us a much more detailed breakdown concerning the expenditure savings and tax cut ramifications involved in this bill. I should like to ask the parliamentary secretary if he can supply some of that information now.
At the time I referred to this, I made reference to the initial speech of the Minister of Finance on October 31, as reported at page 653 of Hansard. At that time the minister said that this was a tax cut amounting to some $810 million a year. Basically he was referring to the $200 per child tax credit. Will the parliamentary secretary give us the details as to how many people are involved in that tax cut? What year is he referring to specifically?


Mr. Martin:: Mr. Chairman, perhaps the simplest way around this would be to table the schedule which I think will be of some assistance to the hon. member for York-Simcoe. With the leave of the House I am prepared to do that.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Chairman, nothing can be tabled while we are in committee. Perhaps the parliamentary secretary can ask the committee to put it on the record as part of Hansard. Tabling is of no use to most of us; it just goes to the table.


Alan Gray Martin: If that is agreeable, I would be happy to do it in that way.

November 6, 1978
Family Allowances


Gérald Laniel: Does the committee agree to authorize the parliamentary secretary to present the schedule to the committee for inclusion in today's Hansardl


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's Note: For table above referred to, see Appendix "A".]


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I take it this is acceptable to the committee. Could the parliamentary secretary give us some photostat copies of what presumably will be appearing in Hansard?


Alan Gray Martin: I would be pleased to do that if I can arrange it through the services of the House at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: While the services of the House are being arranged for, perhaps I could ask the parliamentary secretary a few questions on those statistics which I have not seen as yet. Could he tell us the specific year to which the $810 million refers in so-called tax cuts? What year is involved?


Alan Gray Martin: That relates to the year 1979-80.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: That is the fiscal year 1980. Could the parliamentary secretary give us similar figures for the ensuing four fiscal years, indicating what the government anticipates will be the tax cut or saving for each of those years?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, we do not have those figures available at this time. This would depend on many factors including the rate of inflation and various other things. I do not have those figures available.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I think prior to the passage of this legislation it would be important that the government supply us with its forecasts or projections as to what those tax cuts will amount to not only in the fiscal year 1980 but in the ensuing four years. The Minister of Finance said that the financing of this tax cut would take various forms, and the largest item of the savings in federal expenditures amounting to approximately $690 million a year had reference to the reduction in the family allowance from $25 and some cents to $20. Will the parliamentary secretary confirm that the statistics we will be receiving in due course give a more precise breakout as to how the $690 million expenditure reduction is arrived at and, secondly, what year this refers to?


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, we are talking about the same fiscal year, 1979-80. Of course, the amount payable in January will be $20 plus the indexed amount. I believe that will work out to $28.80. The hon. member for York-Simcoe made reference to $20. It will actually be $28.80, but it will be less, of course, than what the amount would otherwise be, indexed on the basis of $26.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I am not sure I understood the parliamentary secretary correctly. The clause that specifically refers to this in the bill before us is clause 10, which states that notwithstand-

ing subsection (1), the amount of family allowance to be paid for a month in 1979 will be $20. The parliamentary secretary says it will be $28.


An hon. Member:: With indexing it would have been that. The saving is the difference between $28.80 and $20.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, I would like a couple of minutes to go into this a little further. The figure will actually be indexed on the basis of $20. The $28.80 is what it would have been, indexed on the previous amount. With the reduction it is brought down to $20. I would like to check this out further and get back to the hon. member, if I may, a little later in the debate.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me remind the parliamentary secretary that we are dealing with hundreds of millions of dollars. I should have expected that with three officials sitting before him the answers to these elementary questions would be pretty readily forthcoming.
Perhaps I could put this question to the hon. member. It is certainly my understanding that, notwithstanding the possible indexing to a level of $28.80, the effect of clause 10 would be to reduce the 1979 monthly payment to $20, which the Minister of Finance states will result in a saving of $690 million. That presumably begins in calendar year 1979, which will mean it will be felt in fiscal year 1980. What will be the effect in fiscal year 1981?


Alan Gray Martin: As I indicated earlier, Mr. Chairman, we do not have the figures beyond 1980. It has not been past practice to make public the figures beyond one year's calculation, and we do not have them in respect of this bill.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Let me put this to the parliamentary secretary. Is it not a fact that the effect of this bill is to reduce from $28.80 to $20 per month the family allowance during 1979? If you read the Family Allowances Act, unless a subsequent bill is passed the old indexed family allowance level will be revived in every ensuing year; is that right?


Alan Gray Martin: I would just like to clarify a point made earlier. The payments will be $20 as of January, 1979. They will then be indexed in subsequent years in the normal way on a base of $20 per month.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I would ask that the Minister of National Health and Welfare and the parliamentary secretary double-check that, because on reading the act it does not appear to be clear that indexing will take place in respect of only the $20 allowance. The amendment proposed in clause 10 is that, notwithstanding subsection (1), to which I referred, the amount of the family allowance to be paid per month in 1979 will be $20. If you read the section being amended it seems very clear that indexing is on the base as set out in 1974 and that it will continue in that way.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, the understanding is quite clear that the payment will be $20 for 1979 and indexing will take place in the normal way. In 1980 the payments will be higher,

based on the indexing which will be carried out just as in the past. In other words, what this means is a new base starting in 1979.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, 1 would appreciate it if the parliamentary secretary would check that once again with his officials to make sure that is the effect of this amendment. Because as we read it, that does not appear to be the case. Let me draw the parliamentary secretary's attention to the actual wording of the Family Allowances Act. Section 13(1) sets out very clearly that family allowance from 1974 on will be indexed. I presume that section will still be in place, that all we are doing by the existing bill is making a special allowance for 1979, and that, notwithstanding section 13(1), in 1979 the actual family allowance will only be $20 per month.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, that is the section of the Family Allowances Act being amended by this bill and we will just have to take a look at it with our officials. The hon. member for York-Simcoe is partially right. The payment will be $20 per month for 1979, but I am not sure that he is correct in his assertion that this in any way precludes the indexing program which will carry on into 1980 and beyond.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, judging from the parliamentary secretary's response, I do not think that he comprehends the full thrust of what I am saying. The Family Allowances Act as amended, if this bill is passed, provides for a $28.80 payment per person, but only for the one year unless the parliamentary secretary can show me otherwise. That amendment is simply to the effect that during 1979 the rate shall be reduced to $20. My question is twofold. Can either the minister or the parliamentary secretary show me anything in this bill that amends the Family Allowances Act further than that; and, secondly, if that is the effect of the amendment-the $690 million saving referred to by the Minister of Finance- then it provides for a saving only during 1979, because immediately the old system will be put in place after 1979 and there will be a higher cost to the treasury in the ensuing years.


Alan Gray Martin: I have consulted with the officials and I find that section 13(1), subsection (1) of the Family Allowances Act of 1973 does indeed provide for this indexation. I see the point being made by the hon. member. He mentions section 13( 1)(1) as the section being repealed, and I think we are referring here to section 13(1.1). Certainly the suggestion that the member is putting forward is indeed incorrect. If there is language which must be reviewed here we can do that, but it is clearly the intent of this amendment to change the base for only 1979; then the indexation will carry on in the normal way subsequent to that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, if the parliamentary secretary would check that out, perhaps tomorrow we could deal more fully with the true impact of clause 10 of the amending bill before us. I would point out to the parliamentary secretary, if he has not looked at section 13(1.1), that section that he is repealing is simply an earlier section which provided for 1976
Family Allowances
that the ongoing family allowance rate would be $22.08, and that confirms what I am saying. For 1976, notwithstanding the indexing that was in place, the amendment of that year stated that the rate would be $22.08. In this bill the government is proposing that, notwithstanding the over-all effect of the section, the rate will actually be $20. My point is that, just as the old indexing took over in 1976, the same will occur in 1980 if there is no further amendment.


Alan Gray Martin: If I understand the hon. member, what he is saying is that he is not satisfied that the amendments as they are presently written will provide for the indexation to start once again. The intention is very clear that the indexation will start once again, and it is merely a matter of clearing up with the officials whether the wording of the amendment is indeed accomplishing that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps we can come back to this tomorrow when there will be a further explanation concerning the true impact of both the anticipated tax cut and the expenditure savings which the government is representing will help finance what it is proposing.
I would like to direct a question to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. In the brochure put out with regard to the refundable child tax credit, various statements are made, including the statement on page 2 that the combined effect of these three changes-referring to the family allowance reduction, reducing the higher exemption in the personal income tax for dependent children aged 16 to 17 and the elimination of the $50 per child reduction-will affect 1.9 million families with the greatest need and provide a small decrease for 1.7 million families with incomes above the national average. Those two figures add up to 3.6 million families. Could the minister explain why, when we check the income tax returns for the calendar year 1976, there are only 1.7 million taxpayers who reported, either on a non-taxable basis or on a taxable basis, any family allowances? Would the minister give us the basis for her statement that 3.6 million families will benefit?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has not given the title of that document or the name of the company that printed it. As far as I can see from the cover, he is referring to a publication by the National Council on Welfare. This organization is an advisory body to me and prints its own opinions based on its own understanding of the various matters in the field of social policy. I do not know the basis for their calculations, and I would point out that it is an independent organization.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I would ask the minister if she disagrees with the document. Presumably she has had an opportunity to review it, so may I take it that what is stated in this brochure is correct, as far as the minister is concerned?


Monique Bégin: I do not have a copy of the document with me. I read it with great interest, and I was particularly pleased that such a body-with half its membership composed of people

November 6, 1978
Family Allowances
with low incomes and the other half of people who are professionals, working in the field to ease poverty-approved the new tax credit.
I did notice a few small errors, but I have not checked the figures. I do not recall the errors I noticed, but they were not important to the people working on the bill. For instance, I do not think that the council knew that the concept was based on net income. They may have thought that the tax credit would be subtracted from taxes and owed by fathers, which is not the case. If taxes are owed by fathers, the income tax people will get after them in the usual way and in a separate operation. Once again, I did not check the figures as to their accuracy, but the officials consider the work of the council to be satisfactory.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: 
Gérald Laniel: Order, please. The hon. member's time has expired.


Mr. Epp:: Mr. Chairman, the minister indicated that the mother will receive the monthly cheque for $20 as well as the $200 maximum per year for every child. I should like to ask the minister to confirm whether the cheque will be paid to the mother. Also, if marriage breakdown has occurred and the father has gained custody of the children through court action, who will then receive the family allowance cheque?


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I have answered that question a few times already, but I think it is important to clarify it. Mothers will receive the cheque for the new child tax credit in all cases where mothers already receive the family allowance. In the second instance the hon. member raised, where the father or any other person has the legal custody of the child, that person will receive the tax credit for the child.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I should like to come back to the line of questioning I was pursuing because I think the minister misunderstands my point. Nobody disagrees with the compassionate side of what we are talking about tonight, but I think we owe it not only to the House but to the people of Canada to understand exactly the impact of these amendments on the revenue of this nation. I should like to ask the parlia-mentry secretary to supply us with the background information that presumably was prepared to arrive at the various estimates set out in the initial speech of the Minister of Finance concerning this bill.


Alan Gray Martin: Mr. Chairman, the hon. member has served on many committees of this House and I have served on some of them with him. I think we are all quite used to the fact that when you receive figures on schedules you normally accept those schedules and do not obtain the various working calculations behind them. If we did, we would be faced with a multitude of figures for each of the committees and for every report from the private sector.
I submit that the detail of the changes are shown on the schedule. That is what we are looking at. It seems unreasonable to suggest we should come up with all the detailed working papers and computer runs that would be necessary to attach to Hansard in order to give the hon. member the type of background information I assume he is seeking.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I wish the parliamentary secretary and the minister would get their act together. The minister just finished telling me that what I was asking was of such an elementary nature that I could put the numbers together
November 6, 1978

myself. This is their bill for which they are asking the House to give approval. If these are elementary facts, surely it is not too much to ask the parliamentary secretary to give us the basis for them. He cannot buffalo me with this computer run stuff. What we need are the supporting facts showing the taxpayers involved, the tax side and the expenditure side.
We are led to believe there will be an $810 million per year revenue cost and the expenditure savings will be $690 million in the case of the family allowances. I can only presume the Minister of Finance will have back-up information. I am not talking about computer runs but basic figures that would enable him to say that. If these figures cannot be produced, we can only guess that they have been pulled out of the air in the hope that they would not be questioned and the bill would be passed without proper documentation.


Monique Bégin: Mr. Chairman, I would not want to interrupt the hon. member's dialogue with my colleague. He referred to savings made through reductions in family allowances which are part of the money used to create the new child tax credit. This is very easy to figure out. I will give him the figure if he does not have "Facts on Social Policy", which apparently he does not. It is arrived at by calculating the reduction of $8 per month times 12 months, times the number of cheques issued for the children of Canada-7.2 million. That amounts to $690 million. The tax exemption of $50 and the cancellation of the 16 and 17 year olds special tax privileges have been run by computer in the department. I do not have the working papers, which I do not think are necessary.
It seems to me very important to understand that the program finances itself entirely through the reduction in family allowances-the cancellation of a child tax credit of $50, a tax exemption in fact, and the cancellation of fiscal privileges for the 16 and 17-year olds.


James Aloysius McGrath: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I want to place on the record our concern about the fact that the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs is sitting tonight at a time when the House is in committee of the whole on an important finance bill. This bill has important social implications; we can see that. It deals essentially with family allowances but there are members who have to be at the finance committee who would like to be here. I want to put that to you as a grievance.


Alan Gray Martin: On that point of order, Mr. Chairman, I understand the reason there is a meeting of the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs this evening is that it was specially requested by the finance critic of the official opposition, the hon. member for York-Simcoe. Indeed, we on this side realized the inconvenience that having a meeting tonight would create for members on both sides of this House. However, the meeting was held in order to meet the request of the hon. member for York-Simcoe.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Chairman, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to delay the committee, but I cannot allow the
Family Allowances
parliamentary secretary to go misinformed. The fact is we were put under a guillotine with regard to Bill C-7. I said initially we could hear Governor Bouey of the Bank of Canada. The governor informed us today that the only time he could be here was at eight o'clock tonight, because he goes to Vancouver tomorrow. I said we would not be difficult and if we could accommodate him tonight at eight o'clock, we would. It was the government's move to shorten our time as far as Bill C-7 is concerned, and I hope the view of the parliamentary secretary will in no way prevail.


Gérald Laniel: We are getting into debate. I do not think we are making progress. As chairman of the committee, although I might sympathize with some of the grievances, I have no authority to organize the work of the House. That is done between House leaders. The government has the responsibility of putting forward the business.
It being ten o'clock p.m. it is my duty to rise, report progress and request leave to consider the bill again at the next sitting of the House.
Progess reported.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I trust Your Honour will permit me to point out before this day ends that it was 111 years ago today, on November 6, 1867-


Eldon Mattison Woolliams: That you were born.


Stanley Howard Knowles: -that the House of Commons of Canada held its first sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Stanley was there!


Stanley Howard Knowles: How well we have commemorated that day is for someone else to say, but at least I think we have proven that the House of Commons is still alive and well 111 years later.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I am sure hon. members appreciate the memory of the hon. member, or his endurance. It is appreciated that this fact has been brought to our attention. At the same time, all of us have a responsibility to continue in the right direction.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.
[Stage Direction]
November 6, 1978
Adjournment Debate

Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on October 31, 1978, I directed a question to the Minister of State (Environment) (Mr. Marchand) with regard to the problems that have arisen in the forestry service of Canada because of the government's announcement of cutbacks. While my question related to the forestry industry, the forestry ministry and the agencies of the forestry department, and the impact of that department's work on the industry in Canada, the purport of my question in relation to government cutbacks applies to cutbacks of every scientific endeavour of every department of government.
I have not heard for a long time such an outpouring of concern by scientists with regard to the programs that will be affected by this latest series of cutbacks. The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras) said he intended to be tough. He should also have said the government intended to be stupid in the ill-considered and irrational way in which it has approached these cutbacks.
In my question with respect to forestry management I asked that the government give consideration to the formation of a task force to look at the future of the Canadian Forestry Service and the development and continuation of the federal forestry program. I asked the minister whether he had received that request for the setting up of a task force. He said he had. That request was put to him in a telex on October 12, 1978. The members of the Forestry Institute wanted him to examine the impact of the cuts and the whole relationship with the forestry service. That task force is important not only because it was requested by the specialists in the field but because its report was to be available quickly, much more quickly than was suggested by the minister. The date suggested by the Institute is December 15, 1978.
They asked as well that the cutbacks and changes be deferred until the report was received. That was a reasonable request, Mr. Speaker. In answer to the second request, the minister indicated he would consider the representation which was made by me, and I think it is important that he should do so and examine the matter in the light of the importance of this Institute and its relation to the forest industry.
The forest industry is vast. One of every ten Canadian jobs is connected with forest products. These products sell for $12 billion, 14 per cent of the value of all manufactured goods in Canada. Almost one dollar in every five earned abroad comes from forest products. The industry is our largest source of foreign exchange. Its earnings rival those of agriculture and minerals combined. A third of the world's exports of lumber, pulp and paper come from Canada. About $1 billion in tax revenue accrue to the government from forest products.
When a member of parliament is faced with a mindless and ill-considered cutback program embarked upon by a government which then, as a result of pure politics, changes its position and damages another agency of government, it is

legitimate to say that perhaps the time has come when, with respect to these programs, and scientific programs in particular, a rational approach should be taken. So far, a rational approach has not been adopted, particularly with respect to forest products. That is why it is so important to consider favourably this request, coming from people in the Forest Management Institute, so as to ensure that any changes are made in an orderly manner. There are going to be losses. There are going to be changes. But I think we have to consider the importance of the forest industry and whether or not replacement funding can be raised to offset federal spending reductions in the time available, so that we may not lose the continuity of forest management research which has been conducted by the institute. While there is time, I think it is important that the government, through the parliamentary secretary, indicate to us that the ministry will consent to the establishment of this task force.
There have been representations that the specialists involved in the forest industry and in scientific areas of government be placed in other areas. Let us think about it for a moment. Where can we place, except in government, highly specialized men and women? I ask the government to think of the human side of it as well as the scientific side. Programs are stopped, careers are interrupted, and if this approach at rationalization as set forth in the request for the task force which I raised in the House of Commons is undertaken, I believe, with the expertise which is available from those men and women in the forestry service and in other scientific endeavours, ways could be found to give some respect to the proposition of restraint while at the same time not driving a horse and cart through these very important scientific programs which form the basis for job creation potential in those industries as we go down the road.
I ask these questions and request an answer because the answer is important for the people involved in the maintenance of the programs not only in the short term but also in the long term. It is important in the long term because of the employment, the job creation and the technology creation potential which is inherent in these forestry programs, which ought not be interrupted for any purpose. At least, they ought not to be interrupted in a mindless, irrational and blind way. This is the way this government has proceeded, and it has affected research programs in this country mightily. I ask the government to reconsider that mindless and irrational approach.


Mr. Jack Pearsall (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Fisheries and the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. member knows, the minister has in place a Canadian forestry advisory council chaired by Mr. R. C. Rogers, chairman and chief executive officer of Crown Zellerbach Canada Limited. It has members from labour, industry, the provinces and universities.
The minister met with the council today and asked for its advice on the federal role in promoting the rational use of Canada's forest resources, the needs, priorities and methods
November 6, 1978

for co-ordinating forest research and development in Canada, and on important problems relating to the consumptive and non-consumptive use of Canada's forests. He also discussed with the council the need for a thorough-going review of forest research in Canada.
Since such a review would include the issues raised by staff members of the Forest Management Institute in their telex to the minister, it would not seem necessary to establish the kind of task force suggested by FMI staff.


AIRPORTS-FOOD AND LIQUOR CONCESSION AT DORVAL
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Mr. Speaker, the question I wish to raise tonight has to do with the monopoly which appears to exist in the food and liquor concession at Dorval airport. While I raise this specific question I would like at the same time to open up the whole question of the government's method of tendering for airport services and concessions. This issue is not new. We have heard about Sky Shops and dutyfree stores. We heard about the car rental fiasco of 1976, and now we have reference to this rather extraordinary monopoly involving a firm known as AFC.
The airport business is big business. In the year 1977 some 13 million passengers went through Canada's seven major international airports particularly at Toronto, Montreal, Vancouver, Edmonton and Winnipeg. Given this huge potential, one would hope and expect that the government's tendering policy would provide not only the best service but also a fair return to the Ministry of Transport and a climate in which an open and fair opportunity for all those who may be interested in tendering for this business is provided.
This does not, however, seem to be the case. After 14 years the Ministry of Transport finally changed its policy with respect to car rental concessions in 1976. Two years later and with lawsuits of almost every description being filed against the Ministry of Transport and the minister himself for breach of contract, we are now informed that there is going to be a policy revision in this regard later this year.
In 1976, at the time the minister outlined the new policy, he promised open, competitive access for Canadian firms to the car rental business at Transport Canada airports. Regrettably, this has not come to pass. Budget Rent-A-Car, for example, in its call for unrestricted tendering for car rental concessions, called the present distinction between open and domestic bidders artificial and discriminatory. Holiday Rent-A-Car has complained that Canadian rental systems do not provide open access to airports nor the opportunity to compete on an equitable basis. Mr. James Tennant, vice-president of corporate development of Holiday Rent-A-Car points out that MOT did not accept realistic bids in 1976. They accepted Host's bid, which was unrealistic, and not Holiday's. Since then Host has only paid a small portion of its rental. Why Host is withholding payment and is still allowed to operate continues to be a mystery.
Adjournment Debate
In July of this year MOT sued Host for $863,679.96, which represents the total arrears on monthly payments. From July to this date, this amount probably exceeds $1 million. Explanations are not forthcoming. Other competitive companies are infuriated, and it is passing strange that Host was one of those companies which did not complain about the car rental policy in 1976. In the midst of all this it continues to do business at Canada's airports without paying the rent.
Why the minister has not invoked section 27 of the tender contract, thus cancelling the contract, nobody really knows, nor is an explanation forthcoming. This issue is further clouded by the fact that the minister's brother-in-law is a member of the legal firm representing Host. Also, he happens to be a federal Fiberal candidate in the forthcoming general election.
Conflict throughout MOT in its tendering policy is the rule rather than the exception. What is happening is that it is opening up more suspicion, causing cynicism and casting doubt upon any measure of fairness. In short, it creates doubt about the integrity of the government.
I now turn to the example of AFC. Apparently this firm has had a 20-year monopolistic lease to operate a food and liquor concession at Dorval airport. Today there seems to be a debate within MOT as to whether tenders might be called when that concession's contract expires in 1981. If tenders are called, it is my understanding that AFC is under no obligation to release its financial rent or sales figures to potential tender bidders. This gives an enormous advantage to AFC, and any semblance of equity is thrown out the window.
This issue raises several questions. First, why is there some doubt on the part of MOT as to whether or not to call tenders? Why is MOT not in a position now to state categorically that it will call tenders? What about AFC and its near bankruptcy in 1962? Was MOT satisfied that it had to negotiate its contract for lower percentages and cuts in revenue? It would also be of interest to know what provisions the tender contract has which provide for a company to renegotiate if that concessionaire has financial problems. Does MOT feel that it is fair to other competitive bidders? Was MOT satisfied that it gave AFC Fimited $76,352 in an effort to streamline AFC's operation and to make it more efficient?
What about the precedent that is established here? We are now told MOT has a clause in its new contract requiring disclosure of sales figures, but AFC's contract predates this. Does AFC predate the new clause because of the many contract renewals given to it without calling for tenders? We had a renewal for ten years in 1961 and another renewal for another ten years in 1971. One wonders what legislative or moral authority allows MOT to renew the contract continually without tender. One would have to assume that it if goes on ad infinitum, AFC could always predate the new clause in its contract. These are questions which should be answered categorically and unequivocally. I hope the parliamentary secretary will be in a position to do just that this evening.

November 6, 1978
Adjournment Debate


Charles Lapointe: Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, we have the usual hotchpotch of the members opposite when they confuse everything, the rental of cars in airports related to an alleged scandal about Sky Shops as well as the presence of a Liberal candidate who as such should not be allowed to do any business in Canada. And the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski) even seems to be shocked because we are reviewing our policy. It seems to me, Mr. Speaker, that it is wise to do so. As far as car rentals are concerned, it seems important to me that in Canadian airports we ought to encourage as much as possible the companies held by a majority of Canadian interests.
Coming back to the contract of the AFC Company Limited-

I should like to remind the hon. member that originally this lease was granted to AFC Limited in 1961 for a period of five years. It was renewable for two further terms of five years, each at the option of the concessionaires. The authority of the governor in council was obtained in 1971 to provide for a further five-year option to the lease, from 1976 to 1981, for the purpose of maintaining a sufficient period to amortize capital investments of $350,000 which had to be made on an immediate basis to meet traffic demands. The rates payable by AFC under the lease were increased in 1976 for the five-year extension period.
When the matter was being considered in 1971, there were a number of unknown factors associated with the proposed opening of Mirabel in 1974. The consequent shifting of traffic was expected to make a somewhat unattractive climate in which to go to tender in 1976. In light of Transport Canada's requirement to meet an immediate public demand and the uncertainties posed by Mirabel, a decision was made to proceed with the improvements in the restaurant and to extend the lease to provide the lessee with sufficient time to amortize his investment. As a general policy, concession leases are granted as a result of public tender calls, and their terms reflect the period of amortization necessary for the successful tenderer to amortize his investment.
The question of disclosure of information has been of some concern to Transport Canada for some time. In consequence of this concern, a clause was developed and is now included in all concession tenders whereby the successful tenderer agrees that, in the concluding years of the agreement, the department may publish the total of the gross sales by outlet reported by the concessionaire in each year of the agreement for the purpose of public tender information. This provision has been included in all new concession agreements since the latter part of 1976.
A new airport concession tendering policy was approved in July 1976. The purpose of this policy is to ensure that local entrepreneurs and other interested parties are provided with

the opportunity to compete on an equal basis through the public tender process for the operation of concessions at Transport Canada airports. While this policy has not posed any major problems, it is being reviewed to determine where it can be improved.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS-FORESTRY-CLOSING OF GOVERNMENT LABORATORIES
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, this evening I want to pursue the issue of the reduction of moneys for, and the closure of, forestry research laboratories brought about by the federal government. I have raised this issue on a number of occasions. On October 19 I put the specific question to the minister, and I did so again today.
It is my contention that the government's restraint program is both arbitrary and irrational as it pertains to Canadian forestry services. What we have seen is that cutbacks and the elimination of important government services, because of the general restraint program, are having a devastating effect on the morale and the work of people in government forestry research laboratories.
Last August, out of the blue, the Department of the Environment was told to cut its expenditures by $40.5 million, including $11.7 million from its science support programs. This was a result of the general restraint program of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Andras). The closure of forests research stations is supposed to save the government $2 million, and the transfer of two forests products labs to the private sector will supposedly result in another $3.3 million saving. As I pointed out earlier today during the question period, because of tax deductions the saving in reality will only amount to about $800,000. The key question before this House is, will the reduction in government research and development and the privatizing of government laboratories have a beneficial effect on the forestry industry of Canada?
Why is the forestry industry so important, Mr. Speaker? We find that one of every ten Canadian jobs is connected with forest products, and these products sell for $12 billion, or 14 per cent of our over-all manufactured goods. In other words, the forestry industry is a crucial sector in Canada. Therefore, it is important that this industry be enhanced in any way possible.
One of the very important long-range effects on that industry is related to the level of research and development in this country. The private sector in the past has relied very heavily on government research and development. In reality, Mr. Speaker, when you look at the figures, the record of the private sector in research and development in forestry has been a very dismal one. For example, in 1975 the wood products industry invested only .31 cents per dollar of shipment revenue on research and development compared to 2.5 cents per dollar by the electrical products industry. As a result, this low research and development expenditure has meant a lower productivity and employment rate in the forestry industry compared to
November 6, 1978

other sectors of the economy which spent much more on research and development.
When we look at research further, we find that in the private sector large companies carry out research that is mainly geared to design and marketing. This is quite natural because it enhances or maximizes their profits. The 8,000 small companies in the forestry sector hardly spend any money on research and development as they are small family affairs and cannot afford to. Therefore it is left to the government to fill the void. It is the government labs that work at the conceptual stage, bringing an idea along to the point where the private sector can take it over at the marketing and productivity stage.
For example, it has been government work that has led us to further development of non-toxic treatment of wood chips and a safer method of toxic effluent disposal. They have done tremendous work, for example, in a lab in my constituency on control of the spruce budworm. In other words, the role of government labs is crucial to the future well-being of our forestry industry.
What I regret is that this Liberal government, listening to Conservative cries for government restraint, has further arbitrarily cut back on procedures, undermining the forest industry. Its approach is irrational and arbitrary. We have seen, for example, the Petawawa forest station, that has been working for over 60 years doing world renowned research, being made the subject of cutback. The minister first announced it was going to be closed, but because of public outcry and public uproar from the scientific community the government reversed its decision. In the process of reversing its decision and keeping the Petawawa base open, the government caused a catastrophe in two other areas, the fire research centre and the forest management centre in Ottawa. One hundred employees were told out of the blue that in order to keep Petawawa open half of them would lose their jobs, the budget would be cut in half and that the other 50 would be transferred to Petawawa . All this was in light of study after study which showed the necessity for keeping those two institutes here in Ottawa close by the other agencies which they deal with, such as the National Research Council.
The government's approach makes no sense. There is no scientific rational basis for their flip-flop in policy, this arbitrary cuback and this ridiculous privatization which will not do the industry any good in the long run, for reasons which 1 have described.
I appeal to the parliamentary secretary and to the minister that if they are concerned about the state of research and development in the forestry industry in Canada, they should
Adjournment Debate
keep Petawawa open with a full complement and reverse their decision to close the two labs in Ottawa and transfer them to Petawawa. Surely, if the minister believes in the importance of research and development, he will reverse this irrational, arbitrary and unproductive decision.


Albert John (Jack) Pearsall: Mr. Speaker, of all the members in this House I can say to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) that I totally agree with his remarks, being one who has been associated with one of the largest pulp and paper companies in the world, MacMillan Bloedel, for the past 35 years. I agree that the forestry industry is a vital part of the Canadian economy and that a vigorous research program is essential to assure its future.
The minister regrets that any reduction in the budget of the Canadian Forestry Service has to be made. However, the Department of Environment was required to reduce its budget by $40 million plus, as the hon. member has mentioned. A reduction of that magnitude means that no one element of the department could remain untouched. Every effort was made to make the cuts in such a way that the high levels of service and essential research can be maintained.
It should be noted that part of the government's intention in cutting the departmental budget was to provide funds for more immediate economic stimulation measures. Some $15 to $20 million of these funds annually will be channelled into joint projects with the provinces to improve forest management. These joint projects will be conducted under agreements between the Department of Regional Economic Expansion and provincial agencies. Environment Canada, through the Canadian Forestry Service, will provide technical and scientific input and advice.
As for the matter of privatization of the forest products laboratories, this has been under consideration for quite some time. In fact, the Canadian Forestry Advisory Council recommended in its 1973 report to the minister of the environment at that time that these laboratories be taken over by private industry. As the minister has stated before in this House, the total budget for these two laboratories was $7.3 million. If privatization were to become a reality, the continuing federal contribution of $4 million per year to the support of these laboratories would ensure the maintenance of a long-term research and development program.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until two o'clock p.m. tomorrow.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.36 p.m., without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

November 6, 1978


APPENDIX
[Stage Direction]
Table 2
Child Credit Benefits Payable, 1979
Number of children
[Stage Direction]
Family Net Income
[Stage Direction]
One
[Stage Direction]
Two
[Stage Direction]
Three
[Stage Direction]
Four
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
$
[Stage Direction]
Under 18,000
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
400
[Stage Direction]
600
[Stage Direction]
800
[Stage Direction]
20,000
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
300
[Stage Direction]
500
[Stage Direction]
700
[Stage Direction]
22,000
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
400
[Stage Direction]
600
[Stage Direction]
24,000
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
300
[Stage Direction]
500
[Stage Direction]
26,000
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
400
[Stage Direction]
28,000
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
300
[Stage Direction]
30,000
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
200
[Stage Direction]
32,000
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
100
[Stage Direction]
34,000 Benefits are those payable in
[Stage Direction]
1979 on the basis of 1978 incomes.
[Stage Direction]
Table 3 Federal Fiscal Impact of Child Benefit Changes 1978-79
[Stage Direction]
1979-80
[Stage Direction]
Item
[Stage Direction]
Expenditures Revenues Expenditures Revenues ($ millions)
[Stage Direction]
Refundable tax credit
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
- -810
[Stage Direction]
Reduction in family allowances Elimination of current $50
[Stage Direction]
-170
[Stage Direction]
-40
[Stage Direction]
-690 - 130
[Stage Direction]
child tax credit Modification of exemptions for
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
+35
[Stage Direction]
- +260
[Stage Direction]
16 and 17 year old children
[Stage Direction]
-
[Stage Direction]
+5
[Stage Direction]
+25
[Stage Direction]
Total Effect on financial requirements
[Stage Direction]
-170 -170
[Stage Direction]
0
[Stage Direction]
-690 -655 -35
[Stage Direction]
Tuesday, November 7, 1978