1979-12-07

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that our chicken producers are faced with serious problems because of the high import quotas accorded by Industry, Trade and Commerce, and due to the fact that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) said in a statement in this House on April 13, 1976, that the government should transfer the control of all dairy import quotas from ITC to the Canadian Dairy Commission, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the Minister of Agriculture be consistent with his philosophy of 1976 and ask his government to transfer the control of chicken import quotas from ITC to the Canadian Chicken Marketing Agency.


Mr. Speaker:: The presentation of such a motion under Standing Order 43 requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FINANCE
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in light of the reappointment announced this morning of the governor of the Bank of Canada before the standing committee on finance had an opportunity to make its views known on tight money and high interest rates, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House condemns the reappointment of governor Bouey and his deputy without prior consultation with the standing committee on finance.


Mr. Speaker:: The motion can be introduced only upon unanimous consent? Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent necessity as a result of a statement made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) this morning at his press conference, that there was concern within the CBC regarding an individual who allegedly assisted a KGB representative in Canada, and I might add that this individual had been previously identified in the Ontario legislature by the attorney general of Ontario as CBC producer Mark Starowicz. I move, seconded by the hon. member for York North (Mr. Gamble):
Whereas CBC producer Mark Starowicz assisted KGB agent Konstantine Geyvandov in compiling information on certain persons, allegedly on six different occasions, and also promised "to act on behalf of Soviet interests", that the CBC be required to give a public explanation as to why Mark Starowicz continues as producer of the public opinion influencing program "Sunday Morning" and, finally, as to why he is being considered at this very moment to head all CBC national news and public affairs programming.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for debate, pursuant to Standing Order 43, only upon unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SOCIAL SECURITY
Hon. Monique Begin (Saint-Leonard-Anjou):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, 1 ask for the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with an urgent matter of pressing necessity.
Considering the new data published yesterday by Statistics Canada on aging in Canada, indicating that the number of persons aged 65 or over will more than triple during the next

December 7, 1979
five decades, and that the number of destitute single women


Some hon. Members:: Agreed, will quadruple, I move, seconded by the hon. member for
Sainte-Marie (Mr. Malepart):


Some hon. Members:: No.
That the government immediately allocate the required sum to increase the pension supplement granted to retired and needy single persons, to raise them

above the threshold of poverty.


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Pursuant to Standing Order 43, such motion can be introduced for debate only with unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRITICISM OK MINISTER AND NATIONAL ENERGY BOARD- MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. John Rodriguez (Nickel Belt):: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the Canadian government and the National Energy Board have approved substantial exports of heating oil to the United States while domestic inventories have shrunk, and whereas Canada now faces an immediate energy crisis, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes):
That this House has no confidence in both the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the National Energy Board, and urges that they be dismissed immediately for their stupidity.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jesse Flis (Parkdale-High Park):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. It concerns the case of Mr. Richard Hanzlik, on whose behalf I approached the Secretary of State for External Affairs last August requesting her to petition the government of Czechoslovakia to grant Mr. Hanzlik's daughter permission to visit him in Canada, as he has not seen her since 1965. I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That the Secretary of State for External Affairs contact the government of Czechoslovakia forthwith and directly request that Danuse Hanzlik be granted permission to visit her father in Canada, since he may not return there himself without government reprisals.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be introduced for debate at this time, pursuant to the Standing Order, only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*
[DOT] (ino)


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity to put forward a motion which I hope will receive the unanimous consent of the House. Regional agricultural exhibitions across Canada, like the Atlantic Winter Fair, provide a vital showcase for farmers and local trade and industry. Accordingly, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Dartmouth-Halifax East (Mr. Forrestall):
That this House request the Minister of Agriculture to consider the reinstatement of the financial assistance formerly provided for the construction of multipurpose exhibition buildings which can be used for agricultural and trade fairs.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented only by unanimous consent. Is there unanimous consent?


INTERNATIONAL PEACE DAY
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas today is International Peace Day and the need for world peace has never been greater than it is at the present time, and whereas countries such as Sweden have implemented measures to ban the sale of war toys, I ask leave to move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince Albert (Mr. Hovdebo):
That this House ban the sale of war toys in Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: Such a motion can be presented for discussion at this time only by unanimous consent. Is there such consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 7, 1979


FISHERIES
Mr. Charles Haliburton (South West Nova):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, 1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans is in the process of reviewing fisheries policies in general and plans to introduce a white paper in the spring, and given the importance of enabling members of Parliament to participate in this process and provide an input in the formation of fisheries policy, in particular of licensing policies, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Cardigan (Mr. MacDonald):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry commence forthwith an examination of proposed licensing policies on the east and west coasts, including the Levelton and Sinclair studies, and that the committee be authorized to take such evidence and undertake such travel as may be necessary for that purpose.


Mr. Speaker:: Introduction of this motion for debate would require the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the government announced last evening the decision to export 3.75 trillion cubic feet of natural gas at a time that Canadians face a cold winter, threatened by an energy shortage, and whereas these energy resources should be used to replace imported oil and expand the usage of natural gas both by consumers and industries in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nunatsiaq (Mr. Ittinuar):
That this House condemns the government's stupid and treacherous act of selling out our birthright.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Leader of the Opposition):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the Prime Minister a question
Oral Questions
concerning yesterday's announcement by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources about exports of natural gas.
Could I remind the hon. gentleman that our government obtained from the United States a commitment that if there were to be any pre-build of the Alaska gas pipeline, it could only be authorized if there were a commitment to build the entire line? Could I hear from the Prime Minister whether that commitment obtained from Mr. Schlesinger last March still stands?


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Mr. Speaker, that commitment stands.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, if that commitment stands how is it that in the statement of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources yesterday there was the following assertion by the minister:
It will be up to the sponsors of the Alaska natural gas pipeline to respond with firm commitments for the entire pipeline.
This phrase obviously indicates that there is no firm commitment, that we are asking them for a firm commitment and that we have authorized the export before obtaining this commitment. How is it that now we are relying on the private sector to make commitments when we had obtained one from the government of the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the export is conditional on the commitment being given and honoured.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Mr. Speaker, does that mean that when the pipeline is built-if it is built-there will be supplies from Prudhoe Bay which will permit us to get exchanges for the amount of gas that we have sold to the United States? In other words, will we proceed with the arrangements which we had discussed with the United States, selling gas to the United States now in return for equal amounts of gas which we would get from them later?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition will recall that swaps were discussed but were not a formal condition of the agreement. What proceeding with the pipeline will mean is that Canada will be in a position, through the Dempster hook-up, to take advantage of Canadian requirements for gas in the Mackenzie Delta.


NATURAL GAS PIPELINE TO MARITIMES
Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, may I ask the Prime Minister why, in the announcement made by the minister yesterday with respect to the export of natural gas, the maritime provinces were ignored and no guarantee was given that as part of this policy a gas pipeline would be built into the maritime provinces?
In the light of this momentous decision, is the Prime Minister now prepared to give a guarantee, and is he now prepared to say that additional revenues which are made available to

December 7, 1979
Oral Questions
Canada will be used to finance this vital link in our energy distribution system to the Atlantic provinces?
Right Eton. Joe Clark (Prime Minister): Mr. Speaker, the guarantee has already been given to the maritime provinces that there will be an extension of the Q and M pipeline beyond Quebec if it is the desire of the Atlantic provinces to have that kind of extension. As I have made clear several times in the House and as has my colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, this is part of the comprehensive energy package proposed by this government to ensure that we are not again caught in a situation of having to increase our reliance upon foreign sources.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 know the Prime Minister on an earlier date said that a government headed by him would begin the construction and planning immediately of this gas pipeline. I want to ask him today when the planning and construction of the pipeline will begin, and how does he propose to finance it?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am not sure to which pipeline the hon. member is referring. There is an application, as he knows, for a pipeline to Quebec-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Gas pipeline.


Charles Joseph Clark: -gas pipeline to Quebec before the National Energy Board. The question may relate- it was not clear-to the possible extension of that line beyond Quebec to the maritime provinces. My commitment in relation to that pipeline was that we would be prepared to move on it as soon as there was agreement on the part of the maritime provinces that that was necessary. That agreement, naturally, will not come until there is some further certain knowledge as to the gas potential off Sable Island. Once there is agreement from the maritime provinces that such a pipeline extension is necessary, we will proceed immediately with it.
Naturally, it will be helpful to us, to the Atlantic provinces and to the whole of Canada if there is support in this House for the comprehensive energy package which we have put forward, one element of which would allow Canada to proceed with the extension of the Q and M line to the maritime region if that is desired.


POSSIBILITY OF OIL SHORTAGES THIS WINTER
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the right hon. Prime Minister. Why did the Prime Minister allow the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources to mislead this House and the people of Canada about fuel oil supplies by describing the situation as "tight but manageable", when the Prime Minister admitted this morning at his press conference, and 1 quote, "We knew all along that shortages were possible"?
[Mr. MacEachen.)


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member, I am sure, in the interest of integrity would want to quote to the House of Commons the whole of my statement at my press conference this morning, in which we indicated that we knew there would possibly be shortages, given certain circumstances such as an unusually severe winter, given excessive consumer demand and that kind of thing. We have been receiving from the National Energy Board monthly indications of their views on the current situation in Canada. Until recently their view was that the situation in Canada was tight but manageable. That was the information that I and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources communicated to the House of Commons.
There is now a view, as a result primarily of unusual increases in consumption in Canada, that there might be some limited interruptions. My hope is that by drawing the attention of Canadians to the possibility of limited interruptions, caused in large measure by excessive demand, we can encourage Canadians in all parts of the country to exercise much more conservative practices in relation to energy use, consequently avoiding the possibility of shortages anywhere in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I do not believe the phrase "we knew all along" squares with the answer just given by the Prime Minister, and 1 have given notice that I intend to raise this as a question of privilege.
By way of a supplementary question, may 1 ask the Prime Minister, since the National Energy Board, on the one hand, is telling the government that oil shortages are possible and, on the other hand, is still permitting the export of fuel oil to the United States and now has also approved massive exports of natural gas to the United States, how can the people of Canada have any faith in the National Energy Board and in this government about energy supplies? Why does the Prime Minister not admit that this government does not know whether it is coming or going on the issue of energy supplies?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the answer to that question is that we have a government that does know where we are going on the national energy policy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we are doing is moving this nation toward energy self-sufficiency to fill the gap created by the absence of planning in former years which has created the possibility of shortages in Atlantic Canada and has increased most dangerously the dependence of Canada upon unstable foreign sources. 1 can also indicate to the hon. member, whose qualifications for being the energy spokesman of his party seem unrelated to any knowledge of the industry-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
December 7, 1979


Charles Joseph Clark: -the simple and elemental fact which has apparently escaped him to this date, that the export of surplus natural gas now will have two immediately beneficial impacts upon Canada. One is that it will save a number of small Canadian companies, which cannot afford to keep their reserves locked in, from bankruptcy or from sale to foreign ownership; and the second is that the export of natural gas, as well as the positive impact it has on our balance of payments situation will stimulate exploration in this country, which will bring on new reserves of natural gas and oil and move this country again toward energy self-sufficiency.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Reginald Cyril Symes: Talking about knowledge of the industry, this is the same Prime Minister who a few months ago was running around telling Japan and Israel that we had a surplus of oil and also, more recently, finding himself able to export the surplus supply of fuel oil to the United States. If this was not bad enough, he has now indicated that he is prepared to sell out the future security of Canadians in terms of substituting natural gas for imported oil by allowing a massive export to the United States. For the sake of the Prime Minister's own credibility and the domestic security of Canadians in future energy supplies-


An hon. Member:: Speech.


Reginald Cyril Symes: -will he now reverse his decision to export this gas to the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will not reverse the decision. What I will do is suggest to the hon. member, who pretends to be an energy critic, that before he rises in the House to criticize the National Energy Board report he should read the report


An hon. Member:: What credibility does the NEB have?


Charles Joseph Clark: -because the report made it abundantly clear that the gas surpluses that were found, or the amounts of gas that will be available for export are surplus to Canadian needs, including needs contemplating substantial substitution of oil to natural gas.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member shouted from his seat, "What credibility does the National Energy Board have?" Considerably more than the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXPORT OF NATURAL GAS TO UNITED STATES-EFFECT ON VALUE OF DOLLAR
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Thank you very much for your applause! Mr. Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of State for International Trade. An
Oral Questions
increase in natural gas exports of the magnitude we are talking about here will lead to an increase in the value of the dollar, which will inescapably operate to the detriment of secondary industry in Canada and the development of secondary industry.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: That shows how much they know about economics. 1 should like to ask the minister: has the government analysed the effects of the projected gas export levels on the value of the Canadian dollar, which the minister indicated would earn about $13.2 billion at today's export prices? If so, will the House be informed of the results of this analysis and its effect on secondary industry development in Canada?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to point out to the hon. member that the value of the Canadian dollar slipped slightly today, so 1 do not think what he is expecting to happen will necessarily happen.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Check with Hnatyshyn.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: We are pleased that there will be less pressure on the balance of payments as a result of this decision to allow increased exports of natural gas. 1 do not think that it will have the significant impact on the level of the dollar that the hon. member suggests. 1 would, further, point out to the member that there is a range within which the Canadian dollar can move which will still allow Canadian industry to maintain the strong competitive position it has now in industry relative to world markets.


ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY, OR OIL SELF-SUFFICIENCY-GOVERNMENT POLICY
John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to direct a supplementary to the Prime Minister. 1 would ask the Prime Minister if he would clarify to the House whether the policy of this government is energy self-sufficiency, or oil self-sufficiency. If, indeed, it is energy self-sufficiency, will he tell us, since we have a 6 per cent surplus of energy in this country now, is it the policy of this government to export natural gas to ensure that he needs an energy self-sufficiency policy in the future?


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, once again, 1 respect the hon. member's qualifications and formation as an academic economist. What 1 want to draw to his attention is that in the search for oil, in the search for natural gas and other energy sources, it is necessary for us to have incentives for the practical people in the field who go out to look for new sources of oil and new sources of natural gas.
One of the consequences of exporting natural gas which is clearly surplus to our needs-including the need to have enough for substitution purposes-is to encourage practical

December 7, 1979
Oral Questions
Canadians who work in the field looking for new sources to go out and look for new oil, look for new gas and to bring this country toward self-sufficiency in all forms of energy to the degree that is possible.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


SOURCES OF FUTURE ENERGY SUPPLIES
Mr.   Chas. L. Caccia@Davenport: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. 1 refer to his statement yesterday when he informed the House that 17 years from now the demand for natural gas will be greater than the supply. Could the minister inform this House today where Canadians will turn 17 years from now for home, commercial and industrial requirements across the nation?


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, the reference the hon. member makes with regard to that particular projection simply does not take into account further exploration and bringing further discoveries on stream. The hon. member is using that particular chart to indicate that nothing further is going to happen.
As the Prime Minister pointed out, this particular export activity now is going to generate a very great degree of involvement in terms of conventional oil supplies and the immense amount of tight gas out in western Canada. It does not take into account the offshore potential and it does not take into account frontier possibilities in this country. We have great potential in this country, and this government is committed to determining and deciding upon a course of action that will bring us to the great future that we deserve.


Mr. Caccia:: Mr. Speaker, that reply sounds as though it was drafted by Imperial Oil. I would, therefore, turn to the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment. 1 would ask whether he was consulted, and does he support this proposal involving the heating resource that is the least environmentally detrimental to the country?


Hon. John A. Fraser (Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment):: Mr. Speaker, I most certainly do support the proposal. I would remind the hon. member that this country has to make appropriate use of its resources, and when there is gas surplus to our needs it is almost negligent, and certainly not in the public interest, to allow the continuing and deteriorating balance of payments situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
[ Translation]


POSSIBILITY OF IMPOSING EXCISE TAX ON PETROLEUM PRODUCTS-DISCUSSIONS WITH PREMIER OF QUEBEC
Mr. Bernard Loiselle (Vercheres):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister who accuses

the former government of lack of planning. I should like to remind him that in 1970 Canada was dependent on others for 50 per cent of its energy consumption and that by 1978 that dependence had decreased to 30 per cent as a result of the excellent policies of the Liberal government.
Mr. Speaker, would the right hon. Prime Minister tell us how he will respond to the request of the Quebec premier who indicated to the Canadian Prime Minister that he disagreed with the proposal that the federal government might levy an excise tax on oil products? How does the Prime Minister, who has spoken of great co-operation and agreements with the provinces, intend to respond to the request of Premier Levesque?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can tell the House that a recent list certainly indicates the lack of efficiency of the energy policies of the former government with regard to self-sufficiency. However, if I may answer the question directly, 1 did get a message from the Quebec premier indicating the position of his government against the levying of an excise tax by the federal government. It was a confirmation of the position adopted by Minister Berube during the first ministers' conference. As the hon. member and the House will understand, there is clear federal jurisdiction in the matter of levying an excise tax on oil. That jurisdiction was exercised by the former government when it applied an excise tax. It is the intention of the federal government to follow our plans with regard to excise tax in a field over which there is clear federal jurisdiction.


INQUIRY AS TO INVESTMENT NEEDED TO REACH ENERGY SELF-SUFFICIENCY
Bernard Pierre Loiselle: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask a supplementary question. If the Prime Minister wishes his consultation policy to succeed, could he not give some evidence of it to the Quebec premier who really needs those funds? He cites figures. He talks about the need for investment from Canadians. We members of the opposition would also be interested to know the investments required to reach self-sufficiency. Therefore I ask whether he could give us those figures, and try to convince Premier Levesque.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, with respect to the development of our proposal to establish a Canadian energy bank, we are identifying the energy projects where it will be essential for us to have more money-funds that are not available in the private sector-to promote energy projects. I hope that as soon as we can identify all the elements of our over-all position on energy, particularly on the creation of a Canadian energy bank, it will then be possible for us to give figures indicating the needs in the area of energy projects.
December 7, 1979


PROPOSED GAS EXPORTS-EFFECT ON COST OF ENERGY FOR CANADIAN BUSINESSES
Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of State for International Trade. In view of the fact that there is always a necessity for Canadian business to be able to rely upon dependable and reasonably-priced energy for its creation or its continuation, was the minister consulted before this decision was taken and, if he was, what is his view as to how the proposed export gas will have an effect in terms of giving some hope, promise or solidity to Canadian businesses to dare to venture forward either to expand their present business or to create new business; or is there an idea that there is going to be, on the basis of past NEB figures, a great reliance upon just that figure for the future?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, 1 think part of the question the hon. member has just asked was answered in my response a short while ago. One thing we have to consider is, as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources said, that this is going to generate a considerable amount of employment and activity in the west in future exploration and development.
The other factor which touches on the hon. member's question is the whole matter of energy supply and energy growth demand in this country which was taken into account by the Energy Board proposal. There should be ample reason for the industry to have confidence, in that in this country we are going to have a confidence of energy supply for many years down the road under the policy being put forward by this government. That is a very important factor in our over-all industrial development.


INQUIRY AS TO HOW PRIME MINISTER CAN RECONCILE HIS TWO STATEMENTS
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. As the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie has just said in his question, now that the Prime Minister has stated, on one hand, that he has known for a long time that there was a possibility of oil shortages in Quebec and in Canada this winter and, on the other hand, on November 6, in a letter addressed to the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada he stated that there would be no oil shortages in Quebec and in the maritime provinces, 1 should like to ask whether he can tell the House how he can reconcile his two statements.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I have just said in English to the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, I qualified my remarks this morning by indicating that there was some knowledge of certain possibilities, like an unforeseen increase in consumer demand, a hard winter, and things like that. We received every month from the National
Oral Questions
Energy Board their most up to date data on the state of Canadian supplies and the possibility of a shortage. To date there has been no indication by the National Energy Board of any possibility of a shortage in Canada. Now, because of some changes in the rate of oil consumption throughout Canada, there has been a change in the analysis of the National Energy Board. 1 think the most responsible approach for us is to point out the necessity for all Canadians to conserve oil to ensure that there will be no shortage.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he thought he was being straightforward with the House, when he knew all along that there was the possibility of a shortage, in light of the letter which he wrote to the Leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada and which he repeated in this House on November 6? Was he being straightforward?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I was being straightforward. [Translation]
In my reply to the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, I said that, on the basis of the information 1 had at the time I wrote the letter, there was no risk of oil shortages. But afterwards there was a change in the National Energy Board's analysis, which is quite normal.


M. LeBianc:: The change came after the vote.


Charles Joseph Clark: We now face a greater risk of shortages-


Mr. LeBianc:: Where are the Socreds this morning?


Charles Joseph Clark: -but, as I have said-


M. Ouellet:: You were told lies.


Charles Joseph Clark: -members of Parliament and Canadians in general must accept the facts and understand that the best way to help Quebeckers, to help people in the Atlantic provinces, is to emphasize conservation.


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare.
Statistics Canada published yesterday the famous study called "Hospitals: Horizon 2031" which clearly shows that within the next five decades Canada's old-age population will increase to the point where it will in fact quintuple and the

December 7, 1979
Oral Questions
total present capacity of hospital beds will be occupied by elderly people. In this context, I should like to ask the minister whether he could tell the House when his government will honour the electoral promise made last May 3, when he said he would immediately make an additional $20 million subsidy for medical research in gerontology?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, the statistics report published yesterday is, of course, as the hon. member has indicated. With respect to medical research-and I take it that that is the hon. member's question-there are now before cabinet provisions outlining opportunities for both an increase in the level and an extension of the five-year formula established by the previous government. I am hopeful that the result will be a positive one.
[ Translation]


Monique Bégin: Mr. Speaker, I have a supplementary to the hon. minister.
I have a lot of trouble with this minister: either he does not know how to use the little earpiece for simultaneous translation-in fact, he plays the same trick with us in committee, where we have seen him use his earpiece the wrong way-or there really is a learning disability somewhere.
I would like to repeat my question: When will the government announce an additional $20 million subsidy for gerontology, as the minister promised Canadians over six months ago now, what share of these moneys will go to practical research for health care aimed at elderly people and the training of specialized personnel, and what share will go to pure research? The minister has mentioned the Medical Research Council, and 1 do not know what it has to do with this question.


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, 1 think I heard it that time. The commitment that was made during the election campaign is one which we intend to keep. I had some discussion with the provincial ministers of health at the conference in September. We will be meeting again very shortly. As the hon. member knows, this is a matter of concern to me and I hope we will be able to resume discussions with the provinces on this matter in short order.


SOURCE OF FUNDS FOR GERONTOLOGY RESEARCH
Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, would the minister of health tell the House where the money will come from?


David Edward Crombie: Mr. Speaker, there are, of course, a number of places from which the money can come; but it will all come from the taxpayers of Canada. My view is that the taxpayers of Canada would support such allocations.


LOTTERIES
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I would like to address a question to the Secretary of State who is also the inner cabinet minister responsible for social policy. It deals with lotteries and the impact they have on the poor, the elderly and the ability of private sector charitable institutions to raise money, as well as the question of responsibility in advertising. 1 wrote to the minister last summer asking if he would push for an investigation. The minister responded by asking for my suggestions, and with a letter indicating that he would take the matter up with cabinet. That letter was dated September 19.
Has the minister taken up with cabinet the possibility of a full investigation into the effect of this $2 billion business in the marketplace, and have his colleagues agreed to do something about this situation; or have they rejected this common concern which the minister and I share?


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member has pursued this matter for some time. I can recall that over the last couple of years he has raised this topic on repeated occasions. We have not had an opportunity to deal with the matter in cabinet because we are very much engaged in pursuing matters of priority which have been identified by the new government. I would hope that we can deal with this subject fairly soon, because it is important.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Pierre Deniger (Laprairie):: Mr. Speaker, the question I am directing to the Minister of State for Transport deals with the Champlain Bridge and the lot of Montreal South Shore suburbanites. Could the minister indicate whether the new government intends to renew an agreement which our government signed in the past whereby a special lane would be reserved during peak hours for the buses of the transport commission in Montreal South Shore, an agreement which is to expire within the next few days and which has been an unqualified success?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State, Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question. The experimental project regarding the lane on Champlain Bridge reserved for buses has been in operation for 18 months and expires the last day of this month. The ministry of transport of Quebec has attempted to do an evaluation of the project, but they have been hindered by labour problems.
December 7, 1979

Oral Questions
I understand that the minister is in the process of communicating with this government to ask for an extension of this experimental project. As soon as the communication is received, we shall give the matter immediate consideration. I sincerely hope that we will be able to give as favourable a response as possible.


Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, 1 wish to direct a supplementary question to the same minister. For the information of the House and Montreal South Shore residents, could he indicate, in connection with the Champlain Bridge file which he is currently reviewing, whether he intends to continue the toll-free policy for the buses of the transport commission in Montreal South Shore which is provided for in an agreement which, 1 repeat, is to expire within the next few days?


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, the provision regarding tolls results in a loss of revenue of about $150,000 a year. On the other hand, it results in a very marked increase in convenience for the people who use the service. There is also a very considerable saving with regard to energy conservation. We are currently balancing and giving weight to these factors. 1 expect to make a decision in the next few days, which I will communicate to the hon. member.


TOURISM
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of State for International Trade who is also responsible for tourism. Since the first contact with Canada and the first impression of Canadian hospitality by the travelling public is often that of staff members of various ministries of the government, what is being done to inform civil servants of the importance of tourism and the major role which they play in assuring that we have repeat visitors from other countries?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Mr. Speaker, this particular matter came up in October at the conference of federal-provincial tourism ministers and it was identified as being a question of real importance. There is currently under way an interdepartmental review by officials of the particular aspects of this problem as it relates to immigration and customs. That committee originally stated that it would be able to report to me some time around mid-year, but they have since extended the deadline to some time later in the year or into the following year. 1 instructed them that was not good enough and that I wanted the report sooner, hopefully by mid-year.


FINANCE
Bob Rae: My question is for the Minister of Finance. In light of the announcement this morning that governor Bouey and his deputy were being reappointed for another seven years, does this mean that we will have another seven years of tight money, another seven years of high interest rates and another seven years of domination of our economy by the Bank of Canada?


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, the governor of the Bank of Canada and his deputy were reappointed by the board of directors of the Bank of Canada. We have concurred in their reappointment. That means for another seven years, or however long they choose to fill those offices within that period, we will have a sound central bank, uninterfered with in a political sense by the government.
I cannot answer for what would happen if hon. gentlemen opposite were in power, but we are not going to interfere politically with the Bank of Canada. I think for another seven years we will have sound, sensible monetary policy administered by the Bank of Canada. I would like to congratulate Mr. Bouey and Mr. Lawson on their reappointment and wish them well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROPOSED MOTION UNDER S O. 25
Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 25, I move, seconded by-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will be aware that the Chair has never received motions of any sort during question period. The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas.


Mr. Pinard:: Mr. Speaker, a point of order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Points of order and questions of privilege will be taken into account at twelve o'clock. The hon. member for Stormont-Dundas.


NATIONAL REVENUE
Mr. Ed Lumley (Stormont-Dundas):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Revenue. Two weeks ago 1 asked the Minister of National Revenue what steps his depart-

December 7, 1979
Oral Questions
ment was taking with respect to the transfer of excess profits by the multinational oil companies outside the country. At the time he assured me that the department would have that matter very much in mind.
This past week we have had reports that two of the multinational oil companies have transferred multimillions of dollars out of this country at the same time as raising oil prices. I wonder whether the minister could advise this House what steps he is taking to prevent this intolerable situation.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, as the hon. gentleman knows, it is improper to discuss on the floor of the House of Commons specific matters in relation to income tax and the Income Tax Act. I am sure the hon. member understands that. 1 wish to reassure him that the Department of National Revenue is taking its responsibilities under the appropriate statutes with respect to the specific matters he has raised.


TAXING INCREASE IN REVENUES OF OIL MULTINATIONALS
Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister. Since it was the Prime Minister who first raised this subject in the House when he said he was going to discuss an excess profits tax with the multinational oil companies, I ask the Prime Minister this: is he going to pursue this aspect of taxing the increase in revenues rather than the increase in profits as a result of the oil price increases which we expect to experience in the next few weeks?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we are now actively discussing the mechanism that will be used to ensure that virtually 100 per cent of the revenues that would go to the companies as a result of increases in energy prices will, in fact, be regained by the Government of Canada for the specific application by the Government of Canada for national energy purposes.


OIL SUPPLIES FOR MARITIMES THIS WINTER
Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In view of the non-answer by the Prime Minister to our leader with respect to supply to the Atlantic area, in view of the oil supply cut off by Iran, and in view of the announcement by the Prime Minister that there are no plans for a pipeline to (he maritimes, could the minister responsible indicate to the House what he intends to do in view of the cries by the Premier of Nova Scotia in this morning's newspapers for a guaranteed supply for the citizens of the maritime provinces?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, in response to the hon. member 1

simply want to say that I am, in fact, taking a number of initiatives to ensure that we do get through this winter. The fact is that the federal government is proceeding with a number of initiatives, in consultation with industry, for obtaining alternative sources of supply. These consultations are actively going on with the companies involved.
Also, I am taking some initiatives with respect to conservation practices that might be followed, and leadership that might be given at all levels of government. Today 1 am writing to the provincial premiers asking them to consider a number of conservation initiatives that might be taken and the leadership that might be given by all levels of government. It is a matter that I want to discuss at the first ministers' meeting. It is a matter that will assist us in getting through this winter. It is a manageable situation provided that we do not have any untoward or unforeseen interruptions of rather large proportions. We are attempting to come to terms with this particular problem.


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. M. Forrestall (Dartmouth-Halifax East):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Prime Minister. I apologize for not having given him notice. Being aware of his concern for the people in Atlantic Canada who use air services for travel, would he indicate to the House whether or not the government has now taken a position with respect to the disposition of Nordair?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that question is now before cabinet. We are considering the transportation concerns of the citizens of Atlantic Canada, Quebec and Ontario.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: My question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the Minister of Employment and Immigration stated that there was great suffering by the people of Kampuchea. Having returned from the United Nations just recently-and I am sure the Prime Minister is aware of this- we know that in the last ten years as many as two million citizens there have died from famine. The Minister of Employment and Immigration talked about a political response-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Would the hon. member put a question.


Gilbert Parent: Mr. Speaker, I ask the Prime Minister this: would he try a practical approach and suggest that an airlift of
December 7, 1979

food be sent to the people of Kampuchea to relieve their plight?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that is already under way. What this government is doing, in addition, is proposing means-for which we hope we will find support in this House-to turn money from the refugee program, which the government need not spend now because of the generosity of participation by individual Canadians, toward aiding residents of Kampuchea. Also, through the office of the Secretary of State for External Affairs we are continuing her vigorous leadership in trying to bring pressure to bear upon the government of Vietnam in a way that will move toward a political solution of this very grievous human problem for the world.


AWARDS AND DECORATIONS
Mr. Andre Maltais (Manicouagan):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State. In view of the great joy which France has given us by awarding the Prix Goncourt to Mrs. Antonine Maillet, would it not be in the interest of all Canadians to establish an Antonine Maillet prize to encourage French literature in Canada?


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member's suggestion is very important and we will gladly look into it.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Donald J. Johnston (Saint-Henri-Westmount):: My
question is for the Minister of National Revenue. I believe the minister is aware of the difficulty faced by some wheat producers who expected deferred payments for crop deliveries this year and are now receiving interim payments from the Canadian Wheat Board.
It would appear that these payments will have to be included in income tax purposes in 1979. I wonder whether the minister has had an opportunity to consider some mechanism whereby they can receive a deferment of this amount, for tax purposes, which they otherwise would not have anticipated.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, that matter was originally raised in the Senate. There have been some reviews of the matter within the Department of National Revenue to see whether or not that would be possible. The preliminary
Oral Questions
judgment of the department is that it is not possible. I am reviewing the matter to see whether there could be any change, because I recognize the position put forward by the hon. member. When that review is completed, 1 shall inform the hon. member.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Mr. Speaker, 1 have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs, who will be attending the NATO meeting of foreign defence ministers in Brussels next week at which meeting a decision will be taken on the American proposal to station Pershing and cruise-missiles in five European countries.
Does the minister share the position of the Minister of National Defence in not having a position on the U.S. proposal, or does she intend to follow her own convictions and those of the United Church of Canada-and, indeed, of this party-that as a minimum Canada supports the proposals that have come from three European countries to postpone further deployment of any nuclear weapons in Europe pending ratification of SALT II and exploration of new possibilities in east-west arms control negotiations?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, the very important discussions that will be going on next week with regard to the modernization of the Theatre Nuclear Forces in the NATO alliance are in large measure a response to the deployment that has already taken place in the Soviet Union and the Warsaw Pact countries with the SS-20 missiles and with the Backfire bombers. This is a question as to whether or not the NATO alliance speaks from a position of strength or a position of weakness.
1 would say to the hon. member that in the discussions that will be taking place in Brussels next week, Canada will be working with the European countries to reach a consensus that will strengthen the role of the NATO alliance. There is no question as to where we stand on that. It does not mean that Canada has any personal commitment to nuclear missiles or nuclear weapons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, three of the European countries have their representatives, in one case their premier and in the other two their foreign ministers, in Washington today to discuss their very serious reservations about the American proposal. Perhaps the minister has not understood what the American proposal is. 1 want to ask her specifically whether Canada is also going to express those reservations on the American proposal. The decision will otherwise be made on December 12.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, the subject under discussion is not just an American proposal; the subject under discussion

December 7, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard
is the modernization of our NATO alliance and of the theatre nuclear weapons within that alliance. As the hon. member knows, a good many other countries will be taking part in that. It will not just be the American position, but the position of the United Kingdom, West Germany and a good many other countries. That is the one in which we will be involved.
There is no question that there is opposition to it from Norway, Denmark and The Netherlands, but it is a different kind of opposition than the hon. member would seek to leave with the House, because the various positions of these three countries are in no way the same. Therefore, what we will be seeking to arrive at at that meeting is a consensus on which all NATO countries can come to agreement.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 want to call the attention of the House, in order that it may not always be seen that 1 have only negative comments about the question period, to the fact that I recently asked for the co-operation of the House to try and operate in a way at the beginning of the question period which was in balance with that expected at the end of the question period. Today members will note that the exchange at the beginning of the question period was ideal in nature and still very forceful on a very important subject. The result was that participation in the question period was much more generous than it has been in recent days. I think I am expressing the views of most members of the House in thanking the members for their co-operation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: 1 have received six notices of questions of privilege, one application for an emergency debate pursuant to Standing Order 26, and I believe I observe a point of order which has arisen during the question period. 1 believe it is my duty to take that even before 1 take the questions of privilege in respect of which 1 have received notice; that is to say, the items which arise during the question period and by our recent practices have been deferred until the end of the question period have priority on their own, had they been taken during the time they arose during the question period. I think I should take those now.


POINTS OF ORDER
Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to call your attention to page 9595 of Hansard for November 16, 1971 when the situation was absolutely identical to what happened today during oral question period. Mr. Speaker Lamoureux was in the chair and the hon. Mr. Stanfield, in the middle of the question period, moved the adjournment of the House without debate and without postponing the debate until after question period. The Speaker put the question-


Mr. Speaker:: The House should understand that Standing Order 25 does indicate that a motion to adjourn the House is always in order. However, I have ruled in the past that a motion being always in order surely means the hon. member must have the floor for the purpose of putting a motion. For example, 1 asked the hon. member-and our recent practices are perhaps not enshrined in the Standing Orders-could a member put a motion pursuant to our period at the beginning of the day for the calling of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43? Motions pursuant to Standing Order 43 must receive the unanimous consent of the House.
Standing Order 25 says that a motion to adjourn the House is always in order. Could the Chair, therefore, on the hon. member's reasoning, take a motion to adjourn the House on a motion pursuant to Standing Order 25 during the period of motions pursuant to Standing Order 43? I think not. That period is reserved for motions to be put only upon unanimous consent. Obviously a motion to adjourn the House does not require unanimous consent. How do the two blend?
Similarly, as I indicated quite clearly on February 21 of this year when an attempt was made at that time by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) to adjourn the proceedings pursuant to Standing Order 25 during the course of the question period, I had the following to say:
The hon. member will know that I recognized him during the course of the question period. A motion to adjourn is always in order, according to the Standing Orders of the House. However, such a motion must be put forward, as 1 have ruled on more than one occasion in the past, at a time when a member has the floor for the purpose of putting a motion, which is not done during the question period. When a member has the floor at a time which motions are received, then that motion is always receivable.
That reason remains for the reasoning 1 have applied. 1 could not controvert it today. To do so would be a direct contradiction of my own ruling only months ago.


Yvon Pinard: Mr. Speaker, if 1 may simply and shortly express my point of order. I understand you are saying you will not contradict yourself. What I was saying is that you contradicted Speaker Lamoureux. 1 was referring you to a precedent at page 9595 of Hansard for November 16, 1971 when Speaker Lamoureux was in the Chair. This very situation occurred when Mr. Stanfield rose during question period and moved the adjournment of the House.
May I also refer you to Standing Order 25 which is very clear in its wording. It reads:
A motion to adjourn, unless otherwise prohibited in these Standing Orders, shall always be in order-
First, 1 would like to know the meaning of the words "shall always be in order". Second, before you give your final ruling, may I seek your guidance as to how your ruling compares with Speaker Lamoureux's ruling in 1971 when the very same situation occurred during question period. Mr. Stanfield rose and simply said:
Mr. Speaker, in view of the kind of answers we are getting this afternoon, pursuant to Standing Order 25 I move the adjournment of the House.
December 7, 1979

It was not seconded. The Speaker then said:
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?
A vote was then taken. You are saying you will not contradict. I am asking, will you contradict Speaker Lamoureux?


Mr. Speaker:: The answer to that, of course, is 1 already have.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: I bring it to the attention of the hon. member that our practices have changed substantially since the Lamoureux ruling to which he has referred. At that time motions could be put prior to the question period and, in fact, questions came at the end of Routine Proceedings. We have now reversed that order and placed a priority on the question period, by our practice and by agreement, placing questions ahead of motions. Furthermore, we have, by agreement, purged the question period of points of order and matters of privilege which might arise, deferring them until later.
In other words, since the ruling to which the hon. member referred we have taken steps to give the question period priority over other proceedings. That is the reverse of the practice followed at the time the Lamoureux precedent applied. I might act differently-I might-if during the question period we were still operating under rules in accordance with which, prior to the question period, we had already entertained a number of motions. I do not know whether I would or not. 1 can only say to the hon. member that the conditions under which Speaker Lamoureux made that ruling were quite different from those under which I made mine. If mine contradicts his, that may partly be attributable to changes in the practice in the meantime. In any case, I have no intention of contradicting my own ruling.


Thomas Lefebvre: As
the one who moved the motion, Mr. Speaker, 1 should like to have further clarification. I checked the book you have in your hand while you were speaking from the chair and you quoted from it that motions under Standing Order 25 were always in order. That is what I checked this morning. I checked the precedent set by Mr. Stanfield, then leader of the opposition, in 1971 and felt that if I obtained recognition during the question period I could legitimately move such a motion. I suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that when members are issued with what we call the green book on orders and regulations, perhaps it should be accompanied by a printed listing of your rulings; that when we come to a chapter in this book which we can no longer rely upon, you give us the precedent created by what you have done today in every instance in the book. We are not all experts on the rules in this book.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Lefebvre: I gather from the applause that hon. members over there agree with me. To help hon. members who are not in your position and who do not possess expertise in these
Point of Order-Mr. Pinard
matters, I suggest you issue these precedents and the rulings you have cited to go with every chapter and verse in this book.


Mr. Speaker:: The suggestion made by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle is, actually, not a bad one. It would bring into play what would be called an annotated version of the Standing Orders of the House. That is a mammoth undertaking, almost an impossible one; I despair that I would ever have the time to do it. It would involve a great deal of research, a great deal of work. The hon. member will realize, also, that there are situations in which both the precedents of the House and the Standing Orders come into conflict not only with previous rulings but also with one another. This is one of them. Certain motions are declared in their very own terms in the Standing Orders to be always in order. What that language does is relieve the hon. member of the necessity of giving notice of his motion, as is required in other cases.
As the House knows, private members are entitled to have their motions considered by filing first a notice of motion, and then having them go through in rotation. Those are the conditions which surround the introduction of a motion under other circumstances. What Standing Order 25 does, with regard to a motion to adjourn the House, or to adjourn the debate, is relieve the hon. member of the necessity of giving the House notice of his intention to move that motion. It is in order at any time. This does not mean it is relieved of all constraints or, in my opinion, that it can be put during a period of time in which the House does not receive motions-for example, during the period in which we receive only motions by unanimous consent under Standing Order 43 or during the question period, and equally, during the taking of motions which relate to House business and procedural motions. These are sometimes received while motions are being put, but not during the question period.
Therefore, as I have said to hon. members, there are times when the rules come into conflict with one another and into conflict with precedents which were laid down when the rules were in different form. The Chair has to reconcile such conflicts and I have consistently reconciled this one in the following way: that I will receive such motions, obviously without notice at any time, during a time when motions can be put by members. But we have never received motions from members during the first hour of the day unless they conformed with the terms of Standing Order 43, and never during the question period. That is the precedent I have set and one which I intend to continue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Speaking to this point of order, Mr. Speaker, we shall of course abide by your decision, but in the future we might examine further the decision you have just made because you have referred us to Standing Order 43 which specifies that at the beginning of the sitting of the House the only motions to be moved will be those that ask for unanimous consent. However, as concerns the period following motions under Standing Order 43, nothing is specified. You have yourself
2134

December 7, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. MacEaehen referred to your decisions on previous occasions, but is it possible to go against a rule as clear as that? A motion to adjourn can be moved at any time. Unless there is a specific rule forbidding such a procedure during this period, I do not understand how you can conclude that your decision can visibly contradict one of our rules. This is my first point.
The second, Mr. Speaker, is that we must also consider the purpose of Standing Order 25. As Mr. Stanfield explained in 1971, the purpose of this rule is to express the displeasure of the House with the way the government carries on its business. Obviously, this displeasure can be expressed, as in the case of Mr. Stanfield, just as well during oral question period as at any other time. Otherwise, the rules make no sense.
I therefore appeal to you, Mr. Speaker, since you have already gone against a past decision, to think about going against it another time in keeping with the spirit and the letter of Standing Order 25.


Mr. Speaker:: The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) is perfectly correct. The first time this problem arose some five years ago, I might have taken the view that, because it is said in our Standing Orders that motions pursuant to Standing Order 25 are always in order, they could be received at any time. I might also have believed I was open to take the interpretation that, because of the way in which we had rearranged our proceedings, it was not open to the Chair to receive motions during the question period. In my view, both interpretations were open to me.
The one I chose is the one I announced six months ago in February of this year, a repeat of a decision I had made several times previously. No grievance was raised at that time. It was an interpretation I have made very clearly on several occasions based not only on the Standing Order but also on the way we have adopted practices since the Lamoureux ruling which has been referred to. My language is quite clear and I have no intention of reversing my ruling.
Order, please. I have notice of six questions of privilege-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I have a point of order related to the question period.


Mr. Speaker:: I have now ruled on this three different times.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is a different point, Mr. Speaker.
MR. Mac'EACHEN-RAISING OF POINTS OF ORDER DURING ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to raise a point of order on what appeared to be a ruling on your part that it was impossible to hear a point of order during the Oral Question Period. Your Honour will recall that at a certain point some years ago the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization made a report to the House in which it requested the House to absolve the Oral
Question Period from questions of privilege and points of order. That concurrence was granted, but it was put under a specific time limit as to its duration. That time limit has long since expired.
When I was leader of the government, 1 approached hon. members opposite to have that rule continued in the House of Commons, and they were not in favour of doing that. At that point, when that proposal from the standing committee was not reinstituted, the preceding regime came into play, namely, that it is possible during the question period to raise a point of order or a question of privilege unless by consent or by agreement of the House that is not possible.
There was a point of order raised during the question period. It was not heard. I am arguing that if there is a rule in the authorities-Beauchesne or any of the British authorities- which is crystal clear, it is that when a breach of order is apprehended to take place, then it must be heard; and I am arguing that unless there is consent or action by the House of Commons to reinstitute the report of the standing committee, it is open to hon. members, if they wish, to raise questions of privilege or points of order during the Oral Question Period. If not, we have to take whole pages of Beauchesne, tear them up and throw them out.
I am putting that before Your Honour for consideration. I am not one to seek to create disorder in the question period. This is the first time that we in the opposition since we moved over here have raised a point of order in the Oral Question Period. We were denied an opportunity to have that point of order heard, and 1 believe it ought to be considered very carefully as to whether an important right of the opposition has not been abrogated.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: The point of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEaehen) is well taken, and after the session to which the hon. member referred in his remarks-that is to say, that arrangement had a sessional life which has long since gone out of formal existence-I indicated to the House that that practice seemed to be one which was successful in the management of the question period. In addition, it seemed to be one which had, for that reason, very general acceptance, and therefore 1 would continue to be guided by that practice on behalf of the House, notwithstanding the fact that it probably does not have a sound legal foundation.
I still intend to be guided by that practice, not because I am directed to do it, but because I believe I am expressing the consensus of the House that it is, in general a successful practice.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: What consensus? On the other side is the consensus.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises a point about the ability of a member to raise a point of order or a question of
[Mr. Trudeau.)
December 7, 1979

privilege during question period. All that is happening is that the Chair exercises a discretion to defer the matter until the end of the question period. The Chair does not have the absolute right to defer the matter to the end of the question period, and today, as I would have done on any other day, 1 indicated when the point of order was raised that 1 would defer it to the end of the question period.
I believe on one occasion, if 1 recall, the late right hon. member for Prince Albert and other hon. members raised matters which were so fundamental to the progress of business in the House that the matter had to be taken into account at once, and that discretion always remains in the Chair.
In summary, therefore, I return the hon. member to the two points, first, that the practice is not one which the House is compelled to follow. It is one which I believe the House wishes to follow, and if the House wants to tell me that it does not wish to do so, then, of course, I am bound by that, and we will revert to the previous practice.
Second, the Chair always has-1 want to make it clear that the hon. member is correct in his second premise as well-the discretion to take a matter into account if the Chair feels that the matter requires to be taken into account at that very point and that the progress of the question period must be arrested in order to take the matter into consideration. There have been some and there will continue to be questions which so fundamentally relate to the progress of the business of the House that they must be dealt with then.
1 think 1 will always indicate to the House, as I did today, that my preference would be to take these matters at 12 o'clock; however, if an hon. member insists that it be done, he has the right always to explain to the House why the matter must be taken into account at that time, and then I have to exercise that discretion.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: I have six notices of questions of privilege. The first was received from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). The six are from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes), the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming).


MR. NYSTROM-CONSERVATIVE MEMBERS OF TASK FORCE ON GRAIN TRANSPORTATION
Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I am raising this question of privilege at the first opportunity I have.
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
1 think it is a very serious question of privilege which infringes upon my rights and privileges as a member of Parliament. It arises out of a report which was tabled by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) yesterday in the Standing Committee on Transport. It is a report entitled "Final Report of the Emergency Grain Movement Task Force, October 30, 1979".
My question of privilege also arises out of a question on the order paper which was put there by myself and which was responded to by the government on December 5. The question was as follows:
What budget has been made available to the Grain Transportation Task Force and specifically, what amounts have been budgeted for (a) transportation and communications (b) professional services (c) printing and distribution of rcport(s) (d) material and supplies (c) salaries-
The second part of the question was as follows:
Are all members of the committee also members of the Progressive Conservative party?
The answer to the question whether all members of this task force are Conservative members was "Yes". There were three members on that task force. One was the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta). Another was the hon. member for Kind-ersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight). Another was an hon. member Irom Alberta, and 1 believe his riding is Wetaskiwin. That information presents me with a problem because I think it infringes upon my privileges as a member of Parliament.
A similar question was raised in this House on November 5 by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russeil (Mr. Ethier). 1 say similar because it dealt with a similar task force which was headed, I believe, by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave) and which dealt with an inquiry on beef imports. I believe my question is different because we have this report which was tabled before the Standing Committee on Transport yesterday, and we now have information on the order paper that the federal government paid with public funds for the printing of this report. It paid for travel by the members of Parliament involved, and it paid for some other services such as the translating of the report which is before us today.
Essentially what happened was that the transportation and communication cost $6,943, professional services $1,552, printing and distribution $400 and material and supplies $266, and the cost of that report to the public treasury was $9,161. 1 have since also learned that that is not really the only cost. The task force also borrowed the services of at least one secretary from the grains group. It also had the use, 1 believe, of other technical advice, technical information and technical expertise from other departments or agencies of the Government of Canada.
My question of privilege is the following: It is my understanding from conversations I have had with the opposition House leader and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that never before in the history of this Parliament have we seen a minister of the Crown select members of Parliament from his own party to conduct a study on an important area of policy.

December 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
Now, Mr. Speaker, I am not reflecting on the ability of those three members, but what is important here is that those three members are members of the Conservative party. In essence, what we have here is a Conservative subcommittee on grain transportation. Its report was printed at public expense. My question of privilege is that as a member of the NDP 1 do not have the privilege of being a member of that committee, nor do members of the Liberal party or members of the Social Credit party.
1 also want to point out to you, Mr. Speaker, that I do not think, although 1 am not sure, that an order in council was passed to form that task force. I do know there was no order of the House because the House was not sitting back in June or July when the task force was struck. I believe it was the minister himself who chose this task force and who allocated funds for the task force to travel across the country. The report of the task force has been published by the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, so we have two government departments involved in this.
I am not the only person who has raised a question similar to this because we have the beef inquiry, we have another inquiry raised by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) concerning the matter of branch line abandonments in the prairies, and also a question in the House raised by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley) to which he might want to refer later on in the debate.
My question of privilege is as follows: Does it not infringe upon my privileges and rights as a member of Parliament not to have access to the same public funding, to the same services from the Department of Transport and from the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and to the services of the translators of the Government of Canada to translate a political report or a report from members of one political party? We do not have that right as members of Parliament, and because of that I think it is a very serious question of privilege. I believe that this is a precedent. I believe that this type of thing has never happened in the history of the country. It is a practice that should be stopped by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), the practice of using public funds for narrow party purposes.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, there is a second important part to this question of privilege, in my opinion. Many people have called me and said, "I understand that there is a parliamentary task force studying grain transportation in this country. Are you, as the food and agricultural critic, or is the member for Regina West as the transportation critic, a member of that task force?"


An hon. Member:: How could you be?


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is the very point I am raising. Because public funds are being spent, we were not invited to be members of that task force, and nor were members of the
Liberal party or members of the Social Credit party. That is a misrepresentation of this Parliament. There is an impression among the population of this country that this is a parliamentary task force report and therefore a non-partisan report prepared by representatives of all parties in this House.
My question of privilege is that public funds and services were used, the services of translators, the services of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, and the services of the Department of Transport. The report has now been tabled in the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications of this House. Also we have answers on the order paper which state that over $9,000 from the public treasury was spent. I have it from a good source, as I said, that other government services were used in terms of secretaries and technical assistance from other departments.
1 think that that is an infringement upon my rights as a member. If they have those rights, should we not all have the same rights and the same access to that type of public funding? It seems to me that it would only be fair. I raise that as an important question of privilege which affects the privileges of all of us in the House. Regardless whether the Prime Minister thinks so or not, all of us in this House are equals and we must be treated as equals by the ministers of this cabinet and by all departments of the Government of Canada.


Mr. Speaker:: I see several members who want to participate in the discussions of this question of privilege and 1 am prepared to hear them either now or later. The one that has been raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell (Mr. Ethier) concerns the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise). The Minister of Agriculture has indicated he wants to respond to that on Monday. I want to indicate to the House that I have examined the one that has been raised in respect of the Minister of Agriculture and it will not be decided until 1 hear the minister, of course. The situation is the same with respect to this question.
I do want to say to the House, however, that if in fact public funds have been spent on a committee activity of this sort, a committee made up of only one party, it is a practice which, if it does not constitute privilege, is one which the House would want to examine very carefully and reconsider. I want to invite earnest consideration by the ministers involved-the Minister of Agriculture on the previous question and the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) on this one. Whether or not technically this comes within the orbit of a question of privilege, it is a practice that ought to be carefully examined.
The reason I say this now is that 1 do not want to get an off-hand intervention in the absence of a notice to the minister. 1 would invite the government members involved, including, of course, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) who is responsible for parliamentary practices, to give this matter careful consideration. If it is in fact a practice in which this government wishes to engage and wishes to defend-which, of course, is not my option, it is the option of those involved on that side of the House-then it ought to be done after careful consideration, following which an argument should be addressed to the House, if it is an issue which, after consider-

December 7, 1979

ation, they decide should not be pursued, the House should be so informed.
I am simply saying that this is a matter which I take seriously and which 1 consider to be of great importance. I want to put it into the hands of the House to decide whether or not this matter should be deferred until Monday to give members on both sides an opportunity to prepare their interventions, so that I could reach a decision on Monday on both questions at the same time. But I do consider it to be a matter which, even if it is not a question of privilege, is a practice that be done only after careful reflection and a defence here in the House, after which I would want to decide whether or not it was privilege. Perhaps I could get some indication from the House whether we want to proceed with this now or whether we should defer it until Monday for further argument.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, 1 want to point out to you that the Minister of Transport is in the House. He is aware of this question because he knows of my concern. The Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce is not here, he is in the other place, so I suggest we start dealing with this matter this morning. It is a very important question.
You ask whether or not public funds have been spent. What 1 was quoting from was an answer provided to me by the Government of Canada. It appears at page 2044 of Hansard in reply to a question I put on the order paper. So indeed the government is saying it did spend funds. The Minister of Transport is nodding his head in the affirmative, so we know that that is a fact. I think we should pursue it.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, you have raised a very important point on a matter which we regard as being of some significance, and I think it is important from the point of view of parliamentary practice. I understand there is one almost related matter that was put over until Monday involving the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise), and there is the matter which was raised today concerning the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski).
With respect to the importance of engaging the attention of members of Parliament generally with respect to public policy, I think your suggestion is an eminently sensible one, and if it is agreeable to you-and 1 hope it will be agreeable to members of the House-we can give attention to it in the period of time and deal with the matter on Monday because we regard it as being quite an important matter as well. 1 hope you will use what authority you have in these circumstances to breathe some life into that suggestion because I think the argument is very important in terms of parliamentary practice.


Mr. Speaker:: I suppose we can accomplish both things. There are some hon. members who want to make interventions today. I can hear them, then I can defer the matter, which 1 will most certainly do, for interventions from the government side on Monday, or I can hear the minister today. The Minister of Transport might be able to shed some light on this.
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, 1 will not be in the House on Monday. I would be prepared to make a few comments right at this particular time.
Perhaps I can clarify a couple of items raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). He questioned whether there was an order in council. 1 think he will find that there was. The member suggested that it is a political report to be used for partisan purposes. Upon reflection I think he would want to reconsider those remarks, because quite frankly the report clearly speaks for itself. There is nothing partisan or political about the report.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder if I could deal with that point now. It seems to me that is a point which we could conveniently leave out of the argument. It does not matter. The quality of the report makes absolutely no difference to the end result. Whether in fact it is of a partisan nature or not, it does not make any difference if it is a report of a one-caucus committee. I think we can keep the matter on a rather higher plane. Regardless of the nature or the quality of the report, it seems to me that has nothing to do with the ultimate decision.
I would invite members on my ieft to abandon those accusations and members on my right to abandon those defences and just to stick with the basic problem of whether or not it is within the practices or contrary to the privileges and practices of the House to spend government funds on the report of a government committee only.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: Only Mr. Speaker would be able to decide that question. I am sure that in Your Honour's wisdom you will decide in a manner which is consistent with the traditions of this House.
I am sure the hon. member will find that the order in council was made. The report has been made public. There were members of the government party involved in the formation and the establishment of this report. 1 think upon reflection there have been a number of reports which have been considered with respect to grain transportation and movement. I think the Booze-Allan study was worth some $600,000. It was done by a consulting firm that was appointed by the former government. We have here a very comprehensive analysis and some very good recommendations which are not limited to the consumption of the government or the members of a political party.
I presented this report to a committee of the House yesterday for the benefit not only of the government or Conservative members of the House, but in the interests of achieving a better grain handling and transportation system. The cost was $9,161. We have been completely open about it. There were some 30 groups and associations consulted. Discussions had gone on. The report is public. It is in the hands of Parliament. Quite frankly, I think it is designed for and aimed at facilitating grain movement. We have indicated what costs were associated from the public treasury. So there is absolutely nothing to hide. If, in Mr. Speaker's candid opinion, there is a

December 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
breach of the privilege of the House, then of course it is a decision Your Honour will have to make.
1 can assure hon. members of the House that this initiative was taken by the government in the best faith and in the best interests of improving grain handling and transportation facilities in this country. It is a responsibility which I have. It is something to which 1 give top priority. The House was not in session at that particular time, and there were no committees established. If there had been a parliamentary committee in existence at that time, perhaps the parliamentary committee may have considered this important factor. Certainly there was nothing untoward, political or partisan about the appointment of this task force, it was in the best interests of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Donald Frank Mazankowski: It was in the best interests of improving the grain handling and transportation system in this country. I put that to Your Honour in the most sincere and genuine fashion that I possibly can.


Edward C. Lumley: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom), mainly because I heartily agree with everything he said. On November 23 I raised this question with the House leader.
I do not doubt for a second the sincerity of the hon. Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski) in initiating a study of this kind, because of the importance of the grain transportation or rail line abandonment study which he initiated with another hon. member. But I think he has missed the point. The point in fact is that hon. members on all sides of the House were not involved in that particular study where government funds were involved. As the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville stated, it infringes upon the rights and privileges of each and every individual member of this House.
Yesterday the minister said that the committee was formed when the House was not sitting. Well, we have an office of the hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau); we have a deputy House leader and a whip. All it would have taken was a telephone call to ask if members of this particular party, the NDP or the Social Credit were interested. Because of the national interest of the two studies, in particular the report of the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta), I am sure any number of members of Parliament would have been interested in co-operating with the government. One cannot compare this particular study to the Booze-Allan report which was an outside study commissioned by the Government of Canada.
There is another element which has been missed so far. When government expenditures are used to pay for trips by hon. members, we should have equal opportunity. As members of Parliament, we have ten trips a year for travel anywhere in Canada. As the hon. Minister of Transport knows from his days as transport critic, it is very difficult to be able to maximize the use of those ten trips in doing things in the interests of transportation. Yet hon. members opposite were offered a special opportunity to travel to various areas in

Western Canada to meet with interested parties who were not available to members on this side.
Another point is that members of the task force were invited to discuss at the federal-provincial ministers' level this report to get the input of provincial ministers of transportation and agriculture. That privilege was not offered to members on the opposition side of the House.
It is worth reading into the record the answer of the House leader to my question on November 23. With respect to the so-called parliamentary task force which included only Conservative members of Parliament, while acknowledging the dedicated effort of the individual members concerned, 1 asked the following:
-would the President of the Privy Council assure the House that in future parliamentary task forces will include members from both sides of the House-
As reported in Hansard, the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) said the following:
Mr. Speaker, I am very happy the hon. member raised that question. It has been my view-and 1 know it is the view shared by the Prime Minister-that for too iong the talent which exists on the benches on all sides of the House of Commons really has been underutilized. We adopted as an experiment the procedure to which the hon. member refers.
It is too bad he did not consider opposition members at the time this thought process took place.


Thomas Lefebvre: It is just an oversight.


Edward C. Lumley: He continued:
I have no objection whatsoever to considering that kind of task force involving all members of the House of Commons. There are many issues which could be considered respecting the operation of government that really arc not partisan and that could engage properly the attention of members on all sides of the House of Commons. I certainly agree with the representation contained in the question.
Hopefully, Mr. Speaker will rule in favour of the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville on his question of privilege. Perhaps even before Your Honour makes your ruling, the House leader of the government party will make a firm commitment to the House that never again will there be a parliamentary committee which only involves members of the government party.


Mr. Speaker:: I see quite a number of members seeking the floor. I should like to ask their co-operation in making sure that they are adding something to the debate which 1 have not already heard.


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, first of all 1 should like to welcome most warmly your suggestion that we not engage any further in references to the matter being of a partisan nature. In other words, we should not contend that the matter is partisan, and the government should not worry about defending that position.
By the same token, I suggest that it is completely irrelevant to argue about something in the report being good. Whether it is helpful or not to the situation is irrelevant to the basic issue,
December 7, 1979

namely: Have the practices and rules of this those been offended?
I feel that has been done in two ways. In the first place, 1 think that it is an affront to Parliament when a committee is set up which consists of members of only one party in the House. In the second place, I think that something is wrong when the government is able to provide money, whether it is only $9,000, $9 or hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a purpose not usually handled in that way.
1 emphasize the fact that our rules are very extensive on the setting up of committees. Standing Order 65 is the main rule in that situation and, of course, it provides for appointments to those committees, by virtue, first of all, of there being a striking committee. That striking committee works hard at achieving a fair balance among the members of the standing committees. The striking committee had nothing to do with this Conservative committee.
I also point out that the standing committees are given certain powers, one of them being the right to send for persons, papers and records, and then the right to print their reports. In other words, when a standing committee spends money printing its report, it has been given that authority. But even a standing committee cannot travel, cannot have any expenses for travelling or hotels or what have you, unless it gets a special order. Yet here we have a committee which was not set up under Standing Order 65 but which has printed the results of its work, has done some travelling and had it paid for out of public funds.
I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that the matter is as serious as was suggested the other day by the member for Glengarry-Pre-scott-Russell (Mr. Ethier), and as suggested today by my colleague from Yorkton-Melville. We know there are other such committees, and the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) I believe is the head of one of them. Perhaps he is a one-man committee doing the same kind of thing on the subject of branch lines. As 1 say, our provisions for committee structure are well set out. We cannot have a special committee without a special motion, and no committee, standing or otherwise, can travel or spend money without the authority to do so.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), for whom 1 have a great deal of liking and respect, answered quite straightforwardly that he believes there is an order in council. It is nice to have that straightforwardness, but what he is telling us is that the government got around the usual way of setting up a committee and providing money for it, since it was a committee of the government side only, by passing an order in council instead of using the rules of this House.
I dare to hope, Mr. Speaker, that the arguments that are being made, and your own emphasis upon the seriousness of the issue, may lead the government to reconsider its position and discontinue this practice completely. The government can avoid your having to make a ruling on it. As someone behind
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
me suggests, the Conservative party should pay back the money that was spent on this task force.
All the caucuses in this place set up committees. We have committees. We have two members right now, the hon. member for Saskatoon East (Mr. Ogle) and my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie), who form a committee concerned with health and social matters. They are pursuing that work, as charged by our caucus, by travelling. They are in the Atlantic area right now. They are able to travel to some extent on the basis of the members' travelling privileges which we have, but there is no hotel money and no money for meals. When they come back and draft a report, nobody on the government side is going to print the document.
But there is this report. It is a very official looking document with a maple leaf on it and it is put out by the Government of Canada through the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce. This one also gets translated. We would not even think of asking for our two-member committee, to which 1 just referred, to have government support or funds out of the treasury. They are doing their work at the request of caucus and they are paying their own way, except for the fact that they do have the right to travel, just as any other member of Parliament has the right to travel. But in doing that they are using up some of their flight privileges. They have no government staff, no translating staff, yet on the government side this has happened.
As 1 say, I respect the concern of the Minister of Transport to find ways to solve the problem. I request his suggestion that there are probably some good proposals in this report. That is not the issue any more than it was the issue for my good friend to suggest that this is a partisan operation. In any case, we have ruled that out of the discussion. What is involved is a committee structure, a committee set-up, which is not provided for in Standing Order 65 at all. The government has got around that and got around the business of providing money for the committee by having it done by order in council.
I argue this not so much as a matter of procedure or rules, so as to try to get Your Honour to make a ruling, but more in the way of making an appeal to the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) to reconsider this whole matter. They should be expected to discuss it today because they have known about it. This question has not been sprung on them today. The hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell raised it some time ago, and my friend the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville put his question on the order paper on November 7.
I thank the Minister of Transport for giving a frank answer, but under four different headings payments were made to the total of $9,000. The government have had plenty of warning. They have postponed a decision on the issue until the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) had his chance, Mr. Speaker, but this really adds up to a pretty serious aberration of the committee practices in this House.
I commend the Conservative party on putting its backbenchers to work. That is a good idea. I think in fact, if I may say so without attracting the ire of my friends over here on the right,

December 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
they are a little better at it than the Liberals were when they were over there. That is not the question either. If the Conservative party wants to put its members to work, God bless them, but let them pay for it and not find a way to get funds out of the public treasury to pay for the expenses and to get the report printed. In addition, they should not engage in an affront to Parliament by giving the idea that somehow this is a parliamentary committee. It is not a parliamentary committee any more than our Ogle-Blaikie committee is a parliamentary committee. We put them to work. We think it is a good idea that they are doing what they are doing, but they are doing it on behalf of our caucus, and the results of their study will be reflected in the things that are said from this corner of the House in due course.
I believe this is a very serious issue, Mr. Speaker, and I really think that the best way to resolve it would be for the ministers involved to say that they moved too quickly into this thing, that they are prepared to back up and withdraw the whole operation, and that the Progressive Conservative party will put up the funds that have been spent improperly in this way.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, the issue has been clouded. There is a very narrow point I should like to bring to your attention.
The former minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board appointed by order in council a commission under Justice Hall. There was no problem in relation to paying his expenses because he was undertaking a mission relating to issues associated with the movement of grain. I would point out to you, sir, that the minister now in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board has done that very thing. He has appointed individuals to a commission to undertake a job because of their ability and capability of bringing in a report that will be knowledgeable and acceptable to the growers of grain in western Canada.
The question you have to decide, sir, is whether members of Parliament are ineligible for appointment to these commissions. If you rule that they are ineligible, then certainly the government will have to be guided by that. For the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board not to have the privilege of appointing a commission to bring in a report on an issue would be in exact opposition to what the former minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board did in respect of the Hall commission.
I just want to bring to your attention, sir, that the question is whether members of Parliament, as chosen in this case by the minister in charge of the Canadian Wheat Board, should be allowed to serve in that capacity.


An hon. Member:: One o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. It being one o'clock I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At one o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
[ Translation]
Pierre Deniger: Mr. Speaker, I also wish to contribute to this very important debate on the question of privilege raised by our colleague from Yorkton-Melville, but I wish to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that I shall be very brief. I shall be brief because the points raised by my colleague from Stormont-Dundas are self-explanatory, as are those raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). First of all, Mr. Speaker, I wish to say that it is in all sincerity that 1 speak this afternoon because it is not the first time unfortunately that I have an opportunity to speak about this tragic matter.
Indeed, as we can see on pages 1374, 1375 and 1376 of Hansard for November 15, I rose in the House to tell the minister how disappointed I was that he had interfered with the rights and privileges of members of Parliament by not inviting us to take part in this debate. The minister knew very well that certain members of both main parties on the other side of the House could have taken part in this task force.
Mr. Speaker, the minister said earlier that since the House was not sitting, he found it difficult to call on members of other parties. However, he only had to look at the example that you yourself, Mr. Speaker, gave to the House this summer when you led a mission to China accompanied by members on both sides of the House. He had only to think also about the meeting of the parliamentary union held this summer in Venezuela while the House was in recess and while delegates from both sides of the House attended.
Unfortunately, Mr. Speaker, the argument made by the minister concerning the lack of daily business in the House and the fact that the House was not sitting does not hold water.
Mr. Speaker, 1 also wish to remind the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) who spoke just before me that he erred thoroughly because there is a world of difference between, on the one hand, appointing a judge as chairman of a commission of inquiry and, on the other hand, appointing a member of the House on a commission of inquiry without allowing hon. members of the opposition to sit on that commission.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Pierre Deniger: As you know, Mr. Speaker, I was elected last May 22. Before, I was under the impression that all members of the House were treated equally.


An hon. Member:: Not quite!


Pierre Deniger: Unfortunately, I deplore the attitude of the Minister of Transport (Mr. Mazankowski), whom I respect
December 7, 1979

nonetheless, because I think he was sincere but unfortunately he forgot the most elementary rules of the House concerning the equal rights and privileges which fall to all members.
Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised very interesting points when he referred to the specific rule dealing with the establishment of committees. This is what he said in his argument quite simply: Only a duly established committee can spend the Canadian taxpaxers' money on a mission. It is my conviction that hon. members opposite are aware of this, and it is for that reason that the document now before us refers to a task force rather than a committee. And this is why the answer given to the hon. member-


An hon. Member:: They are charging personal expenditures!


Pierre Deniger: -for Yorkton-Melville also deals with a task force. 1 submit, Mr. Speaker, that if this be a task force they have no right, any more than we do, or the New Democratic Party for that matter, to spend public moneys. 1 must speak frankly. 1 read the report. I already gave interviews on television on the contents of the report, and I would have liked to co-operate, but this is first and foremost a caucus report-


An hon. Member:: Partisan!


Pierre Deniger: -that was referred to the minister in charge of the subject matter discussed in caucus, but unfortunately it required a contribution of several thousand dollars from Canadian taxpayers.


An hon. Member:: Shame!


Pierre Deniger: The hon. member for Yorkton-Melville submitted that the amounts referred to may be a small part only of the total expenditures.


An hon. Member:: Twenty thousand dollars!


Pierre Deniger: And this is not all, Mr. Speaker. There is the other committee of the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil), and other committees of the hon. member for Leth-bridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).
We opposition members are as much interested as members opposite in the problems of western farmers, because they are national issues that should be of interest to every member in the House.


An hon. Member:: Quite true.


Pierre Deniger: We are not like the Prime Minister who is not interested in the referendum.


An hon. Member:: No.


Pierre Deniger: In concluding, Mr. Speaker, allow me to point out once again my disappointment as a new member. When I
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
learned that this task force was being set up, if I had known what 1 know now about the rights and regulations of the House, 1 would probably have asked the Chair to correct that mistake. 1 do so this afternoon, unfortunately in difficult circumstances on a Friday afternoon during the consideration of a question of privilege in which I am taking part and which I support. I am, however, deeply disappointed, as I indicated to the minister, and I hope, Mr. Speaker, that when you make your decision this afternoon or Monday on that basic issue, you will take into consideration the fact that a young member deserves as much consideration as a member with years of experience. If young members opposite were appointed to that committee, I do not see why as a new member 1 could not be on it as well.


Mr. Speaker:: 1 would like to conclude this discussion with the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I am glad that we are going to end it on a high note. My support for the questions raised by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) has to do with the question of the privileges of members on all sides of the House. I think that the privileges of all members have been affronted and abused in this situation of an in-party, in-government caucus appointment of a task force to study this particular aspect of grain handling.
The hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers) mentioned that the previous government had appointed Justice Emmett Hall to study the question of the railroad system and the movement of grain in western Canada. How can anyone equate the appointment of Justice Hall, who is outside the parliamentary structure, to study a problem with the appointment of three Conservative backbenchers by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to study a problem? How can anyone use that argument to say that that justifies the appointment of three Tory backbenchers to do a study paid for by the taxpayers of Canada?
People in Canada today are cynical about politicians and politics. In fact, when they voted on May 22, they thought they were exchanging a happy Liberal government for "Mr. Clean". Now we are finding out we have "Mr. Sleeze". In fact, they expected a different kind of performance.


An hon. Member:: Instead of greensleeves it is bluesleeves.


John R. Rodriguez: I remember when this government was in opposition and members would raise questions about such things as Christmas trees at 24 Sussex Drive and about the expenditure of taxpayers' money for things which were primarily related to only one political party in this House of Commons. Indeed, the hon. member for Leeds (Mr. Cossitt), who is extremely quiet these days, was always the bug in the government when he was on the opposition side of the House with respect to the whole question of these kinds of expenditures.
2142

December 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Nystrom
The Conservative party does not need to eat at the public trough to have a study done with a partisan slant. They are backed by all the Bay Street boys. They charge 125 bucks a throw for a dinner.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: They do not need to eat at the public trough to get these particular studies done. Indeed, they may well have prejudiced beneficial results for the people of Canada and Parliament by having cast the task force in such a manner as to have only three members.
In this corner of the House we are always prepared to accept good proposals and to look at good, concrete results from any task force, and, of course, we are always willing to participate. We were denied the opportunity as parliamentarians to participate in the discussions and in the final recommendations, whether or not it was a majority or minority position.
The fact is that the people of Canada have to pay for something which has now become-and 1 believe it is not out of order to say it-a partisan report. I know and we all know that the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) was very upset that he did not get a cabinet post-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. We are not necessarily on totally firm ground in terms of a question of privilege to start with. I do not think we should stretch our luck any more than we have already.


John R. Rodriguez: Mr. Speaker, I would not want to do that, but in conclusion-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John R. Rodriguez: 1 can see I have some approval over there so maybe 1 will make one or two more points. We are all concerned about restraint in government. We are all concerned about the spending of taxpayers' money. The people of Canada were expecting a different kind of performance, and in fact the appointment of this task force-it was a cozy little reward-to do this kind of a study does not do anything to bolster the confidence of Canadians that what we do here in the House of Commons will have some benefit for them as the people of this country.
One last point that I want to make on this question of privilege that has been raised by the hon. member for York-ton-Melville concerns the whole question of other parties having their committees go around the country to do studies. Does that mean that we will be able to apply to the government for funds by telling them that we have a committee studying occupational health and safety in Canada, and that we would like the same kinds of fund flow so we can go out and do a similar study? Where does it stop? The answer is that you cannot encourage that sort of junketing across the country. If the House of Commons wants to investigate a serious matter, it ought to be done in the way we have established in the past, and that is by having members from all sides of the

House participating. If members who are sitting on the committee do not agree with some of the ideas expressed, they have the opportunity to submit a minority report for the consideration of all members of the House.
As I said, 1 think what has happened here is unfortunate. I would hope, Mr. Speaker, that you would rule that the government cannot appoint members from its back benches exclusively to look at any particular problem in this country, paid for by the taxpayers of Canada which does not reflect the adversary nature of the House of Commons. That is what this place is all about. It is an adversary system. It is like the legal system and the labour scene in this country. That task force paid for by the taxpayers of Canada does not reflect the nature of the House of Commons or the 36 per cent support that the Prime Minister got to win government in this country. The Prime Minister is acting as if he had a majority government and as if he had all the members of the House of Commons. I think that is arrogance that can only be equalled by his predecessor.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I had indicated that I wanted to conclude the discussion and I have concluded the discussion. I do not need to hear any more-


Mr. Olivier:: Mr. Speaker-


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: 1 wonder why 1 cannot have the floor, Mr. Speaker.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. 1 have indicated that I wanted-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.

Order. The hon. member understands, I am sure, that it is impossible for the Speaker and the hon. member to speak both at the same time. Order.

I have asked for the co-operation of the House in the discussion of this matter. I have indicated that it already remains under reserve with the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell, who raised another point similar to this. I had indicated to members earlier that 1 had asked them not to be repetitious. 1 have had a rather full discussion of this matter, as 1 have had on the point raised by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell. The matter will not be decided today. It remains to be held over until the Minister of Agriculture and the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell are here on Monday. I
December 7, 1979

hope to be able to give the House some direction on this matter on Monday. If hon. members who have not been heard today still seek the opportunity to intervene at that time, 1 would be glad to hear them.
In the meantime, as invited to do, I trust that the government will give very serious consideration to the interventions made today. I intend to do the same and hope that we can come to some assessment of the matter that will satisfy the House on Monday.
I also have a notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming).


MR. FLEMING-PROPOSED CANCELLATION OF CBC TELEVISION PROGRAM &quot;THE NATION'S BUSINESS&quot;
James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I bring this matter to your attention today as a result of developments yesterday. It concerns a matter that has been brought up both in committee and here in the House of Commons in recent weeks regarding the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation and its decision to cancel "The Nation's Business", "La politique federate".
I believe it is an important matter to be discussed, and I rise today not only because a question of privilege is a legitimate means to bring forward a grievance here in the House of Commons when members' privileges or Parliament's privileges are being contravened, but I think there is some ground even for saying it goes the full distance of being a legitimate and full question of privilege which may call for some investigation by a parliamentary committee.
The situation at the moment as I understand it is that a meeting to be held with senior representatives of the major parties and representatives of the CBC yesterday was cancelled because the President of the CBC, Mr. Johnson, wanted to take the issue back to his board of directors. His board of directors at an earlier stage did endorse his position that "La politique federate" and "The Nation's Business" would be cancelled for the six-week period of the Quebec referendum. What is unclear is whether he is going back to get a reconfirmation because of the objections raised strongly in committee by this side of the House, the opposition. Certainly at least one member on his own behalf from the New Democratic Party and a number of members on the culture and communications committee from the government side had some real concerns as well.
1 believe that our rights are being abrogated by the attitude taken by the president of the CBC and the decision of his board. I want to give some reasons for that. First, 1 think this program is established as a-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. 1 wonder if the hon. member really seriously contends that action taken to cancel a public affairs program in which some political parties of the country have an opportunity to air their views, while it may be a matter of grievance which he can take up with the minister
Privilege-Mr. Fleming
who reports to Parliament on behalf of the national broadcasting corporation, and while it may be a matter of great concern that can be taken up in that way, really is a question of privilege. 1 would have to hear him on that.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: Mr. Speaker, I would argue it can be for several reasons. One is that that program, by its very name and title, by what it has come to be known by the Canadian public, is an extension of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: I really have to confine the hon. member. There have been several public affairs programs on both private and public networks. They are all excellent vehicles through which hon. members have the opportunity to express their views. They are interviewed. 1 understand the time is usually shared equally in proportion to the representation of the parties, perhaps in this House or a provincial chamber, and things of that sort. However, just because these programs give members of political parties the opportunity to put forward their views, does it mean that that has become an extension of the rights that members enjoy by virtue of being elected members of the House of Commons and without which they can be said to be interfered with? The House must remember that in these questions of privilege, what we are dealing with always in the area of privilege is an interference with a fundamental right that a member has which enables him or her to carry out their basic responsibilities as an elected member of the House of Commons.
There are a number of additional consequences, results or benefits that come with the position of being an elected member of the House of Commons, but essentially a question of privilege deals with an interference with the basic opportunity of a member to function and carry out his or her responsibilities as an elected member of the House of Commons, such as physical interference with a member in getting to the House, deception of the member and things of that nature.
Surely access to the airwaves in any kind of form is not fundamental as a right consequent upon being elected but rather something in addition to that. I do not know how 1 could ever consider a decision of that sort to take away the program entirely, if it were perhaps proposed to take it away from one set of members and not another, and I do not extend to that, it might be a different situation; but to take the program off the air is not something to which we can attach our rights simply by being members of the House of Commons.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: If I can expand my point, Mr. Speaker; I did not have much chance to make several points which may have some pertinence. Certainly as I know the practices of this House, members have been able to rise when they feel they have a grievance. In most cases, Mr. Speaker, you found that that did not carry through to being a legitimate question of privilege and referred to a committee. Aside from the arguments-I will keep what you have said in mind, and I will skip

December 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Symes
the part of the arguments which I think are important and are worth hearing-


Walter David Baker: Filibuster.


James Sydney Clark Fleming: The government can shout filibuster if they want. I am concerned about this issue. Canadians who care about their country know that the CBC has a mandate to promote national unity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Sydney Clark Fleming: If you will allow me, Mr. Speaker, 1 briefly want to argue that in fact the position of the president of the CBC contravenes an act passed by this Parliament, directions given to it under the act and rights given us under that act to have access to the Canadian public. For that reason I think it is a contravention of my rights as a member of Parliament and of all members in this Parliament.
A situation where this particular program representing Parliament to Canadians is not interfered with during a federal by-election, is not interfered with when there are provincial elections, but when there is a referendum in a particular province the president of the CBC decides it will be interfered with, is quite inappropriate. He is overstepping his rights. In the Broadcasting Act, if 1 can simply quote section 3(b)-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will surely realize he is arguing a case that the president of the CBC may be acting against the tastes of him as a member or the House collectively, or that he may be acting in contravention of a particular statute. Those arguments may be entirely correct. My difficulty is not that the point is unimportant or that the House is not concerned about it. It may be. However, it simply does not attack in a fundamental form the rights of members of the House of Commons collectively to carry out their fundamental duty as elected members.
Even if the hon. member is correct that the president of the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation is contravening the Broadcasting Act-and I do not know whether he is or not- that is an illegality. Even if the policy is such that it becomes distasteful to the hon. member or to several hon. members, that is a matter to be taken up by way of grievance, not by way of a question of privilege.


MR. SYMES-ALLEGED MISLEADING ANSWER GIVEN BY MINISTER
Reginald Cyril Symes: Mr. Speaker, I gave you due notice of a question of privilege I wished to raise today in relation to statements made in the House by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) concerning fuel oil supplies over these winter months. I also gave notice to the energy minister that I would be raising this point this afternoon or this morning. I notice he is not in his place. However, an element arising out of the question period today also involves the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). I see that he is in his place and I would like to proceed.

The fundamental question of privilege I have is whether or not members of the House of Commons, and hence the people of Canada, are receiving accurate information and an honest appraisal of a particular situation. 1 would like to contend by way of argument that the energy minister has been misleading myself, the House of Commons and the people of Canada as to the true situation concerning fuel oil supplies in Canada. Through argument I would like to develop by way of some very brief quotations over the past few weeks by the energy minister, indicating that he is saying one thing when in reality, as confirmed just a couple of days ago by the Prime Minister and today by the National Energy Board, the situation is quite different-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Symes) is in his very own terms raising a matter of debate. If I were to give him the floor now to take issue with statements made by the energy minister or any other minister in answering questions over the last several days, whether or not different answers to the same questions may have been given, as he well knows contradictions in answers given by the same minister are the subject of comment, criticism and attack but are not the subject of a question of privilege.
I have said to the House in recent days that if I am going to permit members to rise here and take up disagreements with ministers by way of questions of privilege at the end of every question period, we will begin a whole round of explanations of the question period in which members will get up and say they asked a minister a question today, that the answer is the following, and they want to show to the House that that answer is incorrect. That surely is a subject of debate and disagreement. If there are situations in which there is an allegation that there has been an actual falsification, perhaps indeliberate or not, that is another matter. But I cannot permit the hon. member now to develop an argument that the answer he was given was inaccurate or incorrect or not of good quality. That becomes, by its very nature, a debate, and 1 simply could not permit the hon. member to do that, any more than I could permit hon. members every day to use a question of privilege as a vehicle for taking up disagreements with ministers.


Reginald Cyril Symes: Just for clarification, Mr. Speaker, I wonder whether Your Honour could inform me how this House is to operate if the information given to members is misleading.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Reginald Cyril Symes: What is Your Honour's definition of a misleading answer? What I have been attempting to show is that the information I have been receiving is inaccurate and misleading, thus inhibiting me in carrying out my duties as a member of Parliament. I cannot function without accurate information and replies from the ministry.
December 7, 1979


Mr. Speaker:: I have to confine the hon. member to the practice of the House in that regard. He is entitled to put questions and if he is dissatisfied with the answers he is entitled to have access to the opportunity provided by the adjournment debate. As I have indicated to other members, in order to found a question of privilege he really must immediately develop an argument that there is misinformation to the extent that it clearly touches the privileges of the House. The Chair has to decide quickly and early in this argument whether or not the hon. member is attempting to raise what is obviously a disagreement, a matter of debate, or whether in fact the allegation contains an element which might touch the privileges of the House.
I have to tell the hon. member that in this case, as surely he must understand, he is in the area of disagreement and debate. If he wants to question the matter further, to establish the point that I am in error, 1 would invite him to use the adjournment debate proceedings for that purpose.


MR. HERBERT-UNAVAILABILITY OF PAPERS PURSUANT TO NOTICE OF MOTION FOR PRODUCTION OF PAPERS
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Mr. Speaker, if I heard you correctly this afternoon you said a question of privilege must be founded upon interference with an hon. member in carrying out his duties, since it is a fundamental right of an hon. member to carry out those duties without impediment.
First of all, Mr. Speaker, 1 shall be quoting from Beau-chesne. I want to say that, as far as timing is concerned, this is the first opportunity on my part to raise this matter because of what I read in the debates of yesterday and, as you are aware, Mr. Speaker, 1 have given you due notice. My question of privilege derives from Beauchesne's fifth edition, citation 79 on page 24, which reads:
The House maintains sole control over documents in its possession. The public may sec papers which have been tabled in the House.
I move to citation 57 on page 20, where I read:
Under the provisions of the Senate and House of Commons Act any report, paper, votes or proceedings of the House enjoys an absolute privilege-
Reading further, I find that citation 390 on page 138 states the general principles governing Notices of Motions for Production of Papers to be as follows:
(1) To enable members of Parliament to secure factual information about the operations of government to carry out their parliamentary duties and to make public as much factual information as possible-
Having read from Beauchesne, Mr. Speaker, I will tell you why I am raising this question of privilege today. I have several illustrations to support my contention that, possibly not intentionally-and 1 say possibly not intentionally because, again consulting Beauchesne, I am told I must avoid the use of words such as "deception", "distortion", "falsehood", "misleading", and so on, and that I must not say "deliberate" or "intentional"-


An hon. Member:: Come on!
Privilege-Mr. Herbert


Harold Thomas Herbert: Nevertheless, I shall produce evidence which will indicate that if it is not intentional, it is grossly negligent. My specific point of order will deal with motion No. 15, but to support my argument on that motion 1 want also to refer to three other motions, motions 18, 20 and 23.
On October 31 of this year a motion was passed by the House stating that papers would be deposited. These documents would then become available not just to myself but to all members of Parliament, according to the citation from Beauchesne which 1 have just read, as well as to the public generally. 1 have experienced considerable difficulty in my constituency. These documents are supposed to deal with public transportation-1 am using this as an illustration of my point; there is more than one example-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether the hon. member would direct his attention to the fact that we call Notices of Motions for Production of Papers every Wednesday as we do, now, call Questions on the Order Paper every day. It is for the convenience of hon. members that every day we allow questions on the order paper which are not answered to stand; and similarly we allow Notices of Motions for Production of Papers which have not been dealt with to stand every Wednesday when they are called, when they have not been dealt with.
When that question is asked each day with reference to Questions on the Order Paper and every Wednesday with reference to Notices of Motions for the Production of Papers, any member who is aggrieved either by failure to deal with a notice of motion or a question, or by inaction with regard to any which have been dealt with, can raise the point at that time. If the hon. member now wishes to make the point that a Notice of Motion for Production of Papers in his name has been dealt with by the House in some way but that the response has not been satisfactory, he ought to make his objection when that item is called on Wednesdays and not by way of a general question of privilege.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Perhaps Your Honour would indulge me for a few moments longer because there is an essential point here, one which genuinely affects me. Might 1 have the attention of the House for a few moments?


Some hon. Members:: Filibuster!


Harold Thomas Herbert: Maybe I digressed by giving other examples. 1 started off by talking about motion No. 15. Motion No. 15 is directly relevant to the decision I may have to make today and it affects my rights as a member in that if, because of actions initiated by the government, I am forced to make a decision, then 1 am deprived of information which has theoretically been made public in accordance with a motion adopted by this House on November 14 but which has not in fact been made public.
I refer to a copy of the report of the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation on the deductibility of mortgage interest which is directly relevant to what we are debating today. The government has admitted that there is such a report and has stated that it is prepared to table it in the House. In fact,

December 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Rae
though, it has not been tabled and it is not available. I am supposed to make a decision based on whatever information I have. The public has a right to see this document, too, in order to determine its attitude on the measure to be debated today and in ensuing days. 1 feel its absence is a direct infringement on my privileges. In fact, it is an impediment to my work when I am denied access to a document which the government admits is in existence and has agreed to table. It has certainly not been tabled in time for an important debate.
I would point out, also, that it would be too late next Wednesday to raise a grievance at that stage, as has been suggested, because by then the debate might well be over. This document should have been available to me and to the public generally.
1 suggest that this is a genuine question of privilege, and if Your Honour rules it a question of privilege, then I would like to move a motion referring it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member raises the additional point that the House is being asked-that is to say, all members-to participate in a debate on a matter relating to mortgages, interest rates and their deductibility. The hon. member seeks a report which he says was ordered by the House pursuant to previous motions for the production of documents, that that document is not forthcoming and therefore not in the possession of members, and that that puts a nature on it which I would think, if not privilege, is certainly a very serious matter.
I do not know if there is anyone representing the minister in this matter at the moment, but I will certainly take the matter under advisement and hope that all action would be taken which would comply with that order if at all possible before the House is asked to proceed with that particular debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MR. RAE-THE BUDGET-ALLEGED MANIPULATION OF TIME TO DEBATE
Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, I gave you notice of a question of privilege, and that was not done lightly. It concerns the manipulation of parliamentary time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Hees:: My old riding would be ashamed of you.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees) says his old riding would be ashamed of me. I do not think that is the view people there will take when they hear what I have to say.
My question of privilege concerns the time allocated for the debate on the budget statement on Tuesday night. I want to quote from Erskine May at page 785 as follows:
The consideration of the financial statement for the year made by the Chancellor of the Exchequer is the most important business of ways and means.

It is precisely because it is the most important business of ways and means that I, speaking as the finance critic for my party, resent most deeply the way in which parliamentary debate on the budget has been manipulated by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker). That is to say, the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is allowed on Tuesday night at 8 p.m. to tell the House of Commons what his budget is going to be, with all the focus of public attention which is derived therefrom. The spokesman for the official opposition is given an opportunity on Tuesday night to reply to the statement of the Minister of Finance. We were told in yesterday's debate by the President of the Privy Council as recorded in Hansard at page 2077 that he cannot even tell us precisely what day after that time will be allocated for the discussion of the budget. The best he can tell us is that it will possibly be-or to use his words, it "will likely be"-on Friday, December 14.
Since the categories of privilege are not closed, I think a case can be made that the government has so manipulated Parliament's time in the consideration of the budget that it is guaranteeing that the same public attention will not be available to those in my party and on this side of the House who are concerned about making constructive criticism of the budget presented by the Minister of Finance.
In any other statement made by a minister-this will be a financial statement by a minister on ways and means, and there was an example yesterday of a statement made by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn)- time is allotted in such a way that official spokesmen for all the parties are able to make statements at the same time and not have those statements subject to the manipulation by the government of parliamentary time. I think it is-


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member will realize that it has been a long standing practice of this House that on budget night, regardless of the duration of the speech made by the Minister of Finance in delivering the budget address, the second intervention is that of the financial critic for the official opposition who, before he concludes, adjourns the debate.
That has been a customary practice. Even it were not, the hon. member would realize that he is asking at one and the same time, first, for a ruling on something which has not yet happened and, second, for a ruling on a practice of the House which, as long as I have been here, has been the practice in the delivery of any budget speech for this to take place, which means that the intervention by a third party in the discussion on budget night has never taken place.
The hon. member may wish to see if he can pursue the situation. He may wish to raise it, as he has done, by way of a grievance; but surely since it has been part of our practice for at least 10 to 15 years-and 1 assume for much longer than that-1 am not able to regard it, even on a preliminary basis, as a question of privilege.


Bob Rae: Mr. Speaker, the question 1 am raising is a question of the consecutiveness of the debate. I am not asking Your Honour to carry out a revolution in procedure. 1 am
December 7, 1979

asking the government to recognize that it is in danger of manipulating parliamentary time in such a way as to make a mockery of the budget debate.


Mr. Speaker:: I have to tell the hon. member again that he may have an area which he wishes to work on, and to try to improve and to criticize as it stands. However, it has been a long standing practice in both respects that he has addressed himself to, both on budget evening and the right of the government to call the continuance of the budget debate as it wishes.


MR. REID (KENORA-RAINY RIVER)-LEVEL OF LIGHTING IN CHAMBER-RECOGNITION OF MEMBERS DURING QUESTION PERIOD
John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege arises from my frustration during question period.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Mercer Reid: And it goes further than that because of some particular problems which have developed over the last little while as a result of the changes we made in the House of Commons by bringing in additional lights. As a result of the lights coming in, 1 find it extremely difficult to spend too much time in the House of Commons. 1 get very bad headaches.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Why don't you leave?


An hon. Member:: Your constituents will look after that.


John Mercer Reid: I am thinking of asking the Chair to allow us to wear hats in the House as used to be the case when the House of Commons began. In any event, this has caused a great many difficulties for me personally.
Second, 1 want to raise the point that the rural constituency I have calls for me to spend a fair amount of time travelling. 1 know that there are difficulties in terms of allocating the time amongst members on this side and the other side for question period. Let me make it quite clear that I have no objection to the way which the parties use the first half of the question period to raise questions of importance to the parties. 1 think that is fair. 1 think it is also fair that the rest of the time should be left open to a free-for-all.
The dilemma we have is that those of us who stand in this corner seeking to be recognized by the Chair know that we cannot be recognized all the time. We recognize that Your Honour has said in the past that in fact you do keep a list and that you try to recognize everybody who rises seriatim in order to be able to cope with the demand of more participation of hon. members on this side. The dilemma we on this side have is, first, that none of us knows where the list is kept, none of us knows where we stand on that list, and, third, we feel that we lose position on that list if we happen to miss a day or are out


C.R.T.C.
[Stage Direction]
travelling, and that we drop to the bottom of the list, missing our time.
We feel that that is a point of some importance because, if we know where we stand on the list and are able to cope with that, then perhaps we are in a better position to arrange our time in a different way in order not to miss our opportunities. As a result of that, many of us on this side of the House feel that there is a question of arbitrariness in the way members on this side are recognized. We know that it is not so. We recognize that there are problems in terms of the way in which Your Honour sees us as well.
Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Mercer Reid: Mr. Speaker, could we have order in the House?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I suppose the most direct way to bring about order would be to indicate with all the severity that I can command that the hon. member has no question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates-Mr. Lambert (Edmonton West).
Second report of Standing Committee on Transport-Mr. Forrestall.
First and second reports of Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development-Mr. Oberle.
First report of Standing Committee on Privileges and Election-Mr. Patterson.
Mr. Lachance:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on a point of order. [English]
Third report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Halliday.
[Editor's Note: For text of above reports, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

December 7, 1979
Time Allocation


CANADIAN RADIO-TELEVISION AND TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION TABLING OF ORDER IN COUNCIL APPOINTING NEW CHAIRMAN
Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I would like to lay upon the Table two copies, one in French and one in English, of the order in council naming the new chairman to the Canadian Radio-Television and Telecommunications Commission in the distinguished person of Mr. John Meisel, currently professor of political science at Queen's University.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS AND NATIONAL DEFENCE
[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government notices of motions:
December 5, 1979-the Minister of National Defence:
That the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence be empowered to hear evidence and consider Canadian policy with respect to future defence co-operation with the United States in the North American region with particular reference to air defence and related arrangements embodied in and flowing from the North American Air Defence agreement, and that they report their view thereon no later than the end of March, 1980.
Mr. Speaker:: Pursuant to section 2 of Standing Order 21, this government notice of motion stands transferred to and ordered for consideration under Government Orders later this day or at the next sitting of the House.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath):
That in relation to Bill C-20, an act to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit in respect of mortgage interest and home owner property tax, one sitting day shall be allotted to the further consideration in Committee of the Whole stage of the bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on that day, any proceeding before the committee shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the Committee of the Whole stage of the bill shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Mr. Speaker:: The House has heard the terms of the motion by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker), seconded by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, members were talking a few moments ago about the manipulation of parliamentary time. If 1 had any qualms or any worries as a parliamentarian about bringing forward a motion of this nature to close off debate, these qualms and worries disappeared a few moments ago when I watched a long litany of motions and other matters being brought forward that bore no relevance to the business of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: All these matters of privilege, specious as were all of them, with one exception, were rejected by Mr. Speaker. I think it is quite important that the public of Canada understand just what happened today in this House of Commons. 1 think it is important as well that members of the House of Commons on both sides of the House, but today particularly on the other side of the House, realize that the people of Canada watch what happens and they register disgust with what they see and will with what they saw today.
At the outset I had some trepidation with respect to moving this motion because 1 did not w'ant to move a motion to allocate the time of the debate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That will not wash, Walter.


Walter David Baker: -on this bill which would give some advantage to property owners in Canada with respect to a property tax credit and to those who would like to be home owners in Canada. This is a popular measure with the people of Canada and I think it is high time the House of Commons dealt with it. That is the reason 1 moved this motion today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There can be no doubt that the people of Canada want the property tax credit bill passed before Christmas so that they can take advantage of this measure in their taxes when they file their income tax this spring.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I think it has become abundantly clear that the Liberal party wants it as well. I ask all members of the House, through you, sir, to recall that it was the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips) who sent out a questionnaire in his riding. That is the fellow who got more publicity by withdrawing from the leadership contest than anybody will ever get from entering it. In any event, he sent out the questionnaire and when it came back it showed that over 60 per cent of his people wanted this kind of bill which this government intends to give to the people of Canada. That is a riding with a great proportion of renters.
December 7, 1979

Secondly, I would like the House to listen again to the words of the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate (Mr. Baker). He spoke eloquently with respect to this bill by standing up and voting against the Liberal party when they wanted to obstruct the bill on second reading. He said something that is more relevant to this motion than anything else. By the way, Mr. Speaker, his name is Baker and we could use a few more Bakers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: He said:
I have listened to all the arguments against the bill and they don't hold any water.
Boy, that is true, Mr. Speaker, they do not hold any water. The people of Canada know that, and it is just about time this Parliament went on to deal with the bill.
! do not want to have to rely on the word of Liberal members of Parliament, as estimable as some of them are. I want to rely on their actions. Seventeen Liberals missed the vote on second reading of the bill-


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: -and three members of the Libera] party, including the hon. member for Gander-Twillingate, voted for the bill.
Now, the NDP has made some pious speeches against this bill but I happened to notice that some members, when asked, could not indicate they would not take the property tax credit if they were given the opportunity. 1 remember that very well in the debate. What is more, even more eloquent than that, the NDP had five members who missed the vote on Tuesday.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Walter David Baker: What is more, all five members came from ridings with a high incidence of home ownership and of people who would like to own a home.
Despite what I have said, 1 have no doubt in the world that when my friends on the other side rise to speak on this motion, there will be synthetic howls of anguish over the use of closure. By this motion we are not moving closure-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Closure was used by C. D. Howe and it became an infamous rule of the House in the flag debate. It was the initiative behind the debate to ram changes in the rules of the House down the throats of members. I do not intend to do that today. What we are using here, and I think we had better make it clear to the people of Canada, is time allocation under the provisions of Standing Order 75C. This is a far gentler measure. If the Liberals were honest, they would admit that they do not greatly object to it at all, despite all the pious protestations to the contrary. In fact they objected so little to the use of time allocation that they used it five times in 1977: on January 31, on February 9, on March 29, on November 22, and on December 5. There may have been other
Time Allocation
times. 1 have only had an opportunity to make a very fast check.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: And your party voted against all of them. Your party howled, your party screamed!


Walter David Baker: Also we are hearing from the other side of the House great appeals to parliamentary democracy and that we are destroying it. I should like to indicate to the hon. member that 1 know it is the kind of thing I used to say when I sat on the other side of the House of Commons. Having watched a former government claiming abuse of the rules, let me say that if I ever had any doubts about the importance of Standing Order 75C, those doubts were blasted away by the actions of that party under the leadership of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), who should know better.


Mr. Stollery:: We will wait and see what you say this time next year.


Walter David Baker: I happen to be quite a reasonable man.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: We have already spent seven days discussing this bill. Frankly, I would not use time allocation on short notice. They have been provided with a long time to debate a relatively simple tax bill.


Peter A. Stollery: For S3 billion.


Walter David Baker: I have only done this because there is no end in sight to the debate, none whatsoever. We want this bill before Christmas, if we can get it, and the time is running short. 1 do not think Canadians should be shortchanged by a short-range government and a short-range opposition.


An hon. Member:: A short-range government?


Walter David Baker: We want this bill before Christmas. Canadians want this bill, so do the Liberals. They do not want to be known as the party which refused to pass this bill, because they know it might jeopardize their chances in the next election.


An hon. Member:: Not at all.


Walter David Baker: However, they are not afraid of being the party which talked so long on the bill that the government became impatient to get on with other legislation and refused to bring it forward any more, knowing what a waste of time it would be. We do not intend to allow the opposition to put the government into that position, or to so ruin the proceedings of the House of Commons that the people

December 7, 1979
Time Allocation
of Canada cannot get the piece of legislation which the government promised during the last election.


Peter A. Stollery: Don't forget that you are talking for only 28 per cent of them.


Walter David Baker: As well as being a reasonable man, which 1 know is generally agreed on the other side-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Walter!


Walter David Baker: As the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) said, I am a patient man. 1 do not want the Liberal party to try such a feeble argument that they can appear to be co-operative on the one hand and obstructive on the other. I want them to be known for what they are- obstructers. They have proven this today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: If the truth were known, by bringing this motion today I have really saved the Liberal party from themselves. I have saved them from straining the credulity of the public with respect to their motivations.
1 think the opposition will strain the credulity of the public in other ways. They will be claiming that they have been cut off at the knees; that their pearls of wisdom on this bill have not been given sufficient time to be heard; that the Canadian government is so Draconian that it is cutting short the debate on Bill C-20. I think this government has been extremely generous with the opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: For instance, the opposition has had four allotted days, eight days for the Address in Reply to the Speech from the Throne, six days on Bill C-23, the bill on interim supply and supplementary estimates, for a total of 18 days. Also we have agreed to give them five days, if they want them, to debate whatever they wish in the main estimates. There will be at least two days of budget debate before Christmas. That is a total of 25 days out of a possible total of 54 parliamentary days. They have no case at all to stand in the way of this bill and claim that they have been wronged. If there is a case, Canadians have a case against them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Axworthy:: Mr. Speaker


An hon. Member:: Happy Birthday.


Lloyd Axworthy: -after listening to the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) pleading with this House to have the bill before Christmas, it brings to mind the words of the old song "All 1 Want for Christmas is my Two Front Teeth".


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: I think that is all the minister wants.


Mr. Huntington:: What about your leader?


George Harris Hees: What do you want?


Lloyd Axworthy: Let me tell Mr. Hees and members opposite-


George Harris Hees: Order. It is the hon. member for Northumberland (Mr. Hees).


Lloyd Axworthy: Members opposite should spend less time worrying about our leadership race and more time worrying about the bad performance of their government. If they did that, the Canadian people would not be giving them 28 per cent of the vote and the country would not be in the mess it is right now.


Some hon. Members:: FI ear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: I would say that they should be far more worried about their own leadership than ours. It is their own leadership which is in trouble, not our leadership.


An hon. Member:: That is a 28-per cent joke.


Lloyd Axworthy: I would say to members opposite on the back benches: if they look at the Gallup poll they have a lot more to worry about with their leadership than ours.
If I might, I should like to speak to the motion in front of us. The President of the Privy Council had some very interesting things to say about why this particular motion was necessary at this time. At the opening of this debate we said that we would learn a lot about the Conservative party in Bill C-20. Well, we have learned a lot about them. We have learned that they do not know how to manage the economy. We have learned that they are the only party that would bring in a bill committing an expenditure of $3 billion for years in advance, without knowing whether they have the money, or whether conditions require it.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Lloyd Axworthy: Also we found out very quickly that they really are socially discriminatory. They are really not prepared to provide relief for a population which shares the pressures of housing equally. All they are prepared to do is to provide for a select group of people in the population.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lloyd Axworthy: We have found out this afternoon something more serious: this is a party which does not really believe in Parliament.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Hear, hear!


Lloyd Axworthy: For a party which campaigned up and down the country on the pretence that they would restore the rights of Parliament, and that they were going to give individual members more responsibility, to introduce this motion for closure after one-half day of committee hearing, shows that
December 7, 1979

they have no regard or respect for the rights and role of Parliament or its members.
The President of the Privy Council is quite correct when he said that Canadians will learn a great deal this afternoon. This is blue Friday in Canada. They will learn exactly how the Tories treat the economy and Parliament. They treat it with disdain and oftentimes ignorance. They do not really care about this particular motion.
The reason the closure motion was introduced by the President of the Privy Council is because they are in a panic. They saw the Gallup poll on Tuesday and they were frightened. That is why we have this closure motion. They are attempting to pretend that they are up to something, that they will produce Christmas goodies, which the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) is always talking about. He wants to have those presents under the Christmas tree for his friends and neighbours. That is the reason why we have this motion. It has nothing to do with whether the opposition is acting reasonably or not.
1 remind members opposite of some important facts. Fact No. 1 is that the Minister of Finance introduced the basic proposal on the tax credit on September 17. Parliament could have been called at any time after that to introduce this bill. Parliament was not called for a full three weeks after, and the bill was not introduced until 41 days after Parliament had been meeting. Is that a party in a hurry? Is that the thinking of a government which says that it must get this bill through in time for Christmas? Who was dragging their feet? Who slowed down the process? Why did we wait so long to see the bill?


An hon. Member:: Why did we wait so long for Chretien's bills?


Lloyd Axworthy: When the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue has the nerve to stand up and say, "Well, we have allowed all the debate because it is such a simple bill," 1 would ask since when is $3 billion a simple matter? Since when is a measure that is going to totally distort the Canadian economy a simple matter? Since when is a bill that is going to totally discriminate against three-fifths of the Canadian population a simple matter? It takes a lot of nerve to get up and say to the Canadian people that we should treat this as an offhand gesture.
We take our job responsibly. We have suggested all through the debate that we think this is a bad piece of legislation, and we have been prepared to try to improve it. During the debate on first reading we issued the kind of amendments that we would be prepared to propose. We asked the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) whether he was prepared to accept reasonable amendments and he said, "Of course I am prepared to accept reasonable amendments". Then the Minister of Finance said; "No, I won't accept reasonable amendments". Then the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue said; "No, I won't", and the Prime Minister said; "Yes".
Time Allocation
All this shows, Mr. Speaker, is that this is a government that pirouettes 180 degrees from Tuesday to Wednesday to Thursday, and cannot make up its own mind what it wants to do. All it is trying to do with this motion of closure is find an easy solution to its own confusion. That is the reason why we have a closure motion in front of us.
I would like to remind members opposite of some very good authorities on whether in fact a motion of this nature is required at this time. Let me quote from one of their more distinguished members who, on a bill which had far more reason for closure, when the committee stage had gone on much longer than this, used the following words:
A government is judged not only by the things it does but by the way it uses its power. ... It is a government which now uses a form of closure to force through parliament a measure which the government knows is wrong and knows it is going to change. That is an abuse of the rules of parliament. It is an abuse of the rule of the provinces. It is an abuse of the rights of the citizens of Canada.
That same distinguished member of the Conservative party went on to say:
The use of closure is just one more indication of the incompetence of the Minister of Finance.
Truer words have never been spoken, Mr. Speaker. He went on to say that this shutting out of the right and the duty of Parliament to debate what is happening at this stage is a denial of the rights of Parliament. That distinguished member I am quoting, Mr. Speaker, is none other than the right hon. Prime Minister of this country, Joseph Clark.


An hon. Member:: Joe Clark.


Lloyd Axworthy: Yes, Joe Clark. How quickly they forget, Mr. Speaker. How quickly the time passes by when they forget their own words and their own admonitions. It does not take very long for members opposite to start exercising the kind of disdain or arrogance about the rights of this Parliament that really has no equal.
This bill has not been debated thoroughly. The Minister of Finance has not seen the kind of amendment that could be introduced, debated, and accepted. They were not patient or prepared to listen. Furthermore, Mr. Speaker, we gave them full opportunity. We offered to close the debate and vote on the bill well over a week ago. They are the ones who asked for an extension of three or four days. It is not members of the opposition who did that. It was members opposite who extended the time of the debate. They filibustered their own bill.
How can we be expected to treat the bill seriously when again at the committee stage we put very clear questions to the Minister of Finance about how he was going to pay for this measure, what kind of amendments he was prepared to accept, and all we got from him was the sort of down country corn pone humour which is actually getting to be pretty sad and tragic for the Canadian people? It is no longer funny when the Minister of Finance refuses to deal fairly and squarely with questions put to him, honest questions, and instead uses his poor excuse for humour to get out of his difficulties. We know

December 7, 1979
Time Allocation
that the Minister of Finance does not believe in this bill. We know he is embarrassed by it. All we are seeing now is a way for them to avoid any further embarrassment.
It is very clear that we cannot allow this bill to pass this House until one very important condition is met. That is a condition that must be met on behalf of the Canadian people. How is the measure going to be paid for? We will have an opportunity of finding that out soon enough, we hope. That is one of the reasons why debate must continue.
We have no intention of denying the Tories their Christmas goodies or their presents under the tree, but we do believe that the rights of this Parliament should be recognized. We believe that this Parliament has the right to introduce amendments, to have those amendments examined thoroughly, and to have them debated properly so the Canadian people can see if there are better ways of delivering proper relief measures for property owners.
There is no one on this side of the House who has ever said that we are against relief for home owners. Our argument very clearly has been that we are in favour of relief for other people as well, and the excuse of the Minister of Finance simply will not wash. When he says there is simply no money to pay for these relief measures, we know the money is there in his own appropriations. He would not allow us to put those amendments forward. He would not give us the opportunity even to present the alternatives. He did not want to hear the truth. He did not want to see the alternatives, so he convinced his friend, the President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue, who is in a cold sweat anyway over the Gallup poll, to introduce closure. That is the reason we have this motion.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: The fact of the matter is that we are suggesting-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 would just like to say, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, order.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 would just like to thank the minister and the House for its courtesy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, in almost every debate during the last several years on a motion under 75C the second speaker has been the hon. gentleman who is now the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker). His comments on what he then called closure, and what he now calls an allocation of time order, make very interesting reading. 1 will not take the time to present them all, but 1 did enjoy what he said on March 10, 1976, when he started off in this way, as reported at page 11676 of Hansard for that date:
Mr. Speaker. I listened with some amusement to the government House leader a few moments ago saying that he approached with reluctance this whole question of closure in introducing this motion at this stage. I hope he will forgive me if I suggest to him that his approach bore all the semblance of the reluctance of a vulture approaching a fallen deer.
Then, having used that colourful language, the President of the Privy Council went on to say that the action of that day was "treachery". Then he said it was "double treachery". Then he felt the exuberance of his own oratory and went on to say it was a "triple act of treachery", and "this is a black day for this Parliament and for this country". Those are the words of a few years ago of the President of the Privy Concil describing the very kind of motion that he now presents to this House.
In his attempt to justify this act he tries to talk about this matter having been debated at great length. The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) has just pointed out that the debate in the important Committee of the Whole stage on this bill has barely started. We had a part of last Tuesday and a part of a short day on Wednesday, and that is all the time we have had on the clauses of this important Bill C-20. For the government to say that there shall now be only one more day's debate on this important measure makes this, in the language of the President of the Privy Council when he was on this side of the House, a black day for this Parliament, a black day for this country.
This is a very serious measure. As has been pointed out a good many times, it is not just a housing measure. In fact, it is not that at all. This is a taxation measure involving a cost to the treasury over the years of billions and billions of dollars. Many a time I have heard it said that this House has to take seriously its responsibility for the public purse. Surely in a matter like this we should be giving it the attention it deserves.
The government tried to tell us down through the piece that it would pay attention to our amendments and it was anxious to look at the matter with care during the Committee of the Whole consideration. Now in effect we are not to have any Committee of the Whole consideration at all.
One other thing that i want to emphasize is that there is sense to our rules that prevent things from getting through in a hurry. Even in this modern age of rapid communication it still takes time for ideas to get across the country and for the people of Canada to realize what is happening. I have seen instances in the past when governments of other stripes pushed measures through only to find a few weeks later, when the mail began coming in, that they had made a serious mistake. In my own experience it is only now that the mail is becoming heavy from pensioners, renters and from persons who own their homes and make mortgage payments or property tax payments but pay little or no income tax. They are beginning to realize that this measure provides nothing for them at all. There is no rebate, no credit, no money to persons who do not pay any income tax, even though they may be paying on their mortgages and are paying property tax.

December 7, 1979

More and more the people of Canada are realizing that this is a measure that gives a bonanza to a privileged few. When something is done for a privileged few, it means that the whole mass of the Canadian people must pay for it. There is sense in the general rules of this House that require us to take a bit of time to put important measures through. As the President of the Privy Council knows when matters are not of an important nature we will co-operate. He knows that we met last week and agreed that we would try to get a certain number of measures through by last Monday, and that we got through more measures than he had asked for or expected.
When legislation does not require that time be taken, we co-operate and put it through. But here is a serious measure in so far as its charge on the public treasury is concerned. Canadians are just beginning to understand and realize that it is a fraud and that it should not be put through. Why is the government so anxious to go through with this proposition, to the extent that it has even printed the income tax forms'? It wants to be in a position, in case there is an election in the spring, to go to its Rosedale type constituents across the country and say, "See, we delivered, we made the people of Canada pay through the nose for the bonanza we are giving to a certain privileged few".
The government is defying all the traditions and the rules by printing the income tax forms, using closure and muzzling Parliament in the way that it is this afternoon. I suggest that this is no way to treat the House of Commons. My friend, the President of the Privy Council, has said these very things in the past about the use of closure. After all, that is what it is; it closes off debate.
When the Liberals were on the other side they would try to tell us that it was not closure, but they have changed their view now that they are on the constructive side of the House. When the Tories were on this side they called it closure, but now they try to tell us that it is just an allocation of time. Call it what you will, it cuts off debate right at the important Committee of the Whole stage.
The hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) courteously, and with the approval of this caucus, submitted to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), when we went into Committee of the Whole, the list of the amendments that we were proposing. In other words, the government knows what we would like to do to improve the bill, even though we have been told that the forms have been printed and there is not much chance. We are prepared to give the matter the consideration that it deserves, but do we get any positive response for our efforts? The response we get is the use of this Draconian measure, this treachery, this double-treachery, this tripletreachery-those are not my words, they are the words of my friend and neighbour, the President of the Privy Council.
The government House leader tries to tell us that this is a less severe measure than the closure rule C. D. Howe implemented. All C. D. Howe was doing was using the very severe closure rule that was first brought into Parliament many years ago by Sir Robert Borden, another Conservative. Please
Time Allocation
remember, Mr. Speaker, that in that case the Conservatives of the day were having trouble getting a certain bill through, so the Borden government stopped debate on that measure, brought in a proposal to change the rules in the form of that severe measure, closure, and then took up that naval aid bill and went ahead with the closure rule.
My friends across the way are reverting to type. They have produced a paper on parliamentary reform and they try to talk about open government, about giving more attention to the views of the members of Parliament in all parties of the House. They talk about committees. The government is affronting Parliament every time it turns around.
They complained today about time being taken on privilege. I suggest that there has not been in this session of Parliament a more legitimate and worth-while question of privilege than the one raised today by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom). It is significant that we dealt with that question of privilege on the same day we are dealing with a government that is snubbing Parliament and muzzling it in this way. This is just as wrong as every attempt in the past to close off debate. It is even more deleterious to the operation of this House.
As I say, the amounts of money involved are tremendous and the unfairness of this legislation to pensioners, renters, people who do not pay income tax and the great masses of the Canadian population which will have to put up the money for this bonanza, is such that this Parliament should be given the time to discuss this bill in full. My colleagues and I will vote as strongly as we can against this Draconian measure which makes this a black day for Parliament and a black day for Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly a nice change to hear an NDP member worrying about the money that will be spent. The hon. gentleman who just sat down is the biggest spender in the House. He would like to spend money on everything, but he does not want to spend money to help the working class or middle class home owners of Canada.
The hon. member says that this legislation is a special piece of discrimination. What is the legislation which we pass all the time if it is not for particular groups? We passed some legislation the other day providing aid to spouses under the spouse's allowance. That legislation was for a particular group of people. Is it to be suggested that we should give the baby bonus and family allowance to every Canadian because it discriminates against adults? What a lot of trash and nonsense we have heard from the hon. gentleman opposite.
What about the veterans allowance? Is that not for a particular group of people?


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who deserve it!


John Carnell Crosbie: But when it comes to the lower middle class, the middle class, the home owners, the people who are paying

December 7, 1979
Time Allocation
taxes and the people who are working hard, they are saying that we should stamp on them. That is the cry from the opposition. We expect it from the NDP, but it shames one to see the Liberal party take that attitude.
The hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy), the toothless Tarzan, the "hon. Taxworthy," has sent out a householder report which says:
-65 per cent of the elderly own their own homes but only 6 per cent hold a mortgage on those homes and the remaining 59 per cent are therefore ineligible for a tax credit.
It is an untruth and a misleading statement. If only 6 per cent hold a mortgage, then only 6 per cent will get the mortgage interest deductibility credit, but every person who owns a home gets a property tax credit.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: This householder should be withdrawn before it gets out into the constituency and misleads the people. The hon. member goes on to say:
-the plan does nothing to assist families or the residential construction industry over the grim months ahead.
This plan, if passed, will help a man who has a mortgage of 12 per cent interest and pays $5,000 in mortgage interest a year, because it will give him in effect a reduction of 3 per cent in his mortgage interest. In other words, he will get relief of 25 per cent on his mortgage interest rate. The hon. ladies and gentlemen opposite are making the country ring with their cries about high interest rates, and they are stopping this legislation from going to the home owners of Canada.
The hon. member goes on to say in his householder:
-low income home owners would not be eligible for full benefits.
That is a complete tissue of misconception. It does not matter what your income is. If you have a mortgage, you are eligible for assistance, and if you are a low income home owner with a large mortgage, as most of them are, then you will benefit tremendously. These people will get a tax rebate of 25 per cent from whatever mortgage interest rate they pay.
The hon. gentleman, in crocodile tears, said that his party has not been allowed to move any amendments in the House, that their amendments were not given consideration. While in committee on Wednesday, 20 members spoke, three of whom were from our side. The rest were from the tatterdemalion crowd from across the aisle. They did not move one amendment. They merely talked about the principle of the bill. They are the tatterdemalion Tarzans without their teeth. The toothless, tattered and tatterdemalion Tarzans never moved one amendment, not one single amendment, not one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We had committee stage back here on Wednesday. I never got a chance to open my mouth to answer a question. Members popped up like a jack-in-a-box so I would not have a chance to speak again to answer any questions.
[Mr. Crosbie.J
That is the truth, and that is the hon. gentleman who said he could not get any answers. He could not get any answers because he made his speech, left, and we never saw him again. He never came back to the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: He was on the leadership trail all week except once when he spoke in committee. Welcome back. I hope he is not going to go on that forelorn hope again. Stick around. I say stick around and he will get some answers.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: He said the bill was only introduced after 41 days had passed. I ask why? Because it was the legislation of the hon. member for Saint-Maurice (Mr. Chretien) that we brought into the House from the last budget, legislation for which they were solely responsible and which they did not put through in a year. They took week after week to debate their own legislation, the income tax and the customs amendments. That is why we could never get on with the new business of the country because we had to deal with the old business, the tatterdemalion remnants over there would not allow it through the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I suggest that if that is the best the official opposition has to offer, let us have a petition go round to bring back Pierre. He should never have left in the first place if that is what we are going to have to put up with. How is the mortgage and property tax credit going to be paid for? The hon. PC from Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) wants to know how it is going to be paid for. This is how. We will leave the money in the pockets of those taxpayers so they do not have to pay us their money-$575 million next year.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: We know the NDP theory that everybody in the country, as I said a couple of weeks ago, should make out a cheque for their total income, send it in here, and the NDP will send them back what they think they should have. That is not our system. We want to leave it in their pockets, Mr. Speaker.
The finance critic for the New Democratic Party said "that the relief here is going to go to those people who need it least". So, home owners of Canada, you have been categorized by the hon. member from Toronto-Broadview. You, the home owners of Canada, you are the ones in Canada who need it least. Sock it to the home owners of Canada, put the boots to them, tax them unmercifully, do not give them a break, they need it least. I tell you, Mr. Speaker, there are many, many thousands of home owners in Canada who are poorer than renters in Canada. The renters in the penthouses in Toronto-Broadview, the renters in their penthouses in Winnipeg-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
December 7, 1979


John Carnell Crosbie: -are far better off than the low income householders in Newfoundland, and some other crocodile characters from across the House said that the Newfoundlanders were really getting the foot put to them. Some 82 per cent of them own their own homes without a mortgage. I say that it is wonderful that 82 per cent of Newfoundlanders own their homes without a mortgage. Wonderful! They build their own homes. They are not like that crowd up there who cannot build a matchbox.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Every one of those Newfoundland home owners who is a federal taxpayer is going to get a property tax credit of $67.50 this year, and $250 in four years' time. Every one of those Newfoundland home owners is going to benefit. The same with Quebec home owners and other home owners in Canada. So the gentleman from Toronto-Broadview should forget his concern about the penthouse occupiers in Toronto-Broadview and Metropolitan Toronto, and also the hon. member from Quebec city who suggested that the Newfoundlanders were getting done in.
Another gentleman who asked where the money is going to come from, was tattle-tale Gray. He is wondering for the first time since 1962. He wondered where the money was going to come from. We never once heard him talk about where the money was coming from when the Liberal party was in power and they were slashing it out in every direction in the last ten years, the tax expenditures, the document I filed yesterday, the $30 odd billion of tax expenditures they lashed out-Lash Larue had nothing on them, Mr. Speaker. Between 1972 and this year they gave out $15 billion in tax relief, and when we are trying to give out a little squeezly-measly couple of billion dollars over the next four years-we are phasing it in because of our fiscal responsibility and requirements-they cry, "where is the money coming from?"


An hon. Member:: The toothless tooth fairy.


John Carnell Crosbie: Yes, the NDP, somebody suggested, is the toothless tooth fairy.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: The hon. member 1 saw on TV, up in the office today, the member from Sudbury-


An hon. Member:: The hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez).


John Carnell Crosbie: Sorry, Nickel Belt. He was one of the people described here as a loose coalition of radical groups, feminists, gays, Trotskyites, radical socialists, and those disenchanted with the party's moderate profile. 1 was wondering which one was he?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson):
Time Allocation
That the House sit through the dinner hour and extend the hours of sitting tonight to have the two-hour debate required under the provisions of Standing Order 75C, in order to complete the time allocation motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Upon receipt of this motion I have to refer members to Standing Order 6(5)(a) which authorizes a member to move such a motion to extend the hours of sitting. The motion has to be moved at this time in the last hour before the completion of debate on the subject matter. The Chair, after putting the motion, has to ask members who oppose the motion to so indicate. If there are more than ten members who oppose the motion, it is withdrawn.
All members who oppose the motion, please rise.
And more than ten members having risen.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion is now deemed to have been withdrawn.


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, it is certainly tough to get up here and yell fire and brimstone like the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie). I must confess 1 have a great deal of difficulty understanding some expressions like a squeezy-measly couple of billions of dollars. 1 guess it will take me a few more years in the House to be able to handle billions of dollars with that kind of language.

Mr. Speaker, as a new member I find it difficult to reconcile this motion for closure with the behaviour of the government with regard to Bill C-20 because of the latter's holier-than-thou attitude towards parliamentary procedure when it represented the official opposition. The right hon. Prime Minister said repeatedly that the government was willing to consider reasonable amendments, but its actions indicate the contrary. In fact, the government knows that what little time it allowed parliamentarians would eliminate any possibility of proposing amendments. The government dragged its feet for almost five months before calling us to work.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I would ask hon. members not interested in listening to the speeches to at least allow the Chair to hear what is being said.
[ Translation]


David Berger: Mr. Speaker, as I was saying, the government dragged its feet for almost five months before calling us back to work in October, and it waits for seven months before deeming it time to bring down a budget. But, cynically, it introduces this bill just before the deadline for printing the income tax return forms.

I cannot understand what the haste was, what the necessity was for the government to introduce this measure this year. It

December 7, 1979
Time Allocation
could have made the bill applicable to 1980 only, if it really wanted to encourage proper parliamentary review as ministers always claim is their intention. It could then have been referred to a standing committee of the House where expert witnesses could have been called and alternatives could have been considered.
What is the use of talking about it? The bill was politically motivated. It is not by any stretch of the imagination a housing initiative. The government knew this all along. Its actions in the past few weeks have confirmed this.
I repeat, this is not a housing bill. Yesterday this was confirmed once more after the many times it has been confirmed in recent months in debate in this House and in the press. Yesterday we received the November economic research committee newsletter, from no less an authority than the Housing and Urban Development Association of Canada. It notes that from its estimate in February of 215,000 housing starts in 1979 it has revised its forecast downward to 195,000. It is forecasting a further drop to 175,000 in 1980.
This authority on mortgage and property tax credit states in its November newsletter, and 1 quote:
The impact of the mortgage interest tax credit introduced by the federal government is deemed to be marginal during 1980.
If it is to be marginal, what is the haste?
Since the tax credit is small during the first year of the program and since it will not have an impact on home buyers until after they complete their tax forms in April, it will have a minimal effect on stimulating housing. The increase in mortgage interest rates for home purchasers has largely negated the benefit of the tax credit during this first year as well.
Another option open to the government, if it wishes to promote passage of this bill, is to consider a sunset amendment to permit a review of the bill in 1980. We will propose such an amendment when the bill is sent to the Committee of the Whole. The hon. member for Peace River (Mr. Baldwin) suggested such an amendment under Standing Order 43, last Tuesday, November 27. 1 did not see any hurry on the part of the government to concur. Our party will vote against this closure motion and we will vote against the bill on third reading.


J. Robert Howie: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to add my voice to those members supporting the passage of Bill C-20 to amend the Income Tax Act to provide a tax credit for mortgage interest and property tax paid by home owners. I am very pleased also to support the use of time allocation, speedy passage of this bill.
This legislation is the most important tax reform measure to be proposed in this House in the last 16 years. This change is vital to those citizens desiring to own a home and in assisting these citizens in achieving that goal, and is equally vital to home owners who find the cost of living has become a more difficult problem in balancing the family budget. Why this positive reform is being opposed is beyond me.
The members of the opposition regard this reform measure as one very distasteful to them. In the first opposition attack on the bill, one hon. member described this measure as a
scheme that will have a very limited impact, a discriminatory tax measure that is based on bad economics. Since the assault was launched, it has been carried on daily. "Inefficient", "inequitable", "expensive", "arrogant" and "blackmail", are some of the epithets that have been used.
These are the descriptive words opposition members apply. The longer the opposition participates in the debate, the greater their display of distaste for the bill, the more intemperate their assault, and the less valid their arguments.
In the time my constituents have had to consider the merits of this bill to provide major tax relief to home owners, I have not had one citizen of York-Sunbury suggest that this mandate of the Clark government ought not be enacted into the law of the land.
The only reasons I can honestly think of for the strong opposition to this tax relief for the people of Canada are three in number, namely, the reform never occurred to the former government, although the Liberal administration had 16 years in which the bolt of lightning could have struck; second, the opposition did not know the principles involved have long been accepted in tax law by our neighbours to the south; third, perhaps the chief reason for the opposition is the fact that this administration supports and proposes this long needed reform.
This bill is before this House because it is right for the people, home owners and would-be home owners alike; it is right for the people of New Brunswick, and it is right for the people of Canada. This legislation represents a new benchmark in income tax reform for Canada. I have no wealthy friends and I know of no wealthy people who have large mortgages and pay high interest rates.
This bill benefits the lower and middle income group, the breadwinners of Canada, the people who pay the taxes and make Canada the great nation that it is. They deserve a tax break, and this bill gives it to them.


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Mr. Speaker, this is indeed a sad day for Parliament and democracy when we are faced with the irresponsible and ill-advised actions of this government. They want to rule Parliament by force, they resort to every possible and conceivable trick to prevent the people's elected representatives from expressing their views and, those of their constituents and putting forward sensible alternatives to this government's proposals. It is apparent, Mr. Speaker, that with this motion the government House leader, the President of the Privy Council and minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) is trying to save face, no more and no less.
How can they explain otherwise that the person under those hats, even before Parliament had an opportunity to discuss a measure, probably ordered the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. La Salle)-because he is responsible I suppose for government printing services-to print the income tax forms for the current year, even before Parliament had an opportunity to deal with this financial legislation?
(Mr. Berger.)
December 7, 1979

The Minister of National Revenue, who is also President of the Privy Council and government House leader, when he realized his error, panicked at the thought that those forms might get into the hands of Canadians before Parliament had passed the legislation. So he now comes before us with the air of an offended virgin to urge us, almost imploringly, to support this motion for closure, because this is what it is.
It is therefore certainly not up to us in the opposition to rectify the mistakes of the government or confess to its ignorance. It has already been said that this is a new government, a student government. This is becoming increasingly obvious. The more it studies, the more the economy bogs down and the more Canada goes under, not only as concerns matters of economic administration, but also matters concerning oil supplies and so on.
The list is too long and too sad for me to go over it today, but it is obvious that with only 28 per cent of popular support, this government is finally realizing that it is in deep trouble. What is now suggested is a "rescue" or retreading operation. The government wants to make new tires out of old rubber. After less then six months of experience, the government has already exhausted its possibilities and is trying to blame the opposition for its inaction and irresponsibility. This goes beyond anything we could have imagined. Public opinion is justifiably confused.
1 could quote many newspaper articles and many economists who are concerned about the persistence of the government to disregard public opinion and force Parliament to swallow whole a piece of legislation which has been badly cooked up, is indigestible, and will surely have unfavourable effects on the economy and the entire Canadian population for years to come. This is why, instead of simply criticizing this legislation, we have made concrete proposals to improve it.
The motion of closure moved today aims at preventing the official opposition from introducing constructive amendments to allow all Canadians to have a fair and equal share of public funds. The President of the Privy Council, the great reformer of parliamentary procedure, who just a few weeks ago tabled a white paper, is now hiding under the skirts of the Queen and under the cloak of power to try to muzzle the opposition and prevent it from fulfilling its duties towards the voters.
Mr. Speaker, the Minister of National Revenue is in a delicate predicament and it is the President of the Privy Council who is trying to get him out of it! I have never seen such an ugly situation in my life because it is created by one man with the support of his government and the assent of his cabinet colleagues. Having lost all the rest, having lost face before the Canadian electorate, they are trying to save the rags, the pieces, the tatters of their election promises. It is nothing more than that, Mr. Speaker.
Time Allocation
The Prime Minister does not even have faith in his Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie); he left the House this afternoon, he did not even want to stay here to listen to the king's fool entertaining his colleagues who are bringing down the House, Mr. Speaker. The Prime Minister went back to his office to shed tears over his disfavour with the public opinion expressed earlier this week. Never have we seen in the annals of the Parliament of Canada such a shameful behaviour as the ** behaviour of this Minister of Finance. Never have I seen anything like that. All we get is jokes. It is fair enough to make jokes about the opposition, about the former government, but not about the present economic situation; making fun out of that exemplifies the height of this government's incompetence.


Mr.   La Salle@: You were in power for 16 years.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, it looks like the minister of patronage wants to say something. If that is the case, I will gladly sit down and give him my time. If he wants to do some patronage, let him do so and fast, and let him make sure that the Prime Minister who promised to extend an airport runway from 4,000 feet to 6,000 feet keeps his promise, and the sooner the better.


Mr.   La Salle@: I do not see that.


Eymard G. Corbin: Because that is about the only promise which so far has not been put to the test. After this one, that is the only one of his election promises left. At home, in the riding of Madawaska-Victoria-


Mr.   La Salle@: Why did you not do it yourself?


Eymard G. Corbin: Why did I not do it? I am going to tell the-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. 1 would urge the hon. member to come back to the subject under discussion.


Eymard G. Corbin: With the unanimous consent of the House, Mr. Speaker, I could continue.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has another minute if he wants to continue. 1 was simply pointing out to him that the issue he was debating has nothing to do with the motion under consideration. That is all.


Eymard G. Corbin: Mr. Speaker, I acknowledge your fairness and your objectivity as always. The supply and patronage minister was wondering why we did not build the 4,000 feet. We did so. At the time of the election, we were setting a mechanism to extend the runway to 6,000 feet. My government and the Prime Minister have promised to extend that runway, Mr. Speaker. Coming back to the motion-

December 7, 1979
Time Allocation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. It is too late for the hon. member to come back to the motion because the time allotted to him has expired. If he wants to ask for unanimous consent, he may do so.

Is there unanimous consent to allow the hon. member to continue his remarks?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: There is no unanimous consent. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council.


Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council):: Since there are four minutes left, I would like to begin my speech.

I should like to make a few points in this debate. The Canadian people are overwhelmingly in favour of this measure.


An hon. Member:: Twenty-eight per cent!


David Kilgour: A questionnaire sent to every household in my riding produced the following response: in favour, 67 per cent; against, 27 per cent; undecided 4 per cent. What data do any of the pious members opposite have to support any suggestion that the figures are different in any of their ridings-in any apartments, in any group of the Canadian society except for their little band of caucus?
The hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Mr. Phillips) has already been referred to in this debate as being 60 per cent in favour. Members over on the other side who might have visited other parts of the country will know that there are many apartment buildings in Vancouver Centre, more, 1 suggest, that in any other riding in Canada. Weil, 60 per cent of the people in that riding support the measure. 1 say to members opposite: I suspect when you go back to your constituents and explain why you voted against the bill-those who have the gall to do so-


Mr. Ittinuar:: How much do renters get?


David Kilgour: Does any member of this House doubt that this is a popular measure?


Some hon. Members:: Four o'clock!


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, just because the members of the New Democratic Party, who profess such love and respect for Parliament, do not like the motion is no reason for them to interrupt a member who is trying to make a speech.


Mr. Ouellet:: Come on, sit down.


Walter David Baker: I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) ought to admonish his group not to make that kind of noise.


André Ouellet: Who is the new Speaker? Are you now sharing that job? Are you the Speaker too?


Mr. Rose:: Mr. Speaker, 1 rise on the same point of order. Is it really incumbent upon any member of this House at this late hour on a Friday afternoon to be lectured to with unrelieved pomposity by the government House leader? If his backbenchers cannot look after themselves in these situations, they do not belong here. They should get back into their playpens.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Four o'clock.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being four o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's order paper, namely, notices of motions, public bills, and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]
David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I think it is understood that we will discuss the government member's motion on capital punishment. I do not know the exact number of the motion. Are other notices of motions allowed to stand by unanimous consent of the House?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Can the parliamentary secretary give the assurance that the movers of motions Nos. 9, 12, 13 and 14 have been contacted, are now ready to proceed, and agree to let motion No. 15 in the name of the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) proceed today?


David Kilgour: No, Mr. Speaker, I am not able to give that undertaking, but I think Your Honour will be aware of the fact that in every other case in which we have got ourselves in this position, that check has been made. However, I cannot give you that assurance today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that we proceed with motion No. 15?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
December 7, 1979


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Gus Mitges (Grey-Simcoe) moved:: Thai, in the opinion of this House, the death sentence for first degree murder should be reinstated.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I do not think there is anything more dastardly to the thinking of Canadians everywhere, besides having a murder committed which was either pre-meditated, planned, committed by a hired murderer or committed in the pursuit of a crime, than to have one who commits such a murder not pay the supreme penalty as the laws of Canada provided and insisted upon prior to the passing of the legislation which abolished capital punishment in 1976.
It is clear to me that no other issue in many years has moved so many Canadians to speak out. Most members of this House can attest to the feelings of their constituents, for the issue of capital punishment has undoubtedly resulted in more mail to Parliament than any other. The reason is that most Canadians believe this important ingredient in our system of law and order must be reinstated.
I find it impossible to ignore the fact that 82 per cent of the constituents of my riding of Grey-Simcoe who responded to my questionnaire favoured capital punishment. The percentage of all Canadians who favour capital punishment is just about the same. Mail received in my office indicates that some 98 per cent favour capital punishment for premeditated murder.
There is no question that Canadians everywhere are demanding strong law enforcement. We have seen too much of the soft attitude which places the rights and concerns of the criminal ahead of those of law-abiding citizens. We have had enough of the loose administration of justice whereby criminals, rapists, murderers and child molesters, are introduced to country club living and then let out on holidays, weekends and parole and whereby the safety of society seems to have been completely forgotten in our headlong rush to demonstrate our humanity for criminals but with little concern shown for the victims of crime.
As things stand now any armed robber or hijacker is prone to murder because he knows he can only be given a prison sentence. He also knows that under our present system through either parole, holidays, temporary leave, or even escape, his sojourn in custody may well be just a few years or even a few months, and the risk of killing someone is truly worth it, especially if a key witness can be wiped out.
We must make it absolutely clear to the potential murderer that he risks the chance of being executed for his crime. There is no question in my mind as well that the increased lawlessness in Canada, more evident than ever before, is the result of a loose morality which has permeated our society like a cancer, especially during the last ten years. 1 might add that that loose morality has no boundaries. It invades governments, people in high places and, in fact, all classes of our society.
The abolition of capital punishment, the easy obtainment of bail, increased laxness toward inmates regarding discipline in
Capital Punishment
our jails, and undeserved extended weekend passes for many repeaters in jail, have only added more fuel to the fire.
1 can well understand the exasperation and frustrations of our police officers all across Canada who are trying to do their duty in apprehending criminals and carrying out their responsibilities, only to see their efforts go for naught when so many of these same criminals are soon walking the streets again either on extended bail, suspended sentences, or after serving only portions of their sentences.
The murder of our policemen in the carrying out of their duties, in ever-increasing numbers, is having a most unfavourable reaction among all our police forces from one end of Canada to the other. It has serious effects on their morale and desire to carry out their duties, or even to continue in their careers. There is no question that if the murder of Sergeant Ronald McKean, a police officer gunned down and killed in Collingwood, Ontario, in my riding, in 1977, in the performance of his duty, had occurred some ten years ago, it would have resulted in the death penalty for his assailant. There is no doubt that many other hon. members in this House can relate similar experiences in their own particular ridings.
There is no question in my mind that the re-establishment of capital punishment in our statutes would once again be a step forward to a greater respect for our laws by all criminal elements. It would give our law enforcement agents the tool they so desperately need to carry out their duties with zeal and determination. I would say that the zeal is now somewhat lacking because of the murders of their brothers in the pursuit of their duties by assailants who know that, if apprehended, they will have to serve only a few years for their crimes and then be free to commit murder and other crimes again.
Naturally, one has to ask just what the retention of the death penalty would do. Abolitionists would argue that abolition does not result in crime run rampant, or social peace if the death penalty is not restored. They would argue that capital punishment has no deterrent value. With that kind of elitist argument they ignore the real issue at hand.
A former chief justice and president of the United States, William Taft, once said:
The abolition of the death penalty is a mistake. It certainly is a deterrent for crimes of bloody violence.
In looking at the deterrent factor one must consider it an attempt to save innocent lives in the future and not, in isolation, in relation to the fate of the guilty murderer. The only question one might raise is whether capital punishment is an effective or significant deterrent. Perhaps we should look at the deterrent factor from the point of view of whether capital punishment would prevent all murders. I think not. Surely, we could not expect that any more than that a 25-year sentence in prison would stop murder. In speaking of the 25-year prison sentence, one has to consider seriously the possibility that such a law could be amended or even repealed at any time. Such a law is no guarantee that society will be protected from the criminal element. In all seriousness, I wonder how effective the 25-year sentence would be and how strictly it would be enforced.

December 7, 1979
Capital Punishment
In this debate one could quote reams of statistics, but I believe that the common sense of most Canadians is more important than statistics when they state, in overwhelming numbers, that the threat of the death penalty is a deterrent. It is superficial even to suggest that the threat of capital punishment has no deterrent value.
There is no doubt in my mind, Mr. Speaker, that people arc fed up with the over-emphasis on the rights of the convicted. There is too much emphasis today on the rights of the convicted as opposed to the rights of the victims. I believe it is not only irresponsible but downright immoral to disregard the rights of those who are victimized. It is irresponsible for governments and others to address themselves only to the rights of the convicted and almost totally neglect the rights of the victims.
We, as members of this House, must make sure that our laws concentrate not only on those who have been victimized but also on those who are the potential victims which, by and large, is the whole of our citizenry. A society without that ultimate protection might some day find itself in the sad state where the law of the jungle rules.
I believe the time has come to stop lulling the Canadian people into believing everything will be fine if only they would follow blindly. I for one have more faith than that in my fellow citizens. I believe, Mr. Speaker, Parliament must get its head out of the sand. Parliament must face the fact that our society is not perfect, that crime does exist, that we do have a responsibility to our citizens to fight crime, with every tool available, including capital punishment.
If we cannot settle this important issue of capital punishment here in this chamber, Mr. Speaker, I believe we should take our case to the people of Canada and have a referendum on capital punishment.
In conclusion, 1 would like to emphasize again that I would like to see the reinstatement of the death penalty for those who commit premeditated, first degree, cold-blooded capital murder, call it what you will. I say to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my colleagues in this House, that no single issue, certainly since my election over seven years ago, has caused me more personal concern and torment than the issue of capital punishment. To me, despite the wailings of many do-gooders, capital punishment for first degree murder is a deterrent to murder and should once again be reinstated in our statutes. Once it is reinstated in our laws, Mr. Speaker, the carrying out of that law to the full letter of the law must be exercised by those responsible, instead of resorting to mere lip service which would only be construed by Canadians throughout our land as a mockery and a disservice, not worthy of the high office and high position of responsibility entrusted to them by the citizens of Canada.


Mr. Rod Blaker (Lachine):: Mr. Speaker, I want to respond very briefly to the points made and the issue brought forward by the hon. member who has presented this motion in favour of the death penalty.

I know there are quite a number of other members in the House who want to speak on the subject, so 1 will be brief and give other members the opportunity to speak. But I also want to indicate that it is my belief that there are two issues which the House now faces in the discussion of this private member's motion. The first, of course, is the issue related to capital punishment, and in that regard obviously the hon. member and every other member is perfectly entitled to express his opinion and to see the matter brought before the House in due course for a vote. The second issue, 1 submit, is that we are now witnessing something similar to what we witnessed this afternoon when the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie), and others, attempted to manoeuvre the scheduled business of the House of Commons in such a fashion as to suit the governing party but not to respect the rights of parliamentarians.
I put to this House, and I put to you, Mr. Speaker, that apparently we are expected to suffer in the House of Commons from promises made during the electoral campaign by the present Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) to the effect that, while he himself is on record as having opposed the death penalty, he has offered an opportunity to the members of his own party in particular, but still to all members of the House as well, that they may be able to vote on the issue in the normal course of business, by way of a private member's motion or a private member's bill.
I want to have the record clear that I think that on an issue of such moral importance-and that is what this issue is about and that is why it attracts such attention, not only in the House of Commons but in the country at large-I find that the Prime Minister of Canada is proceeding in a manner- here I want to repeat a word which I heard the hon. member for Nickel Belt (Mr. Rodriguez) use this afternoon, and I will be ready to answer to a question of privilege, if I have to do so-with respect to the death penalty and with respect to the organization of a bootlegging bill, the organization of a smuggling concept to bring the death penalty issue before the House of Commons without the moral rectitude which 1 think the leader and the Prime Minister of Canada should have, and 1 find that this manner in which the procedure is being used smacks of sleaziness-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roderick Blaker: Let it be said also that before I used that word, 1 indicated to members of the House of Commons-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mrs. Stra-tas) wishes to rise on a point of order.


Mrs. Stratas:: Mr. Speaker, forgive me if 1 commit a breach of protocol, but 1 have been present in the House of Commons this afternoon and I have seen and heard many things, but I cannot sit here any longer when 1 hear what I am hearing now. So 1 am rising on a point of order to state that it should be known to hon. members opposite that in this party we act of our own volition. The hon. member who has proposed this bill
December 7, 1979

did so of his own volition, and I resent it and it confounds me to hear the comments I have just heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I do not have any difficulty with the intervention made by the hon. member and I respect that intervention. I did not suggest that the hon. member who presented this motion is doing so in some form of conspiracy or in some form of dishonourable presentation. 1 have not the slightest doubt that the hon. member presenting the motion did so in good faith and quite honestly, so far as I know.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion.


Roderick Blaker: 1 am speaking to the motion. 1 make the assumption that the hon. member firmly believes that it is for the betterment of Canada that this particular motion be brought forward with respect to the death penalty. But the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mrs. Stratas) seems to think that 1 am accusing the government of some form of conspiracy, which I am not. What I do say-and if I had the particular quote in front of me, 1 would use it-is that the Prime Minister indicated during the election campaign that while he personally is opposed to the death penalty, he would be prepared to permit the bringing forward of private members' motions and bills in order that the House may decide.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You are not used to that.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member is quite right, 1 am absolutely not used to that. I am accustomed to a party, and 1 have one to my right and one to my left, which has some concept that we stand on principle. I have yet to see the indication of the Prime Minister of Canada who has voted against the hanging bill and spoken against it and who then campaigns on the idea that there is an undercurrent of promise that, despite his own stand on capital punishment, he is prepared to see that same bill go through the House. There are a few examples of debate in Canada of greater moral attachment, philosophy and concept, but on this issue the Prime Minister stands before the House and the people of Canada and says that, while he voted against capital punishment, he is prepared to comply with a private member's bill which will allow his own views to be overruled. It is a cop-out, that is what it is.


An hon. Member:: it is a game.


Roderick Blaker: Just let me be very clear about this. This is not the first time that this governing party and this Prime Minister have done the same thing. I am one of the members who stood up in the House of Commons and asked the Prime Minister to lead in the issue of Canadian national unity, and he collapsed on that as well. It is a regular collapse.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Capital Punishment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State (Mrs. Stratas) on a point of order.


Diane Rose Stratas: Mr. Speaker, I only suggest that perhaps the member opposite does not understand the freedom of speech concept and the parliamentary system as our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and we understand it. 1 put in a plea for relevance to the issue which is the private member's bill, rather than a personality debate.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the bill.


Roderick Blaker: Yes, I will speak to the bill.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: It is a motion.


Roderick Blaker: I will speak to the motion, then. There is a very clear understanding here. For one of the first times of which I know in the seven years I have been in the House of Commons, it is proposed to use some of the advantages of certain procedures in order to bootleg in a bill which the Prime Minister of Canada and the governing party of Canada do not have the guts to put before the House in a normal fashion. That is the problem.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: If I have to put it any clearer, or if I have to put it in simpler words, it is an act of cowardice.


Mr. Taylor (Bow River):: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) must return to his seat to be recognized. The hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Kilgour).


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry; 1 was not standing up to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: It has been a long day.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I am getting somewhat dizzy going up and down. May I finish?


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member for Bow River on a point of order.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Mr. Speaker, our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) does not tell us how to vote, like the hon. member's prime minister did in the last cabinet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Has any one of these points of order been a point of order?


Some hon. Members:: No.

December 7, 1979
Capital Punishment


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, 1 must respond to the last intervention. The suggestion that the leader of the Liberal party informed, instructed, or commanded the members of his party on how to vote is ridiculous, when one considers the actual vote which took place and the split in his party.


An hon. Member:: Not in cabinet.


Roderick Blaker: I do not know how the hon. member goes on believing that ridiculous assumption. But 1 want to make the point which I rose to address. I will not spend too much time on the subject matter of capital punishment. It will be debated nine times, ten times, or whatever number of times, before it finally gets before the House for a vote. 1 respect the opinion of every member in this regard. They will vote as they see fit. Some, regrettably, will understand their roles as members of the House of Commons as being that they ought to vote on the basis of some unscientific and inoperative poll of their riding. That is their business. 1 want to address myself to the issue. A bill of such importance, or a motion in this case, will appear again and again. It will be bootlegged into the House, smuggled into the House.


Donald W. Munro: It is not bootlegging.


Roderick Blaker: I want to make it clear that the action I am taking is a deliberate effort on my part, for as many minutes as I stand in the House of Commons, to talk out that motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roderick Blaker: I am prepared to go on the record, and be seen and known in the public to do so. On the simple understanding that the Prime Minister and leader of the Conservative party does not have the moral fortitude to stand in this House in the normal way and to deal with capital punishment in the normal way, then I am prepared to use the procedures of the House to deny him or his members the right to bootleg a bill in. We are getting to the point where we will have hanging by accident, if this goes on.
I want every member to have a full opportunity to discuss this; not have it smuggled into the House for debate in one hour and slipped into committee before anyone knows what is happening. I want to see the Prime Minister of Canada stand up in his place and vote on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: He will.


Roderick Blaker: Until he stands in his place-


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Roderick Blaker: Until he is prepared to be in the House of Commons to debate capital punishment, I will do everything I can to prevent this motion from going to committee.


An hon. Member:: Hon. members opposite are afraid of the vote.


Roderick Blaker: I should like to finish off by referring to one or two quotes, if I may. I will quote a leading member of the

House of Commons, as 1 heard someone refer to that this afternoon, on the subject of capital punishment. He said the following:
-il has been my judgment that capital punishment does not function as a deterrent in the case of those peculiar people who commit murder.
I am quoting the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada.


An hon. Member:: We know how he stands.


Roderick Blaker: Why is he not here discussing the issue, if this is what he believes?


An hon. Member:: Where is he?


Roderick Blaker: I wonder if I might quote that same gentleman again. He said:
What we have to do is determine whether the threat of capital punishment would stop those people who are likely to . . . commit murder, from undertaking that act. 1 have seen no firm evidence to suggest that the threat of capital punishment is a deterrent.
Again this was said by the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada on an issue of such moral importance, and that man is not in the House. The Prime Minister is not in the House at this time to discuss or debate this issue or take his stand. Until the Prime Minister is prepared to take his stand publicly, I am prepared to use the procedures of the House to deny the passage of this motion directly to committee.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I think it ought to be brought to the attention of the hon. member that it could hardly be conceived that anyone with views on capital punishment, such as those of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark), could bring forward a bill to restore capital punishment.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


An hon. Member:: That is not a point of order.


Donald W. Munro: The hon. member is talking absolute rubbish. But the Prime Minister is prepared to let other hon. members bring forward the bill.


Roderick Blaker: Mr. Speaker, I know the Prime Minister is prepared to allow other members to bring forward this bill. The rules of the House of Commons make it clear that any member can bring forward a bill through the normal course of the draw and the procedures of the House.


An hon. Member:: But you are talking about bootlegging.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with it? It is not bootlegging.


Mark Willson Rose: They are upset.


Roderick Blaker: The hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose), who is a very respected and dignified member of the House of Commons, advises me that 1 am making members
December 7, 1979

opposite very upset. I do not want to make them upset. 1 simply want to put this proposition: a motion, an idea, or a bill of this importance ought to be presented by the government. It ought to have the moral commitment of the Prime Minister attached to the debate which goes on concerning that bill. I, for one, will contribute every minute 1 can to stop this motion from going to committee. I will do the same on any other bill or motion, until such time as the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada steps into the House and gives his opinion openly, or, in his words, "comes clean". It is about time he does so on this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Pauline Jewett: Mr. Speaker, I too should like to have this motion or a similar bill brought forward by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). I think the example set by the previous government in this instance was the right one. It allowed the bill to pass in 1976.
I hope the Prime Minister will, particularly since he is well-known and respected as an abolitionist, stop this practice of having dozens of motions coming forward, and instead bring forward a bill himself, if he feels that we have now reached a point where we should no longer have the bill that was passed in 1976. I do not think the Prime Minister believes that we should change it. I have heard him say many times that he does not believe in the death penalty. Also I have heard him say that since the act, which the hon. member wants to reverse today, was passed only in 1976, there should be further time before one starts changing it again.
This matter is so important, as I am sure the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges) will agree, it is not something which should be changed or amended every year or every six months. It is something I think most hon. members feel that we should stay with for a period of at least five years. I remember the Prime Minister saying that, and for that reason I would doubt very much that the Prime Minister would introduce a bill comparable to the one we are discussing today.
I, too, like the hon. member for Lachine (Mr. Blaker), am a little disturbed that despite his own strongly held views, views that have been shared by every prime minister of the country, that is, the abolitionist view, the Prime Minister would not exercise more leadership with his own members. I do not mean that they have to be sheep. I do not believe in that. He could exercise more leadership with his own members by suggesting that we do not re-examine this question only three years after it was thoroughly examined. Perhaps in another two or three years it might be appropriate to do so. I feel that is his wish, but it would have required not only a strong conviction, but a willingness on his part to lead his own party in that direction.
The position I take is in opposition to this bill. I took that position throughout the election campaign. We had many debates in New Westminster and Coquitlam on the advisabili-
Capital Punishment
ty or otherwise of restoring the death penalty. The member who introduced the motion today has said that the death penalty is in fact a deterrent, and he quoted William Taft who, I think, lived about 100 years ago. It is possible it was a deterrent when William Taft lived, but how the hon. member can go on saying it is a deterrent when we have the data for the last three years which show that the incidence of murder on a per capita basis has dropped, I do not know.
I am baffled when he criticizes us for saying that the death penalty is not a deterrent, and then turns around and says it is, but presents nothing to back up his statement. At least we try to back up our statements with fact, as we have done when we suggest it is not a deterrent. Certainly I have always tried to do that, and I did so during the election campaign. That is the fact as indicated by the statistics in the past three years. Those statistics were published during the last election campaign by the department of the solicitor general.
I am led to believe that the real reason for wanting to reintroduce the death penalty is not that the hon. member and others who want it reintroduced think it is a deterrent. Nor is it because they think it will remove some of the crime from our streets. The hon. member mentioned all kinds of things, very serious offences, indeed, that had nothing at all to do with murder.
Bringing back the death penalty for murder will not address some of the very serious problems that we all agree exist today in Canadian society, although not nearly as serious as in some other societies which have the death penalty. The problems we have in our cities bear no relationship, in my view, to the existence or otherwise of the death penalty. The only ground which I can find upon which he advocates the return of the death penalty is basically one of revenge, or the eye for an eye argument. If someone does commit murder he should in turn be murdered. It is not really because it is a deterrent that he wants it back, but because he feels, and I trust genuinely and honestly, that if someone murders he, in turn, should suffer the death penalty. That is a fundamental principle of revenge which I do not think has any place in our society. 1 have never felt it had any place in our society or in any society that prides itself on having achieved some measure of growth and civilization.
The death penalty does not bring back the dead person. One might perhaps even consider, if it did so, there would be a point in having the death penalty. It does not help the friends and relatives of the victim, those persons for whom we all have concern. The death penalty does not help them. It seems to me that the hon. member and others who favour it are only looking at the principle of retribution.
Another matter that bothers me is that in Canada, at any rate, when we did have the death penalty, sentences were commuted on every occasion subsequent to December, 1961. The hon. member mentioned that a policeman in his constituency was murdered some ten years ago. He said that because there was no death penalty on the books that murderer did not suffer the death penalty. I would remind him that the murderer would very likely not have suffered the death penalty in any

December 7, 1979
Capital Punishment
event, because in every case the sentence was commuted by the cabinet. The last prime minister who allowed the death penalty to be carried out, not having commuted the sentence, was the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker. i remember him saying very vividly to me, and I do not recall whether he said it publicly, that he would never again allow that to happen; an occasion when he would not commute the sentence.
The late Right Hon. L. B. Pearson and the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau) all commuted death sentences. 1 suggest that was not because they were part of some elite, as the hon. member suggests, but because they knew in their hearts that the imposition of the death penalty was solely an act of retribution, that it does nothing for the victim's friends or relatives, that it does nothing to bring about a more just and fair society, that it does nothing about the violence in our society, and that it is in no way a deterrent.
1 think everyone, regardless of party, is anxious to find solutions to our problem, solutions which are more complex than a reintroduction of the death penalty. 1 am sure they are all anxious to find solutions to our social problems. Even if a bill like this were passed and we reintroduced the death penalty, I am as sure as 1 stand here that neither the present Prime Minister nor the Minister of Justice (Mr. Flynn), would refuse to commute the sentence. 1 should also have included a reference to the relevant ministers of justice when I referred to past prime ministers recommending commutation of the death sentence on each occasion.
I feel very strongly that those who vote to reinstate capital punishment are putting on the shoulders of other people, particularly the cabinet, the real decision as to whether the death penalty will in practice come about.


An hon. Member:: Particularly the Prime Minister.


Pauline Jewett: Certainly, as I have just been reminded, and going back to the point 1 was making at the beginning of my remarks, although I do not know the views of the Minister of Justice, I do know those of the present Prime Minister, and by reinstating the death penalty we will be putting on his shoulders the responsibility for commuting that death penalty. It is a responsibility I know he would take, but I do not think we should shift that responsibility, and that is exactly what we would be doing.
For these reasons primarily, 1 would find it absolutely impossible to support this motion or any similar motion. 1 urge hon. members to give the present act a longer period of time on the statute books, to think about the alternative, and to ask themselves if they would want a system based fundamentally on an eye for an eye and a tooth for a tooth.
As I have just said, such a system would not be a deterrent to murder and would, in the final analysis, only place the onus in dealing with this problem on the Prime Minister and the cabinet who, 1 am sure as I stand here, would commute the sentences just as their predecessors have done.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I shall be very brief in my support of this motion introduced to the House by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges). I am on record through private members' bills and several speeches which I have given in the House on this issue as being in favour of capital punishment. We on this side will push for the parliamentary reform package which has been introduced by the government House leaders so that we can have this issue brought to a truly free vote in this House of Commons.
Members opposite can say that there was a free vote in 1976, but that is nothing but a bunch of garbage. It was a government sponsored piece of legislation, and cabinet solidarity required that all the cabinet members vote for it. I know that pressure was brought to bear on a good many of the backbench members of the then government with regard to this issue. Some members of the NDP have stated that our Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) is not willing to take a stand on this issue. The Prime Minister has taken a very direct stand, but he is willing to give Parliament an opportunity to speak on the issue.
The Prime Minister is not like some members opposite who, when it comes to issues such as veterans pensions, wish to have Parliament voice its opinion-and I think that is good-but on issues such as capital punishment or issues with which they disagree, they want to muzzle Parliament. The hon. member opposite also said that she does not wish to see this issue put upon the shoulders of the cabinet. There is nothing to stop this Parliament from introducing an amendment to the legislation, when it comes before the House, to have any commutations brought before Parliament. There is nothing which says that the responsibility must be placed upon the shoulders of cabinet. In fact there are members on this side advocating that Parliament have a role in this matter.
Personally, I disagree with that position. I believe that the responsibility, if the death penality is to be commuted in a particular case, should be placed in the hands of cabinet. If this private member's bill does come forward under our new parliamentary reforms, it will give all members an opportunity to speak on the issue.
Once again, I commend the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe for bringing forward this motion and not taking the easy way out by leaving the issue to die. No matter which side one takes on this issue, it will not be pleasant to deal with. At the same time, it is not an issue that can be avoided. Too often when a ticklish issue such as this comes up, members opposite are only too willing to push it under the carpet so that it will not have to be dealt with.
Hopefully we on this side can introduce this matter by way of a private member's bill, as was the case in this House in 1966. Then four members combined to introduce legislation by a special House order pushing for the abolition of capital punishment. By taking this method, cabinet solidarity was not required, nor were members instructed on how they should vote on that piece of legislation.
I wish to conclude by indicating to the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe my support for his motion. It is obvious that the
December 7, 1979

members in opposition to this motion will talk it out. However, some time in the new year when our parliamentary reform package is accepted, we will have an opportunity for a more in depth debate and an opportunity whereby all members can put on record, in the form of a vote, their stand on this very important issue facing the Canadian people.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, this has been a great day for Parliament. We had the guillotine between three and four, and now we have the rope between four and five.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: That is not a bad line.


Lloyd Axworthy: No, it is not a bad line.
The resolution before us could be properly characterized as one of mixed motives. We should not be trifling with this issue in the way in which the hon. member introduced his resolution. He seemed to be far more concerned with matters of coddling prisoners, softness in society, do-gooders, bleeding hearts, and all those kinds of totally spurious judgments about what he thinks is wrong in society.
Somehow that has become confused with the introduction of the death penalty. Somehow all those questions of what he thinks are loose morality will be solved if we start hanging people, and somehow all those questions of licentiousness and degradation which he thinks are sweeping the country will be solved by putting someone in a chamber or on a scaffold! That is not the kind of debate that we should be conducting. If we wish to debate the return of capital punishment, then we should be debating what it is, a punishment for murder.
Capital punishment will not solve the problems of softness in society, the problems of coddling prisoners, or of dealing with all the other kinds of apprehensions of the hon. member. It will deal with the simple fact of murder and the punishment for it. Let us define our terms properly and not confuse the issue. The problem is that if we allow the terms of reference posed by the hon. member to be used, then we will be debating the wrong issue. We should be debating the causes of this issue.
No one would argue that there may be breakdown in the normal order or the fabric of the family, but it will not be solved by representing to Canadians that a simple act of execution is the panacea for all these problems. If the hon. member thinks that that will solve all those problems, then he is sorrily mistaken because, in fact, it will add to the problems. People will say, "Now it is all over. I can relax because they brought back the scaffold and all these problems will disappear". These problems will not disappear because capital punishment has been reintroduced. These problems will exist and continue to exist, because there are other reasons for their cause which are totally unrelated to that act of murder which the hon. member would like to punish with another act of murder.
We should be aware of what we are debating in this resolution. We are not debating the softness in our society. We are debating a very specific solution to a very specific problem
Capital Punishment
and, as a result, the onus is on members opposite who will support this bill to show why a change is necessary.
There is a great cry that Parliament should speak on this issue. Well, Parliament has spoken. No debate took more time than the debate on this issue in the House three years ago. Should we have a revolving door Parliament where every time five newly elected members can review the laws again? Parliament has debated that issue, and it is disrespectful for our members here to suggest that the members at the time were being frivolous in their concerns. I have read those debates, and it is very disrespectful to those members.
We have the same debates going on in the provincial legislature in which I sat at the time. We are debating the same thing simultaneously. It is an issue of some importance. 1 do not think it is proper to say somehow that it was an act of intimidation. The last speaker suggested that there was armtwisting and acts of intimidation.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Lloyd Axworthy: That is what you have to do. You have to prove that. Otherwise your resolution is really unwarranted at this time.
I have heard members here say that public opinion says it is the right answer. At the same time I have listened to Conservative members say that they do not give a damn about public opinion when it comes to PetroCan, but all of a sudden they are very sensitive to public opinion on capital punishment. What are you choosing? Those public opinion polls you want to read? If you want to read a public opinion poll, I suggest you read the one that came out last Tuesday which shows that this government is declining in credibility. That is the one you should be reading because people really do not trust what you are up to any more. That is the poll you should be looking at. People want a serious government getting at serious problems. I would suggest that they would be much more effective, Mr. Speaker, if members opposite would spend their time introducing resolutions to deal with many of the social and economic conditions in this country and not worry about this particular problem. It has been debated, and it has been decided by this Parliament.


An hon. Member:: Filibuster.


Lloyd Axworthy: Our filibustering is simply an act to defend the rights of this Parliament. That is not filibustering. That is all it has been.
If one gets down to the issue, the onus of truth is on members opposite. They must show, somehow or other, by abolishing capital punishment in this Parliament that that has added to the incidence of murder, that it has added to the insecurity of society, and that it has endangered safety. Yet, the member opposite in his resolution did not offer one shred of evidence to prove that. He did not show one single fact to demonstrate his case other than to say that he is appealing to
2166

December 7, 1979
Capital Punishment
common sense. Common sense is something that each of us tries to apply.
In effect, all he said was that this is somehow a nefarious act, by a bunch of elitists and do-gooders, to impose something upon the population. What he is talking about are members of this Parliament in a previous session. Those are the elitists he is talking about who were duly elected by their electors to come to this Parliament and act on their own conscience. Those are the elitists he is talking about. They are the ones who imposed abolition. They are not a bunch of sophisticates up in the penthouses of Broadview-Greenwood who imposed it, they are members of this Parliament who represent urban and rural ridings and who represent people from east to west. They are the ones who voted to abolish it.
Let us get down to the facts. Where is the evidence and where is the proof that the member is prepared to put forward?


An hon. Member:: We can do it.


Lloyd Axworthy: 1 would like to see it. Unless the member is going to manufacture facts-


Peter Elzinga: You are blind.


Lloyd Axworthy: There may be a certain bias on my point; I like to look at the facts. In the last ten years the rate of murder in society both with and without capital punishment has been about the same. Furthermore, there is another interesting fact we should point out. In the latest report put out by Amnesty International-an organization respected world-wide, it has defended civil rights and liberties, an organization of which members opposite and members on this side are members-it shows which countries have been moving forward and which countries have been moving backward in terms of abolition.
It is important to ask each and every one of us in which kind of country we would prefer to be. Would you prefer to be in a country like Norway, like Denmark, like The Netherlands, like West Germany or like Great Britain, all of which have had long traditions of respect of human rights and liberties and a high degree of interest in issues of human responsibility, or do you want to be put in the same category as the Irans, Nicara-guas, and the Bolivias-no aspersions on them-but they are countries which are emerging and evolving into more mature societies? That is one of the tests we have to face in this Parliament from time to time. We must apply certain measurements upon our own degree of maturity in society.
One test of maturity is, are we prepared to stand up against raw emotion? Are we prepared to provide laws which do not allow interference of natural fears, and frustrations to take hold? In my opinion, it would be much more important for members of this House to go to their constituents and explain, saying, "Yes, there are some serious difficulties that create insecurities in our society that have nothing to do with hanging or not hanging."
It has to do with the kind of societies we are building. We are allowing our communities to break down. In many cases
we are allowing the fabrics that hold us together to be unravelled. We should be concerned and worried about those kinds of problems. We should be paying attention to them in this Parliament. Instead, we are spending our time arguing about capital punishment as a cure for those problems. I would ask members opposite to think about that for a moment, to bring in questions about what do you do to bring back the family and give it a sense of stability in this community. That is an important issue. Yet, what we are doing is allowing things to unravel day by day. We see in front of us the enlarging growth of children with disabilities who are not being cared for. We are allowing medicare money to be spent, not in the proper treatment of health but in building roads to Mafeking. That is true.


An hon. Member:: You spoil your argument.


Lloyd Axworthy: I am not spoiling my argument. We are allowing the social priorities of this country to be put on the back burner. We are not addressing ourselves to the important social issues of this country. We have this kind of macho-ism which prides itself on its political toughness. When 1 hear the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) and the Minister of Finance (Mr. Crosbie) say they are going to tighten their belts and pull in their girth, I know who they are talking about. They are not talking about the rich and powerful society, they are talking about those who cannot defend themselves. That is where the real problems are.
1 would be much more satisfied if members opposite-


An hon. Member:: We are not here to satisfy you.


Lloyd Axworthy: -were concerned about conditions in the jails. I say to hon. members you are going to have lots of time to debate this. As 1 said to one member before, if you want me to come in here and debate it, I will come in at any time. Let us debate it together and not through interruptions.
This resolution is the wrong solution for the issues and concerns that we have. The onus of proof has not been provided. We have not heard of anything except to hear "that is the way we feel". Surely, it is not enough to hear "that is the way we feel" as a basis for an argument. Surely we are more rational than that when we come to make such a momentous decision as this.
A member opposite suggested that we should bring it into Parliament to be decided. I do not know where he got the idea, but 1 can see Friday afternoons being used now for questions such as whether to hang or not. We are reverting back to the days of the Roman forums where it is thumbs up or thumbs down in Parliament on Friday afternoons, as to whether that guy will go or not. What are we talking about? How quickly can we reverse ourselves? How far backward and how quickly do these people want to go? Are they not prepared to say that civilization deserves better than that?
December 7, 1979

I do not have to repeat the arguments in this House that have been used many times before about the rights and responsibilities of a member of Parliament. When we have to go back to Edmund Burke, who was a dignified Conservative, to use his arguments in a speech at Bristol to say that it is not the temporary ways of opinion polls or even necessarily the insistent demands that are what are important in-
Capital Punishment


The Acting Speaker (Mr. McCain):: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired. It being 5 p.m., this House stands adjourned until Monday next at 2 p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At five o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, December 10, 1979