1979-11-07

Mr. Herb Breau (Gloucester):: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 43, I ask the unanimous consent of the House to introduce a motion dealing with a matter of pressing and urgent necessity.
Considering the reactions prompted by the decision of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) to admit trawlers of 100 feet or more in the 4T zone in the Gulf of St. Lawrence; considering that the estimates of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans have been referred to the House Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry and that the Standing Order provides that an automatic report on the consideration of those estimates should be tabled in the House on December 7, 1979, which will not allow all parties involved to state their views on that matter; and given the failure of the minister to consult before taking such an important decision which benefits only to two or three large companies, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry be authorized to study the plan suggested by the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory subcommittee for 1980 and that the committee report to the House after having heard the group of fishermen and plants involved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


REQUEST HOUSE COMMITTEE STUDY LICENSING OF FREEZER-TRAWLERS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. William Rompkey (Grand Falls-White Bay-Labrador):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the statements by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. McGrath) as reported recently in the Halifax Chronicle-Herald, to the effect that he is about to issue licences to freezer-trawlers, and in view of this government's clearly-stated intention to be an open government and to consult, particularly with Parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc):
That the question of the licensing of freezer-trawlers be now referred to the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry so that the fishermen of Canada, through their elected representatives, can debate this issue which could have a serious impact on their livelihood, particularly those who fish inshore.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR POWER
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Noting that the United States Nuclear Regulatory Commission is changing its position almost daily over the question of nuclear plant safety, and that a freeze on new American nuclear power installations has now been imposed, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett):
That this House urge our Prime Minister to convey to President Carter that Canada, too, is considering changing its position from non-opposition to nuclear power projects near its border to one of outright disapproval, at least until the people and environment of Canada are adequately protected.


Mr. Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the introduction of this motion for debate at this time?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

November 7, 1979


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Maurice A. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43,1 rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the awful and incredible reality that New Brunswick and Nova Scotia are not represented in the inner sanctum of cabinet, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cape Breton-The Sydneys (Mr. MacLellan):
That this House instructs the Prime Minister to appoint forthwith the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion and the hon. part-time Minister of State for Transport to the inner sanctum of cabinet.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RENAMING OF CERTAIN STANDING COMMITTEES-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, inasmuch as the business of this House is being impeded by the archaic names of two of our standing committees.
I propose that the name of the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts be renamed the standing committee on culture and communications, and that the name of the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications be changed to the standing committee on transport. After consulting with the parties and the members of the committees involved and having received their approval, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Stormont-Dundas (Mr. Lumley):
That Standing Order 65(1 )(b) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
65(1 )(b) "Culture and Communications, to consist of not more than 20 members;"
and that Standing Order 65(1 )(l) be deleted and the following substituted therefor:
65(1 )(l) "Transport, to consist of not more than 20 members;"


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Cape Breton Highlands-Canso):: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order, I would like an opportunity to consider this proposal before it is put to the House. Perhaps it could be put later, when it may receive a more favourable result.


Mr. Speaker:: Of course, my obligation is to put the question as to whether there is unanimous consent for the presentation of the motion at this time. I presume there is not, but that there may be unanimous consent at some other time.
[Mr. Speaker.)


NORTHERN PIPELINES
Mr. Cyril Symes (Sault Ste. Marie):: Mr. Speaker, I wish to move the following motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the statement by the commissioner of the Northern Pipeline Agency yesterday, that all that may be needed for proceeding with the whole of the Alaska Highway gas pipeline is an assurance about financing, rather than having the funds in hand before a prebuild of the southern portion could begin, and since this statement is contrary to the intent of the Northern Pipeline Act, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That this House instruct the Prime Minister to obtain an ironclad guarantee from President Carter that the necessary financing for the whole project will be in place before Canada will consent to prebuild the southern portion of the gas pipeline.


Mr. Speaker:: The unanimous consent of the House is required before such a motion can be introduced for debate. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CAPITAL PUNISHMENT
Mr. Raynald Guay (Levis):: Mr. Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and ask for the unanimous consent of the House to discuss a motion relating to a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Given the fact that five bills dealing with capital punishment are on the order paper, that the Prime Minister stated several times that he was not opposed to a debate on the issue nor to the taking of a free vote after the debate, and also given the fact that I heard news during the weekend to the effect that at least 15 backbenchers on the government side intend to introduce bills on capital punishment, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Quebec East (Mr. Duquet):
That the House urge the government House leader to give priority to those bills and that they be considered as a government measure.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
November 7, 1979


AIRPORTS
Mr. Jim Fleming (York West):: Mr. Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
Considering that the Minister of Transport indicated in a major address in Toronto several days ago that, contrary to commitments by the previous government, he may well expand Toronto international airport, and considering that such an action will directly affect not only the environment but the actual physical and mental well-being of many thousands of people through added noise and air pollution, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Etobicoke North (Mr. MacLaren):
That this House urge the Minister of Transport to hold public hearings and release all studies on the implications of expanding Toronto international airport before proceeding with such an expansion, and that meanwhile the minister assure this House that flight curfews and landing and take-off rotations continue as agreed to by the previous government.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Mr. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Mr. Speaker, under the provision of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Peters), I move:
That this House reminds the Minister of Veterans Affairs that Remembrance Day is only four days away, and expresses the hope that before that day arrives he will present his promised amendments to the various statutes affecting veterans, so that we can honour the dead by making things better for the veterans who are still with us, for their families and for their survivors.


Mr. Speaker:: This motion can be presented for debate at this time only with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I have a question for the Prime Minister, who has already admitted to the House that he made a botch of his first foreign policy initiative in the Middle East.
There is a meeting coming up on Friday with the President of the United States, and we are quite fearful about the possibility of adding further to Canada's declining credibility in foreign affairs. For that reason, we wanted to focus the Prime Minister's mind today and to give him some background briefing that he will need for this encounter with the President.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: In view of the well-known proclivity of the Secretary of State for External Affairs for high-profile foreign policy initiatives which usually end in disaster, including, especially, human rights-


Some hon. Members:: Question.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and in view of the embarrassing retreat made by Canada at the United Nations this week in withdrawing the proposal of the foreign minister to establish an undersecretary for human rights at the United Nations, does the Prime Minister intend to raise the question of human rights with the President, and does he intend to enlist the wisdom and guidance of the President in securing some acceptance for his proposals, which his own minister has not been able to achieve?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Prime Minister):: Yes, Mr. Speaker.


DISCUSSION OF OFFSHORE OIL DRILLING WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister will have to do better than that with Jimmy Carter if he intends to stay in the room for more than five minutes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I will try the Prime Minister on a domestic question, now that he has failed on the UN test.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Is it the intention of the Prime Minister to protest to the President of the United States the intention of

November 7, 1979
Oral Questions
the multinational oil companies in the United States to conduct extensive oil drilling on Georges Bank, which in the view of Nova Scotia fishermen poses a great threat to the rich fishery in that area of Nova Scotia?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I can certainly understand the sensitivity of the hon. member opposite about how long one stays in rooms where foreign policy is discussed, because he had to leave the room well before his choosing, at the decision of the former prime minister.
1 am aware of the concerns of the fishermen in relation to Georges Bank, and will be looking into that matter to see if it would be useful for us to raise the question in discussions with the President on Friday or Saturday.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, 1 hope the Prime Minister will focus his mind on that question, raise it, protest to the President and express the concerns of Nova Scotia fishermen. Will he also, with respect to the fisheries of Nova Scotia, express to the President the rising impatience of Canada at the failure of the American authorities to conclude satisfactorily the agreements on fishing boundaries and fish stocks on Georges Bank?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, that has been done by our government. We will, naturally, make the point again to the President. 1 am sure that the interest of the hon. House Leader of the Opposition in constituency questions must relate directly to the success of his strategy last night.


An hon. Member:: Arrogant.


DISCUSSION OF INTEREST RATES WITH U.S. PRESIDENT-NATIONAL OIL COMPANIES
Mr. John Evans (Ottawa Centre):: Mr. Speaker, in view of this government's slavish adherence to interest rate policies that are clearly made in the United States-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Leslie Evans: -would the Prime Minister tell us whether it is his intention to discuss the policy initiatives of the Federal Reserve Bank of the United States during the President's visit here, and whether he will do this with the hope that perhaps he could convince the President to give us a new interest rate policy from the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: No, Mr. Speaker.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, in light of that enlightened answer, I ask the Prime Minister this question: Given that Mr. Carter, the American President, has indicated a clear intention to establish a national oil company in the United states similar to Petro-Canada, will the Prime Minister take the opportunity to discuss national oil companies with the President, in the hope that the Prime Minister will derive some new insights into this issue which up to now have apparently escaped him?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the people who are unable to see new insights into national oil companies are members opposite who slavishly resist the idea of extending to the citizens of this country the possibility of participating directly in the ownership of a national oil company.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISCUSSION OF URBAN TRANSIT EQUIPMENT WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Mr. Speaker, it is interesting to see how one can extend ownership to people who already own something.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: My question to the Prime Minister also concerns President Carter's important visit to this country. In view of our $12 billion trade deficit in manufactured goods, most of which is with the United States, could the Prime Minister tell the House whether the government attempted, before President Carter comes, to get a change in U.S. regulations which effectively exclude hundreds of millions of dollars of potential Canadian exports of urban transit equipment to the United States? If so, what have been the results of these efforts?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I am pleased to have a serious question, in relation to the visit of the President of the United States, from the Leader of the New Democratic Party. It is a matter we intend to discuss with the President when he is here. There have not been extensive representations to the President of the United States or to the United States Administration prior to his visit here. Instead, we have directed our energies toward preparing a presentation that can be brought to the attention of the President and his officials when they are in Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, considering there is in the United States some $50 billion worth of potential business in the transit field, and these regulations have been known for some time and have already caused two Canadian companies-who are very competitive in this field-to lose contracts in the United States, could the Prime Minister tell the House why nothing was done in advance of the President's visit to obtain changes before more Canadian jobs are lost?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, there have been no contacts by myself with the President of the United States on the implications for Canada of the Buy America program beyond the indication on my part that it was a matter I wanted to discuss with the President when he is here. Naturally, there have been discussions, on an official basis, on the part of representatives of the Government of Canada with representatives of the Government of the United States to draw to the attention of that government the very serious concern our government feels over the impact in Canada of that program.
November 7, 1979


John Edward Broadbent: Mr. Speaker, 1 would like confirmation from the Prime Minister. Is he saying the Government of Canada realizes that one-half of the potential growth of this business for Canadian firms, who are very competitive in this field, actually lies in the United States, and unless the Canadian government obtains fairness from the American government and they recognize that trade in manufactured goods is a two-way street, the Government of Canada will be failing in its responsibility to maintain existing competitive jobs in this country?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, yes, we understand very well the importance to Canada of developing markets, not only in the United States but also in the Third World in this highly important and innovative industrial sector in Canada. That is one of the reasons we have put it on the agenda for discussion with the Americans.


DISCUSSION OF GARRISON DIVERSION PROJECT WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Lloyd Axworthy (Winnipeg-Fort Garry):: Mr. Speaker,
1 also have a question for the Prime Minister concerning his discussions with President Carter: it is on the topic of the Garrison diversion.
Has the Prime Minister received a communique from the National Indian Brotherhood which shows that the ongoing and continuing construction of the Garrison project in North Dakota will result in the biological distortion of the entire Lake Winnipeg waterway, and the livelihood of some 17,000 members of the Manitoba Indian bands will be eliminated at a cost of between $50 million and $100 million?
In light of that kind of evidence, is the Prime Minister prepared to ask the President, this weekend, to order total cessation of all construction on the Garrison until such time as those facts can be assayed, and construction will not continue until we assess the proper impact of the ongoing construction?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the concern of Manitobans and other Canadians about the Garrison project has been brought to my attention by the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboia, the hon. member for Bran-don-Souris and a number of others. Although my office may have received it, 1 have not yet seen the communique to which the hon. member refers. I will certainly look at it.
I should say that it has been our plan since the arrangements were completed for a visit here by President Carter to place on the agenda the very serious implications to Canada of the proposed Garrison diversion plan.


Lloyd Axworthy: Mr. Speaker, I am fully aware that the matter is on the agenda. What I am presenting to the first minister is that there is a clear and imminent danger to the entire environment and economy of the province of Manitoba which justifies a direct request that construction be stopped.
Oral Questions
I would, further, ask the Prime Minister if he is prepared to take other action, such as supporting the legal action in the courts that the Action Coalition is presently instituting. Is he prepared to order additional technical studies? Is he prepared to ask for meetings between the congressional committees of the United States and elected members from the province of Manitoba, federal and provincial, so that we can make the case that if the Americans continue, it will seriously damage our province for the next 100 years?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the action that I can most effectively take when I meet with President Carter, and when our Minister of the Environment meets with United States officials, will be to communicate with them directly, on a Prime Minister to President basis and on a minister to minister basis, the very real concern that we have about the various implications of the Garrison scheme.
I want to look at the telegram to which the hon. member referred in his first question and have an assessment made of the impact that the concerns expressed in that telegram should have upon the representations that we make to the American authorities.


DISCUSSION OF OIL TANKER TRAFFIC WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Arthur Phillips (Vancouver Centre):: Mr. Speaker, 1 also have a question for the Prime Minister concerning the visit of President Carter. It concerns a subject that matters a great deal to people on the west coast, namely, tanker traffic down the west coast, which I know is on the agenda.
The question really arises from recent reports that environmentalists-particularly two federal environmentalists-have come out favouring, on environmental grounds, the Trans Mountain proposal over the Foothills proposal. Does this indicate further uncertainty in the government's support of the Foothills proposal for transporting oil?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I have not seen the reports to which the hon. member refers, but the direct answer to his question is no.


Arthur Phillips: Mr. Speaker, the reports were detailed just a couple of weeks ago in the Vancouver Sun. My further question to the Prime Minister concerns the fact that President Carter has also received advice from his officials to the effect that the northern tier, U.S. route would be the better one. If it comes to a choice between the northern tier route and the Trans Mountain route, does the government intend to back the Canadian Trans Mountain route?


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the terms of the hon. member's question are hypothetical in their very language.


DISCUSSION OF RECOGNITION OF PLO WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. According to the

November 7, 1979
Oral Questions
Secretary of State for External Affairs, Canada has achieved a very high profile in its policy in the Middle East. Can the right hon. gentleman inform the Elouse whether he intends to raise with the President the very important question of recognition of the PLO?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, 1 have no intention of bringing up that matter with the President of the United States, and I doubt that he should want to do so with me. With regard to the Middle East generally, we trust the work of the hon. Robert Stanfield will help all hon. members determine what options are open to Canada for improving our relations with all countries in that part of the world.


Marcel Prud'homme: A further question, Mr. Speaker. Will the Prime Minister discuss with the President what the difference is between Mr. Stanfield's mission with the PLO and the action of Mr. Andrew Young, who was fired because he met the PLO? Can he explain to us how these two cases differ?


Charles Joseph Clark: I suppose to answer the hon. member fully I would have to refer to the precedent established by the former government, which the hon. member supported, in terms of approval given to meetings between representatives of the Canadian government and representatives of the PLO.
I do not have the full list of those meetings with me in the chamber today, but I would be pleased to prepare a letter which would enumerate them for the edification of the hon. member. We could then certainly publish that letter so it would be seen that the practice of having meetings among Canadian representatives and representatives of the PLO began under the former government and that, indeed, it was endorsed explicitly in a statement by the former secretary of state for external affairs, Mr. Jamieson.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISCUSSION OF OIL TANKER TRAFFIC WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Mr. Speaker, 1, too, have a question for the Prime Minister. Would the Prime Minister assure the House that, with the support now given to a permanent west coast tanker route and port development, he will-this week-make President Carter aware that Canada's interests in the environment and fisheries will be protected by this government, and that strict clean-up and routing legislation will be promptly introduced to protect the British Columbia coast?


Charles Joseph Clark: It would be my intention to first announce legislative initiatives in Canada here in the House of Commons. I will certainly be making the President of the United States aware of our very real concern about the environmental implications of decisions his govern-

ment might make, whether they relate to the east coast or the west coast.


James Ross Fulton: In light of the fact that there is an agreement about to be signed, I have a question to ask of the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Would the minister advise the House why a vessel traffic management agreement for only the Strait of Juan de Fuca is about to be signed, possibly this week, when, in fact, the entire British Columbia coast is suffering from dangerous tanker traffic and ongoing trickle oil spills? Would the minister assure the House, and British Columbia in particular, that this legislation will be expanded to cover the entire British Columbia coast?


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, we are very pleased indeed that this initial step is to be completed this weekend and that we will have a guarantee that tanker traffic through the dangerous Strait of Juan de Fuca will be monitored and made more safe for the future. And that is just a beginning.


DISCUSSION OF CANADA'S JOINING OAS WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Louis Duclos (Montmorency):: Mr. Speaker, I should like to put a question to the right hon. Prime Minister. In view of the recent statement of the Secretary of State for External Affairs to the Inter-American Press Association in Toronto, to the effect that Canada is seriously looking into the possibility of becoming a member of the Organization of American States, can the Prime Minister tell the House whether or not he intends to discuss the matter when he meets the President of the United States with a view to obtaining the views of the President on the subject, so that this government, which caused considerable damage to the reputation of Canada on the international scene, might at long last make an enlightened decision on a matter of foreign policy?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Prime Minister of Canada and the President of the United States always discuss several matters. But we shall have only one full day, and half a day on Saturday. I doubt that it will be possible to discuss in depth all matters of concern pertaining to foreign affairs, and I certainly do not intend to bring up the question of the passive participation of Canada in the OAS. However, the Secretary of State for External Affairs may have occasion to take it up with her American counterpart.


CANADA'S JOINING OAS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Louis Duclos: Mr. Speaker, I would like to put a supplementary question to the Secretary of State for External Affairs. Can the minister tell the House what specific factors are now under study with a view to reaching an enlightened decision on the participation of Canada in the
November 7, 1979

Organization of American States and when does she intend to announce the decision of the government on that matter?


Flora Isabel MacDonald: Mr. Speaker, I suggested during my visit to Toronto two weeks ago that this be part of the review that the external affairs parliamentary committee is going to undertake this winter and next spring.


DISCUSSION OF NON-TARIFF BARRIERS WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Mr. Roy MacLaren (Etobicoke North):: Mr. Speaker, in replying to the question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party regarding the problems of entry into the United States market faced by Canadian manufacturers of urban transit equipment, the Prime Minister indicated that he would raise the matter with the President of the United States.
I should like to ask the right hon. gentleman whether he intends to place this important question in a yet broader spectrum of concern about the non-tariff barriers which so adversely affect our trade with the United States. Is it the Prime Minister's intention to raise this broader question in the course of his discussions with the President and, more specifically, does he intend to seek an early date on which these problems can be discussed with the U.S. government for the benefit of Canadian consumers and Canadian industry?


Charles Joseph Clark: Given the limited time on the agenda, I do not intend to pursue that question at any length with the President but I shall certainly be raising the question with him. I will consider the suggestion of the hon. member that there might be some value in establishing a more formal mechanism by which there could be discussion between the representatives of the two countries.


DISCUSSION OF NEW FIGHTER AIRCRAFT WITH U.S. PRESIDENT
Hon. Judd Buchanan (London West):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Disturbing newspaper reports this morning indicate that the U.S. defence department has demanded that McDonnell Douglas not include the $545 million cruise-missile business in its new fighter aircraft package for Canada. Does the Prime Minister intend to pursue this matter with the President of the United States, to ensure that yet another half billion dollar deal does not "go aglimmering" the way of the oil pipeline, the Candu reactors, or our Middle East trade?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I will review the newspaper article to which the hon. member refers, and if there is any need for me to raise the matter with the President I will, of course, do so.


J. Judd Buchanan: Mr. Speaker, Calvin Coolidge said, "The business of America is business." The Prime Minister seems to be saying that the business of this government is losing business. Will the right hon. gentleman guarantee that he will
Oral Questions
pursue this matter with President Carter to ensure that this half-billion dollar business is maintained and kept for Canada?


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Hon. Robert K. Andras (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. Yesterday, the hon. minister from Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe in a little, staged "pas de deux" with the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra, stated that his main ministerial duty is to be in charge of SIN-social insurance numbers. He said his job is to roll back SIN. That has a nice ring to it-"the minister of state for SIN"-and it may well take all that minister's capabilities.
But how can the Prime Minister reconcile such a whimsical cabinet assignment when he continues to combine other very onerous double-departmental portfolios under single ministers, such as the Department of the Solicitor General and the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, the Department of the Secretary of State and the Department of Communications, and the Department of National Defence and the Department of Veterans Affairs? How can the Prime Minister reconcile those extraordinary contrasts in duties?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of State indicated yesterday the range of responsibilities with which he is charged. We have introduced into the concept of government in Canada the idea of ministers of state to assist in departments which are either unusually complex or where there is an unusually high priority attached by this government.
Certainly, on the question of the Treasury Board in relation to achieving greater efficiency in government spending, in relation to making direct progress on deregulation, in relation to dealing with the effectiveness of governments which we believe were not sufficiently well addressed by the previous government, we have taken the decision that it would be useful to have a very strong team of ministers; and that is what we have.


Robert Knight Andras: Is this current structure of double-departmental portfolios to be permanent? Does the Prime Minister intend to get rid of these dual set-ups and enlarge his already fairly sizeable cabinet later, or is the real intent to wipe out the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and the Department of Communications?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, of course that is not the intention. I believe the former minister wanted to pose a serious question when he asked if I intend any ministerial changes. I do not intend any.

November 7, 1979
Oral Questions ENERGY


PLACE OF COAL IN NATIONAL ENERGY POLICY
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.


An hon. Member:: He is not here.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Before the days of oil and gas, coal was widely used to warm our homes and fuel our factories and industries. We still have millions of tons of coal both in western Canada and eastern Canada. The Liberal administration, in its Energy Supplies Emergency Act-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a question?


Gordon Edward Taylor: Yes, sir, I have. Will the minister advise the House whether coal will have an important place in any national energy policy, and will it be considered by the allocation board along with gas and oil in meeting the fuel requirements of Canadians?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, 1 can assure the hon. member-who shares my interest in the coal industry in Canada-that there will be a high and increasing importance attached to the role of coal in Canada's energy future.


INTERNATIONAL TRADE
Mr. Mark MacGuigan (Windsor-Walkerville):: Mr. Speaker, in the continuing absence from this House of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Now that the United States government has announced a $3 billion rescue operation for Chrysler Corporation, when may we expect that the Government of Canada will come forward with a program for the expansion of Chrysler operations in this country?


Hon. Michael Wilson (Minister of State for International Trade):: Mr. Speaker, the question of Chrysler of Canada and the proposals it has made to the Government of Canada is very much under study right now. My colleagues, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry, and 1 will be meeting representatives of the company tomorrow.
We have had a series of meetings with the company. A great deal of information is being studied by officials of the depart-
(Mr. Clark.]
ment. I should underline, however, that the difference between the U.S. corporation and the Canadian corporation is that the Canadian corporation is making a proposal for a long-term program in Canada, whereas Chrysler Corporation in the United States has called for short-term assistance. We are studying all aspects of this long-term proposal and hope to make an announcement in the not-too-distant future.


Mark R. MacGuigan: Mr. Speaker, I thank the minister for his assurance, but my supplementary question is for the Prime Minister.
Since last week the United States Secretary of the Treasury, Mr. Miller, indicated at his press conference in Washington that he expected the Canadian government would be a very important part of the rescue operation-Chrysler having to raise $1.5 billion in addition to the U.S. government guarantee-and that assistance was supposed to come, in part, from the Canadian government, I wonder if the Prime Minister would reconsider the statement he made yesterday, that he does not plan to discuss this matter with the U.S. government; or is there perhaps already an agreement with the U.S. government that Canada will come forward with assistance?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, as I indicated yesterday, I do not intend to raise the matter, although it may well be raised by other ministers in meetings with their American counterparts. There is no agreement in place.


FISHERIES
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans and relates to his statement of August 27. His statements are ambiguous. At the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry he said that his decision was based on expert reports, yet on October 31 he informed the House, in reply to a question from the hon. member for Westmorland-Kent (Mr. LeBlanc), that inshore fishermen were represented at the advisory committee when the decision was taken. Yesterday, a spokesman for the Nova Scotia government stated at the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry that he had pressured the minister into allowing vessels to enter the Gulf. Can the minister, therefore, inform the House whether, besides Nova Scotia, he consulted with Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island prior to taking such a decision?
November 7, 1979


Hon. James A. McGrath (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Mr. Speaker, as I have already indicated in the House and before the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry, there was consultation at the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee level. The hon. member understands that. There was not direct consultation at the ministerial level, but the Atlantic Groundfish Advisory Committee has provincial representation on it at the deputy ministerial level. There was consultation; there was advice; I made the decision; I take full responsibility for it.


INQUIRY WHETHER PRIME MINISTER WILL MEET WITH MINISTER OF FISHERIES AND OCEANS CONCERNING DECISION MADE
Alexandre Cyr: Mr. Speaker, my supplementary is for the right hon. Prime Minister, who has said repeatedly that there is now in Ottawa a government open to the provinces' aspirations and capable of changing attitude. He has also spoken of jurisdiction over offshore resources. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, however, does not seem to share that same openness toward Quebec, New Brunswick and Prince Edward Island. Can the Prime Minister tell the House whether, in view of the statements we have heard in the House, he intends to meet with his Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to shed light on a decision which was taken without proper consultation with the provinces?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, on at least three occasions the minister has stated in the House that consultation had taken place with an organization which included representation from the provinces concerned.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Mr. Speaker, my question is to the Prime Minister; and I will switch from fish to chicken. 1 am sure the Prime Minister is aware that the poultry producers of this country are very concerned about the high level of imports from the United States, namely, over 6 per cent of our consumption by the year 1982, compared with the historical average of 1 per cent.
Can the Prime Minister assure this House that he will ask President Carter, when he meets with him, whether the President of the United States will reopen negotiations on the level of chicken imports from the United States?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, the Minister of Agriculture has answered in the House several
Oral Questions
questions similar to this one, indicating that the Government of Canada has been able to secure a reduction in the amount of imports of chicken into this country.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, that is just not true. It is a case of "Whelan's chickens coming home to roost." The Minister of Agriculture said in committee the other day that if he made the chicken marketing board the first receiver in this country, the Americans would object. The Dairy Commission and the Wheat Board are both first receivers. Would the Prime Minister ask the President of the United States whether he can give the assurance that there will be no objection to the broiler marketing board being the first receiver? If it is not to be the first receiver, Loblaws and Maple Lodge will have control over the retail price of chicken in this country.


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, we can certainly consider the usefulness of raising that kind of request with the President of the United States to determine what his reaction would be. If it appears that it would be useful to raise the matter, naturally we will do it.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the minister in charge of the Canadian Home Insulation Program. I am not sure whether it is the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, or the minister responsible for Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: You will never learn.


Mr. Whelan:: You have been here long enough now.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: On April 20, the program was extended to include houses built up to 1961. Perhaps the minister knows that houses built in the 1950s and even up to the 1970s had approximately the same standard of insulation. I was wondering whether the program is to be extended, or whether there will be some element of fairness introduced into it so that people who had houses built in 1962, 1963, and so on, can receive the same type of benefit as their neighbours who had houses built prior to 1961.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion ):: Mr. Speaker, I will take that question as a representation.

November 7, 1979
Oral Questions
[ Translation]


FINANCE
Hon. Marcel Lessard (Lac-Saint-Jean):: Mr. Speaker, my question is addressed to the Minister of Finance. By his present policy, the minister is trying to reduce inflation. When preparing his budget could he, for instance, consider adjusting the $1,000 exemption now enjoyed by taxpayers who derive income from interests or dividends? This exemption has remained unchanged for the past four years and it should be adjusted to encourage small savers to keep saving and thereby perhaps contribute to lowering the rate of inflation.


Hon. John C. Crosbie (Minister of Finance):: Mr. Speaker, I would be glad to consider representations for additional relief as the hon. member suggests. I hope that his leader will be back with us tomorrow, after the severe drubbing he received last night.


TARIFFS ON IMPORTATION OF FIBRE-OPTICS
Hon. Jeanne Sauve (Laval-des-Rapides):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. I should like to ask the minister whether he can confirm to this House that as of June 30 he lowered the tariffs on the importation of fibre-optics into Canada. Can he tell us who he is helping by doing this, when the former government specifically excluded certain telecommunications products?


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, as a result of my prodigious memory, I am able to say yes, I think that the tariff of fibre-optics was lowered on June 30. This was in an effort, of course, to help Canadian consumers. The tariff has been lowered, and that action is being reviewed at the request of my colleague who sits next to me.


An hon. Member:: What is his name?


John Carnell Crosbie: If there is any further decision in that connection, it will be announced.


Jeanne Sauvé: Mr. Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Communications. Can he tell me why he accepted the lowering of tariffs on fibre-optics, when he knows only too well that the government has entered into partnership with industry in order to help the Canadian industry develop a new product which we hope will hit international markets on time to compete with other countries? He told me that at the federal-provincial conference and discussions he had with the ministers of communications, they discussed this subject in order to enhance the position of Canadian industry. How is this lowering of the tariff helping Canadian industry?


Some hon. Members:: Hear hear!


Hon. David MacDonald (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Mr. Speaker, as the former minister knows, the whole matter of tariffs with respect to fibre-optics is a complex one. This particular decision was taken-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the first page of your briefing notes.


David Samuel Horne MacDonald: I am not looking at briefing notes; I know the issue a bit better than that. It is a matter of considerable concern to a very important telecommunications industry.
As the Minister of Finance indicated, at the moment we are reviewing the particular policy. Also, we are talking to various interested parties both in terms of the industries involved and some provinces which would like to expand their own potential telecommunications industries. Because this government has a very real commitment to developing the potential in this industry, I know that proper steps will be taken to achieve that end.

[ Translation]


NATIONAL UNITY
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister.
Days after the Parti Quebecois came into power in November 1976, one of the first acts of the new government was for the Premier of Quebec to rush down to the United States to reassure the Americans about his sovereignty-association project, followed a few months later by the Prime Minister of Canada, who set the facts right. Is the matter of the Quebec referendum listed on the Prime Minister's agenda to be discussed during his meeting with President Carter this week?


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, I do not intend to discuss the referendum specifically, but I know that the President of the United States and the citizens of that country are interested in the question of Canadian unity. I will indicate my views to President Carter and my optimistic outlook concerning Canadian unity.


LABOUR CONDITIONS
Mr. Jacques Olivier (Longueuil):: Mr. Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Labour.
In view of the fact that the Minister of National Health and Welfare may want to deprive thousands of mothers of family
November 7, 1979

allowances, their sole source of income, and in view of the fact that many Canadian workers earn only $2.90 an hour, did the minister consider raising the minimum wage for employees under his jurisdiction?


Hon. Lincoln M. Alexander (Minister of Labour):: Mr. Speaker, as I understand it, the minimum wage at the federal level now is $2.90 an hour.


Miss Begin:: That is what he just said.


Lincoln MacCauley Alexander: I can assure the hon. member that this matter is under very serious consideration. It is my expectation that action in this regard will be taken in due course-and I hope, by saying "in due course", in the immediate future.

[ Translation]


INCOME TAX
Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I would like to put a supplementary question to the Minister of Finance, Mr. Speaker.
Since an hourly wage of $2.90 is inadequate and a huge increase will soon hike the price of a gallon of gas to $2 or $2.20, has the minister considered the possibility of allowing employees who are paid $2.90 an hour to deduct from their income tax their transportation cost to work? Those people lose the equivalent of two hours' earnings because of what they have to pay for gas. Is the minister prepared to do as much for them as he does for doctors, lawyers and professionals?
(English]


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, 1 can promise the hon. gentleman that if there are any increases in energy prices or any increases in the cost of gasoline, we will be looking after lower income Canadians as well: he can depend on that.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Derek Blackburn (Brant):: Mrs. Speaker, my question is directed to the right hon. Prime Minister. When he is discussing acid rain and its tremendous problems with the President of the United States this weekend, does he intend to tell the President precisely what the Canadian government has done so far with respect to acid rain, and more specifically, what directives the Canadian government issued to major Canadian polluters responsible for acid rain fall-out in Canada?
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: Mr. Speaker, because of the very great importance that both the President and I attach to the acid rain question, we arranged for an opportunity for the Postmaster General and Minister of the Environment of Canada and his counterpart in the United States to meet for some time to discuss in detail the possibility of arrangements which might be made between the two countries.
Naturally, I will be raising the question in a general way with the President, but the details of the discussions between Canada and the United States will be carried on the Canadian side by the Canadian Minister of the Environment.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Mr. Speaker, 1 address my question to the Minister of State for the Treasury Board.
One of the minister's responsibilities is to review bilingual policies within the public service. Since the declared policy of his boss, the President of the Treasury Board, is to reduce the number of public servants through attrition, could the Minister of State say whether he has instructed the public service or the government departments to provide for a certain proportion of mandatory designation of bilingual positions? I am sure he knows what I mean by "mandatory designation of bilingual positions". Did he get the assurance, for the President of the Treasury Board or for himself, that departments have received firm instructions to provide for that designation among federal public servants?


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Minister of State (Treasury Board)):: Mr. Speaker, I am, indeed, responsible for the conduct of official languages within the public service and, unlike my hon. friend's colleague, the hon. member for Thunder Bay, I consider it a very heavy and very serious responsibility.
My colleague, the President of the Treasury Board, has indicated that as the government undertakes a policy of attrition in the public service, a commitment will continue to be made in order to ensure that the public service remains representative of the linguistic balance of the population at large. This commitment, which is unswerving on the part of this government, is one we will keep.

November 7, 1979
Oral Questions


ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Nipissing: Yesterday, Mr. Speaker, during a meeting of the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs, the Attorney General of Canada indicated that the Solicitor General was considering legislation to deal with the commission of illegal acts by police officers in the discharge of their responsibilities.
Would the minister indicate what aspects of this problem are being dealt with in that legislation, and whether the legislation will reflect the well-publicized view of the right hon. Prime Minister to the effect that illegal activity could be authorized by a minister of the Crown on an ad hoc basis?


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Solicitor General and Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: No, Mr. Speaker. We are certainly reviewing the whole RCMP Act at the moment. We have already opened discussions with the provinces, as well, in respect of the general powers of police officers generally in the fulfilment of what might otherwise be looked upon as the normal investigatory powers of the police. But certainly, the rule of law must be paramount in this country, whether it affects the police or the average citizen, and certainly the police have to pay attention to the law in exactly the same way as does everybody else.


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his reply. He knows that the whole question of police activity and political control over police activity is now within the terms of reference of the McDonald inquiry. 1 appreciate the reply the hon. gentleman gave; but is it his intention at this time to introduce the legislation which he describes prior to the McDonald inquiry submitting a report to the government?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Probably not, Mr. Speaker. There was some confusion earlier, which I think I conveyed to the House, as to the deadline by which the McDonald commission itself expected to have its core report before the government. There were dates being bandied about-as late as the end of 1981. The Prime Minister has since reported to the House, however, that we expect to have the main core report of the McDonald commission in our hands by June 1980.
When we are dealing with such a massive subject as the powers of the police in this country, with the consultation and the research that obviously has to be done respecting that and which is going on right now within the government, I rather expect that the recommendations and the advice from the royal commission will be in our hands in time for us to seriously consider them prior to the introduction of that legislation in the House.
However, it may be that we will have a draft bill ready for the House at about the same time, in which event I would expect it to be given first reading and then perhaps allowed to percolate over the summer so that everybody can consider it.


PRIVILEGE
Mr. Speaker:: Order. I have received three notices of privilege, and the order in which I received them is: first, the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard); secondly, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet); and third, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). They all relate in one way or another-and I will certainly hear from the members-to a report in the Toronto The Globe and Mail and to incidents which took place in the House yesterday.
I want to say to the House in just two sentences, before hearing from the hon. members, that I read the report of yesterday's proceedings on the front page of this morning's The Globe and Mail, and there seemed to be an indication there that representations may have been made on the part of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) to me on behalf of the Social Credit party.
I should, of course, indicate that in the first place any reports which would indicate that concessions can be made by anyone else in the House respecting the question period except the Chair are quite incorrect and unfounded. Secondly, I can assure the House that the President of the Privy Council has at no time made a representation to me concerning the status of the Social Credit party in the House, except those that were made in common with the House leaders of the other two parties whom I have consulted on more than one occasion in the last two to three weeks. I wanted to put that on the record before calling on the hon. members.
[ Translation]


MR. PINARD-RIGHT OF SPEECH IN THE HOUSE
Mr. Yvon Pinard (Drummond):: Mr. Speaker, as you mentioned, my question is twofold. It deals, on the one hand, with certain incidents that occurred in the House yesterday and, on the other, with an article that made the front page of The Globe and Mail this morning.
First of all, with regard to the incident that happened in the House of Commons yesterday, Mr. Speaker, you will recall that on the motion of the right hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Trudeau), you naturally recognized first, the Leader of the Official Opposition, then the leader of the NDP (Mr. Broadbent) and finally the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark). As a result of the intervention of the right hon. Prime Minister, you spontaneously deemed it timely to explain why you were about to recognize the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy). During the few minutes that your explanations lasted, we listened very closely, and I have absolutely no intention of criticizing your remarks at that time. On the contrary, I think they were not required and that anyway you had the discretionary power to recognize whomever you chose in the House at that time. Whether that discretionary power was used advisedly or inadvisedly, possibly it was used advisedly, poss-
November 7, 1979

ibly it was used inadvisedly, it is not for me to say. That is not what I want to do today.
As I did yesterday, Mr. Speaker, I will refrain from commenting on your remarks at that time. You will notice that after your remarks I only tried to be recognized on a point of order. I must admit that I had quite a lot of yelling to do in both official languages before finally saying simply the words which can be read at page 1010 of Hansard and which in a way constitute a motion to give the floor to the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). I did not make any comments on your remarks. 1 was not questioning at all your decision to recognize the member for BeauCe. All I was doing as a member, Mr. Speaker, was to exercise a right provided by Standing Order 29 which reads, and I quote:
When two or more members rise to speak, Mr. Speaker calls upon the member who first rose in his place; but a motion may be made that any member who has risen "be now heard", or "do now speak", which motion shall be forthwith put without debate.
And that might certainly have made the situation more complex if my motion had been moved and accepted and if there had been a vote before 9.45 last night when some members were on their way in; perhaps my motion might have enabled one more Liberal member to take the floor on the motion introduced by the Liberal party and prevented the leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada from being recognized that day, giving us the impression that despite not being recognized in principle that party is recognized de facto in the House.
Therefore, Mr. Speaker, the first part of the question of privilege I am raising now, the first point, is to know what we are to expect as members of the House in the future. I am not asking you in any way to change the decision you made yesterday, I have no right to ask you that. I am well aware of that. Anyway, there is no possible remedy to the damage done, if any. However, in future, as a member I would like to know if at any time, when 1 think a member other than the one you are recognizing should have the floor, I can use Standing Order 29 or if I am bound by the remarks and the decision you made yesterday.
I would like to know what comes first, the standing orders of the House or the interpretation given by you last night in the heat of the debate. This is the first point of my statement, Mr. Speaker. As for the second point, in order to conclude with this matter, for the record I would like to quote from Beauchesne fifth edition on page 99 of the English version and I quote citation 302, subparagraph 1:
When a motion that a member "be now heard" is defeated, it is assumed that the member originally recognized by the Speaker has the floor.
What does that mean? If the moving of such a motion is justified by the fact that somebody else has been recognized, how could 1 seek the floor other than by raising a point of order? That is the first part of my intervention.
Privilege-Mr. Pinard


Mr. Speaker:: I think I should help the hon. member for Drummond with the first part of his argument. I would hasten to add that this argument is absolutely sound. There is no other recourse than that which was open to the hon. member to try to seek the floor by way of a point of order. That is the only effective way to take advantage of Standing Order 29. Therefore, in attempting to do deal with the matter by way of a point of order, the hon. member was attempting to do it in the only way that was open to him. So everything was correct in what he tried to do yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Therefore, the hon. member's argument today is absolutely beyond reproach. There is, however, a dilemma in our proceedings in respect to the use of Standing Order 29 in two respects. The first is that it is in opposition to our general practice to move a motion under a point of order. This is not the ordinary way of doing it.
It was not expected that I would be in this role yesterday at this particular hour and, therefore, I had not in any way advised the House. I had not expected to be making this decision at that time, although I had given the matter four weeks of thought because we have all been conscious of this problem. But in doing so, I was doing more than simply what was envisaged by Standing Order 29, which is that of choosing one member or another. I had in fact combined that step with a decision on a matter that has been troubling the House for some time, and that is the decision on the position in principle of the Social Credit party.
This matter troubled the House on the second day of this Parliament when we began an argument about whether or not the leader of that party could participate in the leaders' day debate. During a subsequent deliberation, I suggested to the House that it might want to resolve the problem directly by having it sent to a committee, which is a course of action that the House, for many reasons, has not seen fit to adopt. Therefore, the decision in some respects was returned to me, and I did not expect to be making the announcement on that matter at that particular time yesterday; but I knew that I would have to do it some time.
Having done that, it would appear to me that we would be in conflict with another practice, and that was that since I was resolving a procedural situation yesterday, to permit the use of Standing Order 29 in that way would have seemed to me to permit an appeal against the ruling that I had made, which we do not permit.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: We don't accept that nonsense.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. Therefore, I indicate to the hon. member that his only recourse was the method that he tried to use yesterday, and I did not accept it in the circumstances. But he was perfectly correct in his attempt.


Yvon Pinard: As I said earlier, Mr. Speaker, the second aspect of my statement refers to this article on the first page of

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
The Globe and Mail; in order to clarify my remarks, for the record I would like to quote a very short portion of this article. The interesting part is as follows:

Mr. Baker said in an interview that he made some representations to Speaker James Jerome on behalf of the Socreds because he was moved by Socred Adrien Lambert's look of genuine outrage when the five-member Quebec party recently walked out of the House in protest.
Mr. Jerome granted Mr. Roy "the generosity of the House" yesterday and allowed him to speak in the debate immediately after the other three party leaders-

Mr. Speaker, it gives me pleasure that you moved today to clarify your attitude on this most serious allegation made by a journalist on the front page of such an important paper as The Globe and Mail. I am expecting just as much from the government House leader, because since the Winters-Beaudoin incident in 1956, during the pipeline debate, and I checked the record, there has been no instance of a government leader daring to take the steps implied in the article, and which hopefully will be strongly denied by my hon. colleague, daring to set the business of the House without the presence of other members of other sides, through some sort of collusion, some back-door arrangement with the Speaker. I do not believe this has happened.
1 do not want the Canadian public to remain under the impression this might have been done, although there is an unfortunate chain of facts that, taken independently, are meaningless but that, put together, are strongly presumptive. Those facts in legal terms are serious, precise and concordant, they require a formal denial. There are five such facts, and I will state them briefly.
First, and it is important that this be put on record, there has been this summer in Drummondville, in my constituency, a meeting of 73 unsuccessful Progressive Conservative candidates from Quebec, who expressly requested that the right hon. Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Clark) not officially recognize the Social Credit Party of Canada. They must face that situation. Second, the truth for everyone who is not blind, is straightforward and is not a hypocrite, is that in the short term it is in the government's interest to enjoy in this House the support of the Social Credit Party of Canada on non-confidence motions. There can be no doubt about that.
Third, in the long term, it cannot be denied that on the other hand the disappearance from the Quebec scene of the Social Credit Party of Canada leaves the opposition field open to the Progressive Conservatives. This is another fact of life.
Fourth, we have seen over these last few days, despite an order from the House of Commons whose servant you are, sir, and as you indicated the first day, that there is now a gradual de facto recognition of the Social Credit party. All those facts together, Mr. Speaker, coupled with the way in which my intervention based on a rule that could have brought a vote before 9.45, that coud have prevented the Social Credit Party

of Canada from taking the floor, that could have antagonized the Social Credit party and perhaps influenced the vote that evening, all these facts put together leave us skeptical when we read that The Globe and Mail report I was referring to earlier, and indeed the Canadian public is led to wonder what is going on, if it is true that dealings can be made by the government leader without the presence of the House leaders from opposition parties, to prevent a government from falling or to make things easier for the government when there is a non-confidence motion.
This is serious, very serious. I am not making implications, I am simply stating facts. The solution is quite easy, Mr. Speaker. You did so very clearly in your intervention, from the start, as soon as today's question period was over. It is now for the government House leader to deny formally and unequivocally, to state that The Globe and Mail report is absolutely false, he never gave such an interview, in the interview he never made the allegations stated as his. This is essential in my view, if there is to be continuing respect for our democracy, if this institution is to be respected by all hon. members and by all the Canadian people.


Hon. Walter Baker (President of the Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, I am very happy that you made the representations that you did at the beginning of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member. I think that it is quite important for the operation of the House of Commons that you said what you said because it is precisely true. However, I am concerned about the implications of the remarks by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard).
If I follow his argument that it would be forever improper for any member of this House of Commons to attend upon the Speaker of the House of Commons in order to apprise him of a difficulty he may be having as a member or, in the alternative, a sense of atmosphere that might be developing in the House of Commons over any particular matter, that is quite within the realm of any member of this House and is certainly not outside-


An hon. Member:: But you are the leader of the government.


Walter David Baker: -the position of the House leader of the government. I have something here that I want to read that has perhaps escaped the attention of hon. members opposite. I hope my friend from Cape Breton will understand it. It is a quotation from a paper prepared by the Library of Parliament dated October 17, 1979, entitled "The Government House Leader in the Canadian House of Commons". The relevant section reads as follows:
The unsung heroes of the House are the party House leaders. Each must have a dual loyalty: to his party and to the House', according to John B. Stewart, parliamentary secretary to the government House leader between 1966-68.
As Leader of the Government in the House of Commons I wear one hat, but as leader of the House of Commons I wear a
November 7, 1979

hat that perhaps some members on the other side do not understand.
What 1 saw developing in the House of Commons as a result of your decision-which I cannot dispute and do not dispute- with respect to the striking committee was an atmosphere where a group of members of this House who regard themselves as a party, even though they are not regarded as a party anywhere else in this House of Commons, felt they were being denied certain rights that ought to flow to them, having regard to their own point of view.
What I was concerned about when I saw that was an atmosphere developing in this House of Commons where it would become an unproductive, argumentative place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I am prepared to accept the word "argumentative" in the healthiest sense of the parliamentary system; but in the negative way in which it was developing, I went to you, Mr. Speaker-


An hon. Member:: You did?


An hon. Member:: Shame.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There is a conversation going on close to me and I did not hear what the hon. member just said. Could 1 hear that again?


Walter David Baker: I went to you, Mr. Speaker, in your office. You will recall that I expressed concern to you about the atmosphere which I saw developing in this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Lefebvre:: Talk to the other House leaders.


Walter David Baker: Subsequently there were meetings of representatives of parties, so I understand, where this matter was quite properly discussed in terms of the operation of this House of Commons. That occurred-


An hon. Member:: When?


Walter David Baker: The date it occurred, I do not know.


Mr. Speaker:: For the benefit of the hon. member and the record, and so that the House will know, my memory does serve me on this.
The President of Privy Council is referring to a Thursday meeting which was initiated at his suggestion on the Thursday morning prior to the House sitting at two o'clock on that afternoon. I brought into consultation the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) to discuss the suggestion which had been made to me on that day and which I acted upon that afternoon. I can remember it was a Thursday afternoon because the following day was the
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
Friday on which the five Social Credit members left the House. That was the extent of the consultation that had taken place and that is why 1 indicated at the beginning that there had been no representation made to me, except that which had been discussed in an open way with the other House leaders.


Walter David Baker: Thank you for clarifying that, Mr. Speaker. 1 am sorry I could not remember the date and thank you for going beyond that.
I think that is within my duty as leader of the House of Commons. I have some responsibilities with respect to that and it was in that atmosphere that it occurred.
You will recall, Mr. Speaker, that the next day, Friday, I guess because the members of the Social Credit party were not happy, they decided to walk out of this House.


Eugene Whelan: Let them stay out.


Walter David Baker: As a leader of the House of Commons, Mr. Speaker, no matter what other-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Government House leader.


Walter David Baker: As the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons I was very much concerned about what I could see developing as a result of the attitude of at least one party in this House of Commons toward a particular group of members. So that the issue was made clear.
I want to tell members of the House how I regard the members who call themselves the Social Credit party in this House. I regard them in this way: they are not a party under the Senate and House of Commons Act and they are not a party as a result of a vote of this House; but Mr. Speaker, whether the members of the Liberal Party or the members of the New Democratic Party or anyone else regards them not as a party, they regard themselves as a party.


Herb Breau: So?


Walter David Baker: And so, sir, in their own minds they regard themselves as a party, and I recognize-so that it will be absolutely clear-that they are much more than a group of independents. They are entitled to certain courtesies and as a result of that, notwithstanding the fact that they are not a party and that there are only five of them, they have been given six positions on committees of this House of Commons.
I have expressed to you and to my colleagues in the House that I have no objection whatsoever if they are extended the courtesies that would normally apply to a party because of their particular position in this matter, and from the point of view of obtaining some form of peace with respect to the operations of this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard


Walter David Baker: Let me just conclude by saying that I am not responsible for the attitude of the former government to any group of members in this House of Commons. I really do not care whether they agree or not with respect to my attitude to my job in this House. My own role in this House of Commons, sir-


Thomas Lefebvre: You care about five but not about 112!


Walter David Baker: My role in this House of Commons is that even if one of the members of the Liberal party came to see me, 1 would do my best to help him, if that were the case-


An hon. Member:: Thanks a lot.


Walter David Baker: -and all in accordance with the proprieties and appropriateness, and after consulting with my House leader colleagues. I am very pleased, Mr. Speaker, that you made it clear that there was the appropriate consultation with the representatives of the other parties with respect to that meeting which you and I had together, you in one capacity and me in another.
I frankly think that if I have a job at all in this House of Commons, it is certainly to lead the government and the House so as to ensure that we can have a recurrence of what occurred last night-that is, the victory of the government over an opposition that should not have brought a silly motion in any event.
I have another job as well, and that is as leader of the House of Commons to ensure that you, Mr. Speaker, and others connected with this House are aware of the atmosphere that prevails in this House of Commons. I frankly think that the representations made by the hon. member for Drummond are quite frivolous and I am sorry he made them.


An hon. Member:: Deny it.


Mr. Speaker:: In addition, I have notice from the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and from the opposition House leader, the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen). I do not know whether they touch the same subject. I would like some guidance as to the most orderly way in which to receive all of the representations. Having heard those who have given me notice, I think then I might hear any others who wish to participate and pursue the question of privilege before making any kind of a decision.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, we have listened to really one of the most incredible performances ever given in the House of Commons. The hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) raised a question of privilege based upon an article in The Globe and Mail which stated that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) had made representations to your Honour. The article said he had waited upon your Honour. Then the article said he had made that approach because he was moved by the look of

genuine outrage on the face of one of the members of the Social Credit group. Then, lo and behold, there developed what he described as generous treatment of the Social Credit party in the House of Commons. That is the gist of the article. The hon. gentleman has confirmed in his statement that the article is correct. There is no explanation either from the hon. gentleman that later on, after he had had his private meeting with your Honour, other House leaders were called in.
I have been leader of the government in the House of Commons for quite a long time in the past, and never to this day have I called upon the present Speaker or the former Speaker, Mr. Lamoureux, in order to express my views as to what was going on in the House. Never.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I must say I often felt like it, but I never did because i understood the consequences of that particular kind of activity-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that a member of the government, with the authority of the government, waits upon the Speaker with respect to what the hon. gentleman described as the maintenance of peace in the House of Commons. Whose peace?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I hope the House does not forget the kind of atmosphere that prevailed in the House of Commons when I was a new member when a member of the government in the midst of a crisis in the House waited upon the Speaker.
There has been an impending crisis in the House of Commons and in the midst of it we are told that the President of the Privy Council has waited upon Your Honour. You have told us, and we accept your word, that representations did not influence your conduct in any way. But I object very much indeed that the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons would go privately to Your Honour and speak about matters relating to the operation of the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Resign.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is very serious. 1 confirm what Your Honour said, that you called others, my distinguished colleague from Winnipeg, myself and the President of the Privy Council, to discuss matters; but I do not recall that I was ever informed that that meeting had been preceded by a meeting with the President of the Privy Council. I may have been, but I do not recall. So I say to the President of the Privy Council that I intend to have more to say about it, because events occurred in the House of Commons, as my hon. friend said, which drawn together cast great skepticism upon the operations of the chamber.
Why was the member for Drummond not permitted to put his motion, which might have changed the whole course of events yesterday? Your Honour has given us a statement, and
November 7, 1979

we accept it. Nevertheless, the question will linger in our minds. However, we have an even deeper question about the motives and conduct of the President of the Privy Council. I have had good relations with him but I am deeply regretful that he went to the Speaker privately.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Unbelievable.


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Papineau):: Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is also in two parts. First of all, I find quite unacceptable that in our parliamentary system the integrity of the Chair can be brought under suspicion as irrespectfully and as irresponsibly even, as the government leader did in his statements to The Globe and Mail reporter. This is the first part of my question of privilege.
This is even more unacceptable since we have just heard the leader of the government in the House explain his position in this matter. He was interrupted by you, Mr. Speaker, when you noted that the representations that he made privately to you occurred on a Thursday, the day before the five Social Credit members left the House in such a-


An hon. Member:: Dramatic manner!


André Ouellet: -dramatic manner, as someone has just said. If this is true, I am much more willing to believe the Speaker of this House than the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). If it is true that he waited on you privately before the five Social Credit members left the House, then The Globe and Mail article is inaccurate since it states that Mr. Baker came to you because he was moved by the look of genuine outrage on the face of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert) as he was leaving the House of Commons.
Mr. Speaker, either there has been another meeting of which we are not aware or else the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton deluded the members of the Social Credit into thinking that he would ask you to grant them a better treatment in the House to win the vote last evening.
Mr. Speaker, some facts have to be recalled in this House. As the government House leader spoke for a long time let me say this.
The difficulties of the Social Credit Party of Canada in gaining recognition in this House since the beginning of the session were created in the first place by the government leader himself. On opening day it was the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who rose to propose the names of hon. members who would form the striking committee of this House. Yet, he was the one who decided not to include a representative of the Social Credit Party of Canada.
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
He was the one who decided before anyone else in this House that the Social Credit party should not obtain official recognition as a party in the House of Commons. He was the one who decided not to allow this political group to be represented on the striking committee of this House. It was even his leader who went and raided the ranks of the Social Credit party to convince the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle) to join the Progressive Conservatives, thereby reducing by that much the representation of the Social Credit Party of Canada in this House. Obviously, Mr. Speaker, yesterday the government leader had a lot to be forgiven by the Social Crediters. I do not know what happened.
I do not know what was arranged behind the curtains of this House but I do know that in today's edition of The Globe and Mail it is reported that Mr. Baker said in an interview that he had made representations to you to get a better treatment for the Social Credit Party of Canada. I believe that the office of Speaker of this House must remain completely objective and above those kinds of influences and deals which can only tarnish the good reputation of Parliament. I am prepared to take your word, Mr. Speaker. I am prepared to accept what you said earlier but I am really puzzled by the remarks just made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton who, contrary to his customary eloquence and self-confidence, was today stuttering, imprecise and anxious to hide something from us. 1 wish, in the spirit of sincerity, honesty and co-operation with yourself, Mr. Speaker, he would tell us everything that happened and clearly specify not in an evasive way as he did, but clearly state what he did in an attempt to have the Social Crediters vote with the government to defeat last night's motion.
In fact, Mr. Speaker, my question of privilege is a fundamental one because we believe at this time that the government House leader used you to hoodwink the Social Crediters, that he has deceived that political party and won a vote last night that he should normally have lost.
The second part of my question of privilege, Mr. Speaker, relates precisely to what you said yourself yesterday as reported on page 1009 of Hansard, which I think was to the point and should be the element to be remembered from everything that has taken place these last few days concerning the Social Credit Party of Canada. You said that it seems that the Social Credit members should be allowed to participate as they are entitled to, since they are members of a political party and also because they form a group in the House, that they are five members all seated together in the House, and that they chose a leader, first, you said, so long as it does not give them an advantage that they would not otherwise enjoy as five members and, second, so long as it does not deprive other members of their right to participate in some way.
My question of privilege is the following, Mr. Speaker. I would have liked to take part in the debate yesterday. The House had before it a motion presented by the official opposition. It was, according to our rules, an opposition day, in fact
1054

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
our day. What happened? We see from the last pages of Hansard, where there is a list of all members who took part in yesterday's debate, that among those who were recognized there were four government members, four Progressive Conservatives, out of 136 in the Elouse, two of the 26 members of the New Democratic Party, one of the five members of the Social Credit Party of Canada and four Liberal members out of 112. So, here is what citation 301 of Beauchesne, fifth edition, says. I noted that citation a while ago. Citation 301 reads as follows:
[DOT]	(1540)

It is customary for the Speaker to try to arrange for speakers, for and against the motion, in a reasonable rotation.

If, on a day allotted to the official opposition which is called the loyal opposition and also has its rights and privileges here in the House of Commons, as many members of other political parties as there were yesterday are to be recognized, I say it is clearly an infringement on the rights and privileges of other members. I think that you spoke wisely yesterday when you talked about the right to recognize, sometimes, a member-


Mr. Speaker:: 1 must correct the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) because he referred to the fact that according to him, there were four Progressive Conservatives, I believe out of 136, the fourth of whom was the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle) who spoke at 9.44 last night, and then for only one minute. That was merely to start a new round, but in fact there were only three active participants among the Progressive Conservatives, four among the Liberals, two among the NDP and only one Social Crediter.


An hon. Member:: Right on!
[DOT]	(1550)


André Ouellet: I accept the correction of the Speaker. If we refer to what happened last night we see that in fact the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) intervened in the debate with a long question that took up part of the time which should normally have been allotted the hon. member for Lotbiniere (Mr. Janelle). In any event, it is essential, Mr. Speaker, that you keep in mind that the five hon. members who are called the Social Credit Party of Canada have chosen a leader as they had the right to do, but that there is also a political reality that is supreme, Mr. Speaker, that stands way above all the rules we may adopt here in this House of Commons, and that is that the people of Canada had the opportunity to decide, at the time of our recently held election, that the Social Credit party presented candidates, and that the people having expressed its will, denied that party the 12 members who would have allowed the so-called leader to receive the additional salary as leader of a party. Attempts have been made to build a case for the Social Credit Party of
Canada and give it a special place in this House because its history goes back quite some time.
Mr. Speaker, I feel it is important to recall that in the days of Mr. Thompson and Mr. Caouette, the Social Credit party was truly a national party with candidates in several provinces of Canada. Since the waning political party led by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) was not even in a position to run candidates in every Quebec constituency and had no candidate in any other Canadian province, therefore it is neither a national party nor the group led by Mr. Caouette or Mr. Thompson, but it has become a small regional party which has some rights and privileges. We on this side do not intend to deny to those democratically elected members the right to take part in the proceedings of the House, the right to speak here, the right to uphold the interests of their electors who trusted them.
However, I think that you rightly stated yesterday Mr. Speaker that rights and privileges should not be granted to that small party. I knew what I said when a while ago I used the word "waning" because this party is fading away. Mr. Speaker, it should not be granted rights that will unduly reduce the rights and privileges which with good reason belong to the loyal opposition in the House. I think that in the future, on opposition days, either those of the Liberal party which constitutes the official opposition or those of the New Democratic Party which ran candidates in all provinces and is truly a national party which may speak in the House, as I said, on those opposition days of the Liberal Party or the NDP, Mr. Speaker, you should not recognize each time a member from the Social Credit Party of Canada. Otherwise you would infringe upon those rights and privileges that the Liberal party and the NDP were given by Canadian voters during the last election, on May 22. If the Social Crediters want to have more rights in the House they should try to have more members elected. Only then shall we respect them for what they will rightly be but not until such time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, for quite awhile I was determined to sit this one out, but things have been said, particularly about Your Honour, which make me feel I must say a few words.
Before I come to the main point that brings me to my feet, namely the reference to Your Honour, I should like to say a few words about the situation with respect to the position of the Social Credit party in this House. It has been a difficult one, and whatever may have been said or done on the floor or at meetings among House leaders, it is my conviction that Your Honour from the chair has been doing your best to straighten the matter out in terms of fairness and in terms of generosity, the word you used yesterday.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: The record is quite clear that when I spoke on October 9 on the motion for setting up the striking committee

November 7, 1979

my position was, if anything, a bit severe. I was concerned, as were all my colleagues, over the possibility that immediate and wholesale recognition of the Social Credit group as a party could have a bearing particularly on the question period, as a result of which we would suffer. We believed we might lose some of the rights we felt we had earned by the increased numbers returned to Parliament to sit in this corner of the Chamber.
I have been looking over what I said that day and I find nothing wrong with it, nothing that needs to be corrected. The debate and the vote that day solved the problem in part, making it clear that the Social Credit group is a small party and that certain things which they might claim, they do not necessarily need to have. But it did not solve the whole problem. The matter of their rights in the question period, the matter of their order in debate together with a few other considerations were left to the Chair, and I find that in my remarks I made a plea that that be the case.
I felt yesterday that Your Honour's submission was an excellent one. You pointed out that what has to be considered is just simple arithmetic. 1 believe there is far too much discussion around the words "status" and "recognition". Those words have no real meaning. The Liberals are recognized as having the status of a party in this House. We are also recognized as having the status of a party in this House, but that does not give us the same rights the Liberals have. It does not allow us the number of questions in the question period the Liberals are allowed, and there are many other things where we have to take second place because we are 26 as opposed to their 112. There are remarks from the back which I hope are on the record as to the kind of opposition party we are, but that is irrelevant to this debate.
My point is that, in my view, Your Honour was quite correct yesterday in saying that from the chair you have to look at the arithmetic of the situation and that you have faced the fact that the Social Credit members in this House call themselves Social Crediters, are a party and have a leader. If there are rights to individuals and to minorities, I think all minority parties, including the Liberals, should be recognizing those rights. 1 am prepared to leave in your hands, sir, the protection of the rights of all members of this House whether on the government side, in the official opposition, in our corner or in the corner opposite.
I do not like some of the suggestions which have been made, particularly by the last speaker, which seem to be that we should take that right away from Your Honour. In my view you have had a difficult task in handling this situation during this last month, but I think that instead of your being criticized, you should be commended.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I suspect that the problem of this relationship will last as long as this Parliament lasts, but in the meantime I contend that we should pay attention to, and perhaps even
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
read again, the words of Your Honour yesterday when you ruled on the question of the spot in the day when you would see and hear the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy).
However, I am not sure even yet that I would have taken the time of the House to make these remarks were it not for the fact that I felt that other things which have been said today made it necessary for me to get to my feet. I know from experience, and most members of this House know from experience or from their reading of history, that the integrity of the Chair and the respect of all members for the Chair is a basic sine qua non to the operation of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I do not like the suggestion that in one way or another you, sir, have been involved in some conspiracy or some arrangement somehow connected with how members would vote on a certain motion. My friends to my right do not like it, but they have come awfully close in what they have said today to impugning the Chair. I do not believe that should be done unless there is a case for it and one is prepared to go all the way. I know of one such occasion. I participated in the debate when there was a motion to criticize the Chair, and that Parliament was one of the sorry ones in the history of this country. Let us not get anywhere near that sort of thing.
Because my name has been mentioned two or three times, I want to give what evidence I can about the situation. I do not know everybody's conversation with everybody else, but I know that Your Honour called me one morning and told me that you would like me, with others, to come to a meeting in your chambers. In that telephone conversation Your Honour indicated quite openly and without any question that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Baker) had expressed concern to you about the mood of the House because of the Social Credit situation and that you had made a decision as to what you were going to do. I believed you then, and I believe you now. You called us in and told us that you had decided that the Social Crediters were entitled to roughly three questions a week in the question period and that you planned that day to call on the hon. member for Beauce for a question during the first round. You wanted to let us know. You made it clear that you were not asking for us to confirm your decision. You were not consulting us; you were letting us know.


Miss Jewett:: Was Allan there?


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am asked whether the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) was there. I forget whether he was there, nor can 1 remember whether the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) was there. I see that you are nodding your head, sir. Perhaps the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso was there, but the point is that we were told that this would be the plan.


Mr. Speaker:: I might as well refresh the memory of the House again. The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso was there, and he indicated he would not want to accept

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
or reject that suggestion without taking it up first with the caucus of his party.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, now that you have raised the point, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said that he received a telephone call from you telling him what had taken place earlier or later. I want to make it clear that I received no such telephone call.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I give evidence of the things of which I am aware. I know I was told, and there was nothing which gave me any indication that the conversation between the President of the Privy Council and the Chair was a conversation in which pressure was put on the Chair to take a certain course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I am not concerned about protecting the reputation of the President of the Privy Council; he can look after himself. But I am concerned, for the sake of this House, about the reputation of the Chair. If I had thought at that point that there was any suggestion of a kind of governmental pressure being put on the Chair and that the Chair was paying any attention to it, I can assure you, sir, that I would have given you some avuncular advice. However, 1 certainly did not feel it to be necessary, and my feeling throughout the whole piece is that you have tried to handle the matter on your own as fairly and honestly as you could.
You Honour may have made some mistakes. You have already admitted that you may have made a mistake yesterday in not letting the hon. member for Drummond put his motion under Standing Order 29. We can discuss that back and forth. We can discuss the question of how we are going to get along in the House as long as this Parliament lasts. But one thing I do not want this Parliament to do is question the honesty or the integrity of the Chair unless there is absolute evidence, in which case we go the whole way.
The Globe and Mail can make its assertions. An editorial writer from another newspaper in another city telephoned me this morning. 1 suppose he had read The Globe and Mail and he asked me whether I thought it was true. Over the telephone 1 said categorically that 1 was convinced that it was not true.


André Ouellet: It is not for you to defend the President of Privy Council, and that is waht you are doing.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Not at all. Apparently there is no denial of the fact that the President of Privy Council talked with Your Honour, but the point I want to make is that I am satisfied from Your Honour's reporting to me about that conversation that it was not a case of governmental influence or governmental pressure on the Chair. That I regard as completely out of court, and I think the President of Privy Council may have made a mistake in going to Your Honour on his own.


André Ouellet: Of course he did.


Stanley Howard Knowles: It might have been better had he asked Your Honour to call a meeting of all of us. I said a moment ago that it might have been a mistake, and now I will say it was a mistake. My main concern is that this House have respect for the Chair, that there be no question about the integrity of the Chair, and I insist that any suggestion that the Chair was involved in how certain members would vote last night or that the Chair has been doing things at the bidding of the government is not fair to the Chair or to this House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I think it might be appropriate for me to intervene very briefly here. With respect to the article in The Globe and Mail, I attempted to point out to the House early in these discussions that there was an aspect of that report in the newspaper which had to be incorrect because it seemed to me to indicate that if the President of Privy Council had made a representation, he made it as a result of the look on the faces of the Creditistes when they left the House. In fact, I pointed out to the House that the only thing which could have been interpreted, in my opinion, as any such representation by the President of Privy Council was on the day before that took place.
The second thing is that if that is to be interpreted as a representation, then I think we are setting on our course of conduct here a set of scruples which we may have to observe. However, my recollection is simply this. On that day the President of Privy Council had a suggestion to make to me, as has happened on several occasions not just by him but by other members of the House of Commons. The tone of the suggestion was very much: I have a suggestion to make for your consideration. Is it worth discussing with the other House leaders? That is as regular as clockwork in this building.
In turn, before coming into the chamber on that day and in fact recognizing one of the members of that party, I spoke with the other two House leaders and said: This has been suggested to me. What do you think of it? That was only one of several discussions which we had subsequent to that concerning what to do about this particular situation. Also I may say that I had several deputations, single, double and triple, from members of the Social Credit party who came to me to plead their case. There was nothing extraordinary about that. They indicated that they were fighting for more than simply a question or two; it was a matter of principle that they had set and so on. There was nothing irregular in any event, and I do not think any of it is a surprise to the House.
I want to set the record straight. It may have been, in the most scrupulous of standards, a mistake, as has been said, for the President of Privy Council to have done this, but I never considered it to be a representation. It was a suggestion that was made to me. The tone of it was ordinary, that I would take it up with the other two House leaders, which I did. It may very well be that that kind of conversation with one member ought never to take place. If that is the case, certainly
November 7, 1979

I am prepared to follow that standard of conduct. But it eliminates something which I have done on a regular basis for five years with all kinds of senior and junior members of this House who have, in the corridor here, or on other occasions, simply put a question to me.
I put a case in point. A new member of the House of Commons, a day or two after the original vote, spoke to me to ask about whether the vote had the significance the House had attached to it. We discussed it.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: But there is a difference.


Mr. Speaker:: There is a difference, I grant, but if there is any suggestion that a representation to me carries with it some later pressure from the government, of course that would be something I and the House would reject out of hand.
I accept in all seriousness the point raised by the hon. members who are here today. I want to assure the House-and 1 think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has said so-that at that time the discussion was very brief: a minute or a minute and a half, almost passing in the corridor. A suggestion, it seemed to me, was being put forward for discussion with the other House leaders. There was no suggestion of anything other than that. I am sure my response was that I would, in turn, take it up with the other House leaders, and I did.
I do not want to appear to be rushing to the defence of the President of Privy Council any more than the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre does. But at the same time 1 want to say that I did not take this suggestion at the time it was made, as anything more than a brief suggestion. My immediate reaction was to say that I would take it up with the other House leaders, which I did. It was a suggestion we have discussed several times since that time.
Furthermore, I want to conclude by saying that not since that day more than two weeks ago-and during which time I have tried to decide how to deal with the Social Credit party during question period-has the President of Privy Council spoken a single word to me about the status of the Social Credit party in the House.


Yvon Pinard: Contrary to the report in The Globe and Mail.


Mr. Speaker:: Contrary entirely to the report in The Globe and Mail.


Yvon Pinard: Which he did not deny.


Mr. Speaker:: All right, but I only put the record straight. 1 understand entirely that the members who raised this point exercised two or three things: first, it would appear in the content of the article that there is more than a suggestion; there is a statement in the article that in fact the President of Privy Council took responsibility for offering participation in question period. It is something he does not have to offer. That is under the control only of the Chair. The second error is that which I have pointed out to the House. The third touches a position of a political party in the House upon which the
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
members have been outspoken. I recognize that is a very serious point. The fourth relates to the matter which was very discretionary and upon which I confess a very strict interpretation of the rules was applied against the hon. member for Drummond last night.
I think the point is very serious; it needed airing and it needed exposure. I hope the House has benefited from it. If it is necessary to be super scrupulous in the future in terms of conversations with the House leaders, that can be done. But I hope that it will not eliminate forever and a day the time that a House leader may express to me a suggestion which I might take up with other parties of the House.


Herb Breau: Mr. Speaker, there are only two points I should like to make, but first of all l should like to assure you that nobody on this side criticized you or questioned your integrity and honesty.
Mr. Speaker, we have the greatest respect not only for your duties but also for your person. We have known Your Honour for quite some time and nobody criticize or even tried to criticize your decision.
The two points I should like to make are these: first, the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) has dared the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) to tells us that the article published by The Globe and Mail is false as regards not only the facts, but also the motives it attributes to him.


An hon. Member:: He refused.


Herb Breau: But, Mr. Speaker, when we talk about these motives, they might very well be motives unknown to you. It is quite possible that some discussions are going on outside the House, some negotiations you know nothing about. We have nothing whatsoever against the fact that you, as Speaker of the House, agree to discuss with a member, be it a minister, the House leader of the government or a new member. Indeed you have always done that and we want you to continue doing that. Mr. Speaker, contrary to what the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said a moment ago, nobody criticized your decision or doubted your integrity. The member for Drummond never talked about a conspiracy involving the Chair and the government. What he said was that there is a series of facts and that from them some persons could draw conclusions and that we want to clarify the situation. But what we note this afternoon, Mr. Speaker, is not that you have not correctly answered the question, you have, and it never crossed our minds that you had been influenced by the President of Privy Council, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. What we do note is that he did not have the courage to deny-


An hon. Member:: He is afraid.


Herb Breau: -to take up the hon. member for Drummond's challenge to deny the intentions that The Globe and Mail

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
report attributed to him. What we take exception to, Mr. Speaker, as I have said, is not that you agreed to see him, but that he probably tried to negotiate with a group from this House in order to get their support, that he decided to act in this way, as government leader, with all the power and weight that supposes, because we must realize that it is the government which is in effect responsible for what goes on in the House.
Mr. Speaker, it was the President of Privy Council, a member of Parliament and a senior government minister who decided to try to see you with the hope of perhaps getting the support of another group. It is not that you agreed to see him but that he, in the hope of gaining another group's support by making them an offer, decided to go and see you. That is what we object to, Mr. Speaker, and not that you agreed to see him.


Mr. Eudore Allard (Rimouski):: Mr. Speaker, following the question of privilege that has just been raised, I do not wish to rub it in. As we always say: in front of wolves, one has to howl with the pack. And I will honestly admit that this afternoon, I was rather afraid that your brothers of yesterday would devour you because you refused to howl along with them. It breaks their heart that we should be recognized in the House. I would now like to tell the public that it is not up to political parties in the House, not up to our opponents to decide whether or not we are entitled to speak, whether or not we are entitled to sit here, because our electors have decided that themselves.
So I would not want to dwell any longer on this, Mr. Speaker. In his remarks a while ago, the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) took it upon himself to comment on last night's vote. I regret that very much, but it is definitely not very distinguished and not very sincere to comment on the vote by one of our colleagues in the House. Perhaps in the heat of the debate the hon. member wanted to imply that the decision had influenced our vote yesterday. I would ask him simply to withdraw his words because this is not the case. We simply voted against a motion that did not make sense, a hypocritical motion, a motion that was introduced only for politicking purposes. So I would ask the hon. member kindly to withdraw his remarks. If he is a man, he is going to withdraw.
I never insinuated things like the ones he mentioned this afternoon.


Mr. Speaker:: The hon. member for Papineau.


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Rimouski is asking me to withdraw remarks I cannot withdraw because I did not make them. He undoubtedly misunderstood my intervention. I brought to your attention the fact that on an opposition day assigned to the Liberal party, the official opposition in this House, four Liberal members out of 112-or 113, if we include you-Liberal members elected to the Parliament of Canada were recognized whereas by recognizing two members of the New Democratic Party and one member of the Social Credit Party of Canada, three members who in the end hold only 31 seats in this House got a representation in that debate that is not proportionate to what they should have had.

I know that earlier the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the great expert on procedure, referred to mathematical considerations. He reminded you that the way we should treat members of the Social Credit Party of Canada from now on is not as if they were a recognized political formation. Social Crediters are not recognized in this House, even if they say they are or if certain reporters make headlines by saying that the Social Credit party is finally recognized. It is not, it was not recognized by the President of Privy Council who did not want to give them representation on the steering committee. It was not recognized by you when you clearly explained that five members claiming to be members of a political formation are not enough to have all the powers and privileges inherent in a recognized national party in this House. They are not recognized and they cannot be recognized unless they have the opportunity in a future election to have enough members elected.
But what we do not deny them, Mr. Speaker-and I want this to be very clear in the mind of the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard)-we on this side of the House, as members of the Liberal party, do not deny them the right to speak in this House. They have the right to speak as long as they want but not when it should be members of the Liberal party who obtained more votes and more seats in this House than they did. It is as simple as that, Mr. Speaker. That is the point I made and I make again, and I hope the hon. member for Rimouski will understand that there are certain privileges in this House. We are very pleased when they exercise these privileges, but we do not want them to step on our feet and take some of our time when we are the ones who truly represent the largest part of Quebec voters voting in the Parliament of Canada.


Hon. John M. Reid (Kenora-Rainy River):: Mr. Speaker, it is a pity the Chair has had to suffer the "usual accuracy" of the press. I doubt Your Honour will receive an apology from the press, even as those of us who sit below you do not receive apologies when we are misquoted and otherwise go through the tortures of the damned.
I do want to make two points. The first is the point made by the former president of the privy council, that he himself did not see any Speaker when he was the government House leader, a practice that should be followed by all future House leaders. I think the dangers of that kind of procedure are obvious to us today when we find ourselves in a situation which is most uncomfortable and quite embarrassing.
I believe there are two points that have not been raised. The first point has regard to the meeting that took place between Your Honour and the House leaders to discuss the role of the Social Credit group at question period. I am not prepared to say whether three questions a week are too many or too little, but I do not think that was the question at issue. What we are discussing is what happened yesterday when the leader of the Social Credit group was given preference in a party way over a
November 7, 1979

speaker from this side of the House. That was a different principle than what had been discussed at the meeting of the House leaders. That is quite significant, because if that practice is to be followed in all debates it will mean that the Social Credit group would be recognized fourth on every round. I do not think that was discussed at those meetings, and I think if that were to be the case, I would be most vociferously opposed to any kind of process under those lines.
I think it is important to keep in mind that we are discussing two things; the question period, which was discussed by the House leaders; and secondly what happened yesterday under your decision, which was in this particular case that the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) could be heard immediately after the speaker for the NDP. I feel strongly about that because the normal process has been that when a political party puts forward a motion on a supply day that party usually is allowed the extra speaker if there is one to be allocated. Yesterday, the first supply day we have had, we did not receive the benefit of that extra speaker.
The second point I want to make is that, however justified the position the Social Credit members have taken, with the dilemma in which they find themselves, and the dilemma in which the rest of the members of the House find themselves, we do find it surprising, to say the least, that a solution was found immediately before the vote last night.
It may well be that there has been considerable discussion going on, but as the hon. member for London West (Mr. Buchanan) put it today, Calvin Coolidge, who said "the business of the United States is business", was right in that it seems to me that the business of the President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) is to make sure that the government stays in power. It is very upsetting to me that this kind of apparent buying and selling should take place in such a blatant way on the floor of the House of Commons.
I feel very strongly that there are legitimate bargaining points political parties can have. I think, for example, of the demands the hon. member for Beauce made in terms of guaranteeing oil supply, employment programs and what-not. They are entirely legitimate, but the resolution of this problem taking place in the way in which it did, immediately before the vote last night, could do nothing but cause suspicion on the part of those of us on this side of the House, and certainly can cause nothing but suspicion in terms of the electors who elected that government over there and those members who sit to its right.
The last point, Mr. Speaker, is that it is most regrettable that the Chair has been implicated, however indirectly, in this kind of play. Whether it was done deliberately or accidentally, the fact of the matter is that in this particular case the President of Privy Council by a conjunction of circumstances has served to cause a great deal of suspicion for those of us on this side to overcome as to what actually went on. We feel that is most regrettable, and we feel it is going to be necessary under the circumstances of this minority government for the Chair and for members of all parties to consider again
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
how to conduct themselves because of the example we have had from the government to date.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Mr. Speaker, I will be brief as the debate is already quite protracted and everybody, I believe, tried to give some explanations. I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker, to the fact that I supported the motion moved yesterday under Standing Order 29 by the member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard). I would also like to draw your attention to what the member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) said about minorities in the House. That is extremely important. I believe that in your decision you said you had to protect certain minorities, about the risk of misinterpretation concerning minorities in the House, but in my opinion there are no minorities in the House. I believe that all members are equal in the House.
There might be a risk, if we accept the explanation given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre about minorities, and it is that it could be very easy for me to say: Well, listen, I am a Francophone in Canada, I belong to a minority, I must also be recognized as a member of a minority in the House and I am entitled to your protection, Mr. Speaker, because 1 am a Francophone and because I am a member of a minority. I think that is extremely dangerous. If we are to accept the arguments of the member for Winnipeg North Centre, and to a certain extent what you said, this might mean danger for this chamber.
Mr. Speaker, 1 would like to come back to the decision you took yesterday concerning the motion moved by my colleague from Drummond. Today you explained the reasons for your decision and 1 accept them. I supported the member for Drummond yesterday, but I believe that all the discussion today was to be expected, when we tried yesterday to show what was going on in the House. Mr. Speaker, I therefore draw your attention one more time to the fact that I do not believe that there are minorities in the House. I believe that all members are treated as equal. It is to this point that I would like to draw your attention, Mr. Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, I had not intended to intervene in the debate again, but I feel I should. At the outset I indicated that what you said with respect to what had occurred was within my recollection and my knowledge of the circumstances, and I thought that that would have been enough for my colleagues on the other side of the House; but given their state of paranoia, I guess it was not.
I repeat that statement for their benefit so that it will not be lost to them. I share very much the concern that was expressed by the House leader of the New Democratic Party, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), with respect to the statements made by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet), who seemed to imply that a member

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
of this House of Commons, whether a minister or otherwise, could somehow speak to the Speaker and influence the Speaker of this House of Commons. I guess 1 must have much more faith than does the hon. member for Papineau in the judgment and integrity of the Speaker of the House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: It was you who spoke to him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: It would be a most inappropriate act for any member, minister or otherwise, to go and speak to the Speaker with respect to making a representation or driving a Speaker to a decision on something. It would be a very sorry day in this House if any member of Parliament did not have the right, either singly or otherwise, to go and speak to the Speaker. You yourself, sir, alluded to the possibility that that sense of openness with your office may have to be reconsidered. I hope that that will never be the case, because it would not be appropriate to the proper functioning of this House of Commons.
If my going to you, sir, under those circumstances should ever cause you to change the status quo, I would regret that very much. I think that the understanding that I have of your position and of my position is one of respect for our different roles in this House of Commons. I indicated as articulately as I could what I thought my own role was with respect not only to my own party, but with respect to the House of Commons as well.
There is another matter that I wish to raise, and it is with respect to the remark made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) to the effect that somehow the government House leader was, and I think his words were, "apparently buying and selling votes on the floor". I hope I will be forgiven if I refer for my best example as to the role of a government House leader in trying to seek compromises among parties in the House that will keep the government in power to page seven of the document which I quoted from earlier, where there is a description of the opposition House leader. The hon. member is a respected parliamentarian, and I respect him as a parliamentarian, as the opposition House leader and as a colleague, as I respect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). In any event, I would like to read from this paper, because I think it is apropos of what my friend from Kenora-Rainy River has said. Here is a description of the opposition House leader:
He was a respected parliamentarian and, as his mentor Lester Pearson described, an old smoothie. MacEachen, a Liberal left-winger, had advised Pearson during his early minority governments and served in several ministerial posts-
We are referring here to the 1972-74 Parliament when the government was a minority one. He goes on to say this:
During this time a lasting friendship, based on mutual respect, developed between Stanley Knowles, the NDP House leader, and MacEachen. His negotiating skills contributed immeasurably to the government's survival.
In that case I suspect that the opposition House leader-and they are both blushing now-when he was government House

leader did his job very well. He contributed to the government's survival. That is my job now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I would hate to have what I regard as an honourable practice, in which I emulate my colleague from across the way, described as merely "apparently buying and selling votes on the floor of the House of Commons". It is an appropriate parliamentary practice.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is quoted in the same document at page eight. I think that it is quite important that I put this in context, and I would like to read what he said.


Yvon Pinard: What about The Globe and Maill


An hon. Member:: Do you deny it? Answer yes or no.


Walter David Baker: The document reads-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Speaker:: Order.


Walter David Baker: The document reads:
During this period the Liberals, to survive, depended on co-operation with the New Democrats. Stanley Knowles and Allan MacEachen could, as House leaders, meet several times a week to negotiate even though their parties were officially "stand-offish". Mr. Knowles explained:
"If David Lewis were seen dealing with John Turner (Finance Minister), there would be an awful fuss, but Allan and I can meet as often as we wish and it is perfectly natural".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I would like to read one more paragraph:
In fact Mr. MacEachen arranged meetings between Knowles and Health Minister Lalonde to bargain about raising the Old Age Pension. Any increase would have to appease the NDP without appalling the Liberals.
That is an indication of the difficult job of a House leader in a minority Parliament.


Yvon Pinard: How does this relate to the Speaker?


Herb Breau: Did he talk to the Speaker?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, 1 was referring to the statement made by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River and trying to refute that statement. I think it was quite appropriate to read those statements in.
I have said twice now, and I will say it a third time, that I thought that the exposition you made at the outset of this matter arising in the House of Commons was quite correct. Your explanation, sir, is my explanation of what went on.
I am not the master of the pen of the reporter of The Globe and Mail!


Yvon Pinard: Do you deny it?
November 7, 1979


Walter David Baker: If there is some issue with respect to timing in the report in The Globe and Mail, as to when I looked and saw a look of outrage on the face of the hon. member for Bellechasse (Mr. Lambert)-and it was certainly there-I do apologize for not indicating it.
I hope that as a result of this matter you, as Speaker of the House, sir, will not develop a closed door policy. If I may say so without being over-weaning, one thing which has been a pleasure to me in this House, whether I was in the position I am today or whether I sat where my friend the opposition House leader now sits, is that you, sir, did in fact, quite appropriately, come forward on the matter. You, sir, were always open to representations by members.


Herb Breau: If you have any guts, deny The Globe and Mail article.


Walter David Baker: 1 do hope that continues. If, sir, I have put you in an embarrassing position-


Eugene Whelan: What have you done to that reporter?


Walter David Baker: -if I have done that, then I would be the first to apologize. I want you to understand that, because 1 feel I have the responsibility toward this House and toward you as Speaker of this House of Commons.


An hon. Member:: What about The Globe and Mail?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. There are now seven other members who seek the floor. The hon. member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne).


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Mr. Speaker-


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, I have a question of privilege on the remarks just made by the President of Privy Council.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) responded to a request by the hon. member for Rimouski (Mr. Allard). He took quite a lot of time to reargue the point, I thought. If he has anything arising out of what has just been said I will hear him, but there are seven other members who have yet to intervene and 1 think I have to hear them first. The hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. The Globe and Mail-


André Ouellet: Mr. Speaker, are you telling me I will be recognized at a later date this afternoon?


Maurice Adrian Dionne: -reports, and I quote:
Mr. Baker said in an interview that he made some representations to Speaker James Jerome on behalf of the Socreds because he was moved by Socred Adrien
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
Lambert's look of genuine outrage when the five-member Quebec party recently walked out of the House in protest.
This afternoon in the arguments, sir, you said at the outset that the House leader of the government had made no representations to you, and obviously we accept your word. Later, in his own intervention, the government House leader said that he had spoken to you but he could not remember the date. At that point you reminded him that the date was the Thursday, the day before the Socred members walked out of the House of Commons.
I think the government House leader owes it to you and to this House to get up in this House and either deny outright and categorically the story in The Globe and Mail, or make an outright apology to all members of this House. Nothing less will do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: Mr. Speaker, I should like to make some comments on two points that are before us today. The first refer to the comments in The Globe and Mail. I think the Liberal member had a right to raise that question but I think you have made it very clear, Mr. Speaker, that you were not influenced by any discussions that may or may not have taken place. Perhaps the members of the Liberal party do not think the government House leader has denied it as vigorously as he should.


An hon. Member:: He has not.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: They are saying he has not. They are saying he did not deny it, so I think, Mr. Speaker, that they may be questioning your word to this House as well.
What I want to say to the members of this House is that they are on very serious ground here. They are close to imputing motives as to what the Speaker has said to the House.


Some hon. Members:: No way.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: The Speaker has said very clearly that he was not influenced in any way whatsoever by what may or may not have happened.


Herb Breau: That is not the only issue.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: If Liberal members believe that you have been, then we are getting on to very dangerous ground. I think we should take the word of the Speaker as it was, namely that he was not influenced. If they have more evidence and if they are going to have to pursue that, I think that is a very dangerous course.
My second point concerns the Social Credit members of this House. An hon. member has said, "There are no minorities, we are all the same." I realize that if we do not have, perhaps, any official recognition of political parties in this House, we do have de facto recognition of parties in this House. We do have groups. We have the Liberal party, we have our party, and then we have a group of five other people who choose to call
1062

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
themselves Social Crediters. They may not have 12 members but they ran on behalf of the Social Credit party of this country. Five were elected and they received some 4 per cent of the votes in this country. So I think they have to be given a status as more than just individual members.


An hon. Member:: No way.


Lorne Edmund Nystrom: May I remind the House that a democracy is judged on how that democracy treats its minorities. I think that is pretty important.
The Speaker has basically said that he is trying to be fair and using arithmetic will recognize members of the Social Credit party roughly three times every week. Sometimes he may recognize one of them on a series of lead-off questions and on other days I assume he will not. Because they have five members in the House, however, every once in a while they deserve a lead-off question, just as every once in a while, in fairness, the leader or someone else from that party should have the right to make a statement after the leaders of the other parties.
From what the Speaker said yesterday, I gather he is not going to follow that as a precedent. He did it yesterday but 1 am sure from what he said that it is not his intention to do so on every important statement. But because the Social Credit party have five members in the House, we have 26 and the Liberal have 112, they deserve a certain percentage of the opportunities to speak on the first round of debate. That is only fair.
I think that is all you are trying to say, Mr. Speaker. You are trying to balance things and use arithmetic in the fairest way possible.
I plead with this House to leave that question in the hands of the Speaker and to trust to the discretion of the Speaker to be fair to the Social Credit group in the House, as the Speaker, I think, is being fair to those of us grouped in the other three parties in this House.


Mr. Maurice Harquail (Restigouche):: Mr. Speaker, there is an essential question that I believe has to be clarified by you, sir. Certainly it is my observation that there is no question whatsoever as to the integrity of the Chair. With respect, since the opening of this House when we had a motion before the House on which we voted, it was soundly expressed by all members of this House that we would agreed with the government leader that the Creditiste members of this House would not be named to the committees when striking the committees of this House.
I think that laid the very fundamental groundwork for guidelines that would be followed by you, sir, in terms of whether you would recognize Social Credit members as an official party in this House.
I am sure that all members have been wondering where the direction would come from on this question, whether you had the absolute authority to state, and would state it in the House publicly, that you would not recognize members of the Social Credit party as an official party within the House of Com-

mons. The government House leader has indicated that they have taken their decision that the Social Credit would not be permitted the privilege of being named to committees of the House. They made their position very clear, that they were not recognizing the Social Credit party as a party within this House.
We then went to a vote, Mr. Speaker, which, as I understand, it is the essence of Parliament. We voted on the matter and we were very clear. It was a case of five members voting against all the other members on that question. We said in a vote of this House of Commons that they would not be permitted to be recognized when we were striking the committees of the House of Commons.
I took it that you would also incorporate that decision of the House of Commons as grounds for your future rulings and decisions and interpret it to mean that the Creditiste members of the House of Commons were sitting as independents and not as an official national party within the terms and definition of political parties in Canada as we understand them.
I believe that the five individual, regional members from one province who sit in the House today as members of the Social Credit party are in no better position than was the former member for Moncton when he sat here and complained that he could not be recognized at meetings of the standing committees of the House.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I hesitate to stop the hon. member but he is rearguing a matter that we have had before us now for four weeks. The question of privilege that we have before us today relates to a report in The Globe and Mail about an action of the President of Privy Council. I tried to make my position as clear to the House as I possibly could, but I shall repeat it so that the House will understand.
I thought I made it abundantly clear in my decision yesterday that the decision whether or not a group is a political party is not just taken inside this House; it is taken elsewhere. What I simply was expressing to the House yesterday was that in certain circumstances, since members of the Social Credit group were entitled to something, they ought to be able occasionally to have that entitlement in a way which recognized their position as a political party. Yesterday, the decision we were talking about was not whether the hon. member for Beauce was going to debate; it was a question of when. Similarly in question period, it is not whether a member of the Social Credit party is going to participate in the question period; it is when and how. Those are the only two questions we are talking about.
Yesterday, the list that I assumed when I came into the Chair had the hon. member for Beauce listed just after the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy). The effect of my intervention was to change the order, that is all.
I was also at pains to say yesterday, and to make it perfectly clear, that had yesterday's debate been on a Wednesday afternoon, which then would have concluded at six o'clock, I
November 7, 1979

would not have recognized anyone from the Social Credit party. To do so would have given them participation in excess of their significance as a group of five members.
I do not know how to make it any clearer. All I am attempting to do is to give to them what is their right and entitlement, but to give it in a way that simply recognizes that they are a political party. There are many dangers in attempting to adjust the minority here because mathematics do not always fit. You cannot adjust participation with scientific precision. The number five does not always divide into the other numbers in the House. For example, three members of the Social Credit party-and incidentally this is an event which went almost unnoticed-participated in the throne speech debate. That happens to represent 60 per cent of their total membership in the House. No other party in the House had anything like that percentage participation. However, if that number had been one less, perhaps we could have adjusted participation a little more accurately. It was an eight day debate but the fact that three members got up over a period of eight days did not alarm the House. If you try to apply a mathematical formula, the Social Credit members began in the very first debate with far more representation than they were entitled to as a group of five. But at that time nobody was calling them a political party.
I think we have to recognize that no matter how they are described or thought of in the minds of members, either inside of the House or outside of it, they are still entitled to some participation. My only intervention was to give them that participation to which they are entitled, and in a way that recognizes their position as a party and nothing more.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Robert Knight Andras: Mr. Speaker, I intend to be brief. I hope that in no way would this debate be a reflection upon you. The issue is quite clearly generated by an article in The Globe and Mail which makes reference to certain alleged remarks made by the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker). The other issue of whether the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) should or should not have been recognized you have dealt with, for the moment at least, to my satisfaction. But as to the issue whether or not the President of Privy Council did or did not say those things, no matter whether he tells us today that he did not treat them as representations when he went to see you, unless he stands up and says that The Globe and Mail report is inaccurate, deliberately or otherwise, in what it said, then he and he alone is the issue in this discussion. It is his actions alone that are the issue in this discussion.
I have known, as my colleague the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), has known, the President of Privy Council for some years. 1 have said publicly that I have respect for him. He has risen two or three times in this debate, but not once have I heard him unequivocally say that The Globe and Mail has misreported him absolutely. He has not done that. That cannot but leave doubt in people's minds as to whether he talked to The Globe and
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
Mail, whether he said that, or whether he was reported accurately in whole or in part. That means that he thought, and repeated to somebody else, if it is accurately reported, that his meeting with you was in fact a representation. That leaves a serious doubt about the motivation of the hon. member. For his own sake and to clear up the doubt left in this debate, he should deny it unequivocally, categorically and in detail.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Mr. Speaker, in my opinion there are two points that have been raised which deserve clarification, not just for what has passed, but for what lies ahead.
It seems to me the first question is the status of the Social Credit party. I want to reiterate the remarks that have been made by my House leader, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I know it is hard for hon. members to listen when they are not speaking, but I would appreciate it if they could try to recognize that parties even smaller than theirs sometimes have contributions to make to a debate.
The status of the Social Credit party has been accurately stated by yourself. Whether or not the Liberal party recognizes the Social Credit party is irrelevant. In my view, that needs to be stated. It is obvious from what has been said consistently since the election that the Liberal party does not recognize the Social Credit party. With respect, that is of philosophical interest to those members who take that point of view.
I respectfully suggest that although it is a small party with only five members-


Herb Breau: Who are you to change the law?


Bob Rae: I am not changing any law. I would not try to change the law. 1 was simply recognizing what are sociological and political facts. If a party presents itself in an election as a party-


Herb Breau: That is not what the law says.


Bob Rae: -and is elected to the House of Commons as a party-


Herb Breau: You read the House of Commons Act.


Bob Rae: -then for some purposes that party is a party. I suggest to Liberal members here that they ask the hon. member for Winnipeg-Fort Garry (Mr. Axworthy) whether when he sat for five years in the Manitoba legislature he sat as an independent or as leader, the only member and a one-man band for the Liberal party, just as Mr. Notley sits as a single member and leader-


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: Obviously I have touched a sensitive chord of the New Democratic Party in the province of Alberta.


An hon. Member:: What about The Globe and Mail?

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard


Bob Rae: We will get to The Globe and Mail. The point I want to make, despite the interruptions and barracking from the party to my far right, the Liberal party, is that it is up to you, Mr. Speaker, not the Liberal Party of Canada, to decide who speaks in this House, and in what order. It is not up to the Liberal party to decide upon the allocation of questions nor upon the allocation of recognition in this House.


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


Bob Rae: It certainly is the point. What the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and other members have said indicates that it is the Liberal party who will decide who is recognized.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: If one looks at the record to see what the member from Papineau said, that is the clear implication of the statement that he made.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: If he wants to deny it, fine, but I think that is the implication.
For our part, Mr. Speaker, we would far rather trust you with our rights as a minority in this House than we would the Liberal party, either in this House or outside of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: I do not trust members on the opposite side either.
I am saying that you are the one whom we trust.
The second question raised is a fundamental one. It was raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highiands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen), a member everyone holds in the highest regard in this House. It concerns the relationship among House leaders of the parties and yourself, Mr. Speaker. Your Honour raised this question when you participated in the earlier round of discussion. The President of Privy Council said he thought that he had the right, indeed the obligation, as leader of the whole House-if I understood him correctly-to speak and make representations to you concerning what he felt were problems that might arise in the course of the proceedings of this House.
I am a new member and I am certainly not a member of any experience.


An hon. Member:: That is true.


Bob Rae: That is fine, but we all have a right to speak, a right to listen and a right to be heard. I would suggest to you, Mr. Speaker, that one example which you might follow is the practice of judges meeting counsel in chambers. From your own experience you will know that no judge would meet a counsel in chambers alone. There is always a danger that a situation could arise where something might be said or suggested which could influence a decision of a judicial nature, not simply of a political nature.

With respect, I think your function in the House in recognizing members, attempting to allocate questions and attempting to be fair is a judicial function and not a political one. I am not making an unqualified recommendation because I recognize that what I say may have some holes in it that I have not yet seen, but it seems to me that the President of Privy Council may want to consider whether, when he goes to the Speaker of the House of Commons, he is not simply going there as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton-and he knows this-or as the President of Privy Council, but as an active member of a government party.


An hon. Member:: That is the point.


Bob Rae: The hon. member for Cape Breton Highiands-Canso was absolutely right in saying that we were in a delicate situation yesterday. The question of recognition and the right to be recognized could have affected the outcome of last night's vote; there is no question of that. I suggest that one thing you might want to consider, Mr. Speaker, is-


An hon. Member:: A committee.


Bob Rae: -not a committee but a recommendation that discussions between House leaders should not take place without all of them being present. No House leader should feel that he can make a representation of a judicial nature rather than a political nature to the Speaker of the House of Commons in exercising his judicial functions.
We have had experience of phone calls to judges. We have had experience with other attempts, with the best of will and the best of intention, to make representations of a legal nature to somebody in a judicial capacity. That has been the subject of criticism, and quite worthy criticism. We now have rules of conduct and so on for members of Parliament. All of us recognize there are things we cannot do.
I suggest to the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) and to the other House leaders that it may be necessary in the future for House leaders to meet with you, Mr. Speaker, in considering matters of a judicial nature, and that representations, however well intentioned-and I certainly do not question the good intentions of the President of Privy Council-should not be made privately.
I myself have made representations to you, Mr. Speaker, on a couple of matters, one of which is still outstanding, of a private nature. As members of Parliament, I think we are all entitled to raise these questions of concern. This is different. I am speaking here as a private member of Parliament to you about a private matter affecting, in this case, my conscience. I am suggesting that when the President of Privy Council is making a representation to you that is not on a private matter of conscience, that is not a private matter affecting his personal privileges as a member of Parliament, that he not make that representation without the other House leaders being present.
I think that would solve a potentially difficult problem.
November 7, 1979

The President of Privy Council raised as a comparison the relationship that existed between the president of the privy council at that time, the hon. member for Cape Breton High-lands-Canso, and my House leader in another Parliament. The difference with that experience was, of course, that the Speaker of the House of Commons was not involved in any way. That is a very significant difference.
There will, of course, be discussions and negotiations in a minority Parliament. We are grown up and recognize that these votes do not take place without prior discussion. However, there is a very real distinction between those kinds of negotiations and a discussion involving recognition, the status and position in debate of a party which is also involved, as is well known, in a political discussion with the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) and the President of Privy Council concerning a non-confidence motion. There is clearly a distinction between those two things.
Where there is a judicial function being performed, that should not be done without everyone being present. The Speaker should in no way be involved in political discussions, and that is where I leave it.


Mr. Speaker:: To get back to an earlier point in reference to the intervention just made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), we are all aware of the wisdom of the suggestion he has just made. The difficulty is that functionally it eliminates most of the contact and conversations that take place in the House. For example, several times upon a decision by the Chair a member of an individual party who has been adversely affected by that decision of the Chair will show up and say, "Are you sure you thought of this?" That is a courtesy call. I do not think the member is trying to reopen the question. The member is coming in to say that he did not quite understand my point on this. He is obviously dejected and disappointed. I could at that point say, "Look, it is not proper for me to discuss this unless we have present members of other parties".
Similarly, we get into the same situation if after a given question period a House leader comes into my office and says, "Look, our people are not happy with the number of questions". 1 must say, "Stop right there, I have to call in the other House leaders to discuss things of this sort". These are plain representations about business that is going on in the House.
I think we can follow the structures of court practice, as the hon. member has said. The only trouble is that it will put us in a formal structure that will make it less pleasant to do the business of the House. I think trust is much more useful.


Mr. Roland de Corneille (Eglinton-Lawrence):: Mr. Speaker, I would first like to say it hardly requires any evidence to realize that we all deeply respect the position of the Speaker of the House and of the person of the Speaker himself. I feel it is rather sad that things should become so convoluted that in the course of this discussion it has been perhaps misunderstood that many of those who have stood up, in my party at least, to express their concern stood up in order to express the very deep concern that the Speaker of the House, both in his office and
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
in his person, should not be involved, should not be impugned and should not have any light cast upon him except the highest respect which this House holds for him.
Therefore, it is particularly tragic and unfortunate when we are raising a question which is not at all directed at the Speaker but in fact is directed at the very direction of the Speaker's name-the protection of the honour of this House of Parliament-that this should be misunderstood. Perhaps there were things that were said incorrectly or which were misunderstood because they were not put well, but certainly that was not the intention, so far as I have any knowledge of it, of my colleagues. What is at stake, and this is important, is that we did not ever mention the name of the Speaker of the House of Commons. We did not bring it into the press. We did not involve the name of the Speaker in terms of events that occurred last night. It is precisely because we did not that the question arises, who did?
It is this kind of thing we are concerned about. We are simply seeking to have it made clear that the people of Canada will lose respect for the parliamentary system about which we have heard so much idealistic speaking in the Speech from the Throne and so on, that that very respect which we all want to establish may in fact be put under suspicion.
Therefore, when an article appears in The Globe and Mail that seems to link a statement by some member of the House of Commons which might involve or is alleged to have involved the idea that he said he had some influence with the Speaker, it endangers the position of the Speaker.
It is this about which we are speaking, not about the Speaker himself. This is what is at stake. We were expecting, and hoped it would be said, that it would be made clear by the President of Privy Council through The Globe and Mail or anyone else that he does not intend or want to influence the Speaker, that he was sorry if it was misprinted and said in this way so as to imply that he had done such a thing, that indeed he has no intention of trying to give the impression that he gets credit for having achieved something with the Speaker of the House.
That is what is at stake. It is not the Speaker of the House who is at stake but in fact his good name. It is not that it took place at all but that people have the idea that it took place. It is not what happened, but what is perceived to have happened, that is at stake. It is this which we wish to have clarification of.
It would be very simple to say not "if 1 have" but simply that it appears that my involvement of the word "Speaker" in this conversation with The Globe and Mail has led to this misunderstanding, one which has taken up the whole afternoon of this House. It is simply that we all, everyone in this House, want to protect the sanctity and the position of the Speaker in whom we all have trust.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, it has been very seldom in the career I have had in

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
this House of Commons that 1 have taken part in a question as substantial as this. Not being a lawyer or an expert on parliamentary rules and procedure, I have usually left this to some of my more learned colleagues. However, there is something 1 would like you to help me, a private member of this House, clear up.
1 do not think anyone in this debate this afternoon has mentioned that they doubted Your Honour's word. Rather, it has been directly the opposite, that we are fighting to protect the integrity of the Speaker of the House of Commons.
I have not had time to consult my colleagues, but I have no objection if the House leader of the New Democratic Party wishes to consult you on matters that affect the interventions of his members in this House of Commons. I have no objection of any kind to that.

If the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) wants to phone or write to you, Mr. Speaker, and asks to see you in your chambers here, in the House of Commons, of his own initiative, for his group, regardless of its status or non status as an official party, if he wants to speak on behalf of the group he represents in the House-
The government House leader, holds a very responsible position in this House, and I think he will agree that 1 have shown respect to him and to the office he holds, or to any other government minister whether I be in opposition or on the government side of the House. Why should the government House leader-this is the fundamental, bottom line of the question-go to you, sir, on his own placing you, inadvertently perhaps, in a position that is very precarious? Why should he take it upon himself to speak for the members of the Social Credit party, officially or not? They are very articulate people. Anybody who has seen that party operate in the House of Commons must agree that even though they are only five they are very articulate and can handle themselves very well when it comes to speaking to anyone, whether in this chamber or to you in your chambers. Why is this sudden protective umbrella held up by the government House leader?
I repeat, 1 think this is a fundamental question. If the House leader of the official opposition makes an appointment with you to discuss our interventions in this House, our rights and privileges in this House as the official opposition, that is one thing. If the government House leader does the same on behalf of his party, I see no objection to that. But why should he all of a sudden appoint himself an officer to protect the rights of a five-member group who are well known for their ability to get up and speak and look after themselves?
I suggest this would change the complete atmosphere of this House. I repeat, with all due respect to the government House leader, that this argument could be over in five minutes or five seconds: all he has to do is stand in his place and deny the story which was carried in The Globe and Mail this morning.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), for whom I have a great deal of respect, really answered the question himself as to why I sought out the Speaker. I tried to put that at the beginning of my argument. He said the government House leader has a responsible position in this House. That is exactly the reason. I think I said in the course of my argument that I have two responsibilities. As I view my responsibilities-there may be some disagreement with respect to this-I do take my responsibilities to the House of Commons quite seriously, and when a group of members of Parliament have some difficulty which I interpret as causing some difficulty in the operation of the business of the House of Commons, I think it is not improper for me to go to the Speaker of the House of Commons.
You may overrule me with respect to this, Mr. Speaker, and I will be prepared to abide by your ruling, but it has always been my understanding, and nothing has happened this afternoon to indicate that that understanding is wrong, that members of the House of Commons have a right to mention a concern to the Speaker. Members of the government have a right to mention concerns to the Speaker. Members of the opposition, their leader, have a right to mention concerns to the Speaker. What would be wrong would be a representation in the sense the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) spoke of it.
I would take issue with him with respect not to his solution but with respect to his use of the word "representation". I think it is important when any member goes to see the Speaker for any reason at all that there should be no attempt by that member, whether he is a private member or a member of the government, to require an advance ruling or to preclude proper discussion of a point of order or to bring undue pressure on the Speaker. Mr. Speaker, you yourself have answered that argument today. You have indicated you were not influenced by what I said except that you decided to call a meeting at which the hon. member for Pontiac was there representing his party, my parliamentary secretary was there representing his party, and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was there representing his party.
Let me just say with respect to the division of the parties in this House that the concern I expressed to you was sufficient for you to call a meeting of representatives of the parties. I regret I could not have been there, as 1 am sure the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso regrets he could not have been there. But all parties were ably represented. I think that is the position in which I find myself.
I want to say to hon. members that if I am seen speaking to Mr. Speaker in the hall-I say this through you, sir-it would be in that way that I would be speaking to Mr. Speaker. It would be on that assumption. I want to say to the hon. and reverend member for Eglinton-Lawrence (Mr. de Corneille) that that is exactly the way in which I have always approached my role. I think it is a responsible way to approach my role. I think it is a responsible way to approach my role.


An hon. Member:: Just deny the story.
November 7, 1979


Walter David Baker: I have indicated that I am not responsible for the essence of timing in the story that might appear in The Globe and Mail or the Carp Review.
The hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) indicated that sometimes difficulties can occur. I might have been inarticulate in what 1 said. I may be at fault for what appears there by being inarticulate, and if that is the case I accept the responsibility. But the bottom line of all this is whether or not the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, who happens to be the President of Privy Council and the leader of the government in the House of Commons, went to you, Mr. Speaker, and had the temerity even to think of influencing, let alone undertake the influencing, of the Speaker of the House of Commons. If I did that, I ought not to be a member of this place, and if you accepted it in that way, you ought not to be Speaker. Neither of those things occurred, and both you and I know it.


Mr. Speaker:: I know the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) seeks to intervene because he was referred to earlier in the context of whether or not he would withdraw. We have had a long enough discussion, it seems to me, and I really wonder if there need be any more participation.


André Ouellet: Very briefly, Mr. Speaker. In his second intervention the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) mentioned that I had imputed motives and cast some doubt on Your Honour's integrity. I want to say clearly that my intervention had nothing to do with your conduct but rather it had to do with the conduct of the President of Privy Council himself. He has had three occasions this afternoon upon which to clearly express his point of view. I must say his third intervention was better than the second and much better than the first one, which was pretty shabby and very bad.
I want to assure you, Mr. Speaker, that in my intervention at that time I wanted clarification from the President of the Privy Council of what he said to The Globe and Mail. Quite clearly, we know what he told Your Honour. We know very well that Your Honour cannot be influenced, but we are still uncertain as to what the President of Privy Council said to The Globe and Mail and what he said to the representative of the Creditistes in this House. This is still in doubt, and my representation to Your Honour has been on that very point.


Mr. Speaker:: Order. This is the second time the hon. member has tried to reargue, and I respect what he is trying to do. He was referred to. He is not withdrawing anything he said, and I think I must limit him here.


Mr. Denis Ethier (Glengarry-Prescott-Russell):: Mr. Speaker, I want to be very brief in my intervention. In my seven years here this is the first time I have witnessed a day such as this. Having worked under Your Honour for three years I seriously question the intervention of the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) on three occasions. His declaration to The Globe and Mail questions Your Honour's integrity. I feel
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
seriously about that, and I would very much like him to retract that. We have respect for the Chair, and I would like him to have that same respect.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, I rise again only for a moment because my name was also mentioned by the President of Privy Council. He did so indirectly by reading an interesting article written by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid). In that article there are references to the many meetings the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) and I had during the Parliament of 1972 to 1974. The President of Privy Council said we were both blushing. I think we probably blushed only because of the normal modesty of politicians when their names are mentioned.
However, I should like to assure the President of Privy Council and this House that far from being concerned about references to those meetings I am proud of those meetings and proud of what we won for the people of Canada because we held those meetings.


Mr. Speaker:: I knew we would occasionally wander a little off the topic, but I did not think we were going to get back to the Parliament between 1972 and 1974 before we finished.
The questions raised by the hon. member for Drummond (Mr. Pinard) first of all and, in turn, by the hon. member for Papineau (Mr. Ouellet) and the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen)-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I still have* a question of privilege to raise, Mr. Speaker.


Marcel Prud'homme: I have too, but not on the same subject.


Mr. Speaker:: We have been dealing so far with the questions raised by the hon. member for Drummond and the hon. member for Papineau relating to an article which appeared in The Globe and Mail yesterday. The question raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso does not touch upon The Globe and Mail itself. The matter raised is a matter which the House, of course, takes seriously. I also take it very seriously, and I think the House has had a very extensive discussion. Yet, perhaps because this is a minority Parliament, we can feel ourselves under an obligation to be extremely cautious about things of this sort.
Perhaps over five years as the Speaker dealing with members who now are party leaders in this House-although two of them have changed seats-because we came to know each other there would be a natural tendency toward informality in our discussions. That is only natural, and I think a trust and confidence was built up during that time which it is only natural for me and other members to rely upon and perhaps to take for granted. I am absolutely satisfied that what the President of Privy Council was doing on this occasion was speaking to me in a way he did many times as opposition House leader in the last Parliament.
I do not set aside lightly the points raised. They are very serious, and I know the hon. member takes it seriously when he

November 7, 1979
Privilege-Mr. Pinard
apologizes to the House. If in any way-even as I think the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) said in his last intervention; I think he used the word "inadvertently in his suggestion on that day he had put me in an awkward position and in turn put the House in an awkward position, he again apologizes for that.
The hon. member for Papineau said that the third intervention by the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) was better than the first two. Perhaps, then, we can just concentrate on that one. The President of Privy Council, it seems to me, at least in that intervention-that is the one I remember best because it was the most recent-said first of all that if the quality of the report in The Globe and Mail is not what it should be, he accepts responsibility for that and lays the blame on his inadequate expression to the reporter. I am paraphrasing, but he accepts that.
Second, if his making a suggestion to me, which I subsequently discussed on that same day with representatives of all parties, was seen at any time as a representation which was improper in any way, he apologizes for that. If in the future conduct is such that we must be more scrupulous between the parties in that regard, which has been suggested-that is to say, all members and the Chair-it is something which I think all members would regret.
I think it again indicates to us that in a minority situation where the representations are so close and the situation so fragile perhaps we do have to be a little more formal, a little more careful, exercise more caution and perhaps less friendliness and informality. I hope that is not the case, but in any event I accept-as I am sure the House does-the intervention of the President of Privy Council, who says he intended no such influence, would never dream that such would be taken by me in that context, and that he had only the intention of making a suggestion knowing it would be discussed at a meeting later that day which in fact took place and at which all parties were represented. I and I am sure the House accept that. Perhaps, however, the one benefit from this discussion is that we are cautioned to be extremely careful about all these matters.
I close finally by returning to the point of the hon. member for Drummond who raised, I thought and as I indicated earlier, a very valid point relating to the use of Standing Order 29. For the benefit of those who are puzzled by the application I made of it yesterday, I can indicate that it is my understanding that when the Chair makes a selection as envisaged by that rule, a member can only seek the floor to question that by putting, on a point of order, the motion which is contained in Standing Order 29.
I have given the hon. member my reasons for not allowing him to do that yesterday. I was attempting to settle a problem which had been outstanding in the House for quite some time, so I was more than just recognizing a member for debate; I was also deciding a procedural point which I thought ought not to be the subject of appeal by the House at that time. These two rules came in conflict, and I had to decide rather quickly how to apply them, and 1 did; but I think the hon.

member might be comforted by knowing that if in future he wishes to take advantage of Standing Order 29, he should do it in exactly the way he tried to do it yesterday.
I might also point out in conclusion-and I thought I should put the substantive matters forward first-that since by neither motion am I asked to take any particular action on procedural grounds-I have no motion before me to consider, in other words-I therefore set aside the questions of privilege on the dispositions I have just made.
MR. MacEACHEN-ENERGY SUPPLIES ALLOCATION BOARD-


ANSWERS OF MINISTER OF ENERGY, MINES AND RESOURCES
Allan Joseph MacEachen: Mr. Speaker, I think this is the first time I have ever raised a question of privilege in the House of Commons. If that is not correct, then it is one of the few times.
My question of privilege has to do with the events which took place in the House of Commons yesterday, but in a sense it is not unrelated to the discussion we had earlier. I have no desire to reopen that discussion, although I am tempted to say that a certain benefit has been developed, because in referring to the co-operation which the President of Privy Council (Mr. Baker) alleged existed between the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and myself, he obviously made a declaration of a very close and co-operative arrangement between his party and the Social Credit group.
On the same subject I say to my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that obviously the influence of that contact with the government which he had in those years of great progress, as he said, has not really left him because he sounded very much today like a member of a government party rather than a member of the opposition, which is his normal role.
I intend to be brief and to the point. Yesterday in the House of Commons I clearly asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnatyshyn) the question whether he would move to establish with some speed the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board. I asked him to justify why he had not appointed members of the board, and if he had not done so to date, why would he not do it at that very moment and announce it to the House. Later the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) asked the same question.
In reply to both of these questions the hon. minister clearly and certainly misled me. The only reasonable conclusion which can be drawn from his answers was that he had not moved, and was not intending at that time to move, to establish the membership of the board. He said to me that I did not understand the situation because "the fact of the matter is that the department is setting up a support basis upon which any emergency allocation would be available". He went on to say that if a crisis occurred, which he did not think existed, then he might move to establish the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board.
November 7, 1979

I accepted the minister's answers. I went to a meeting and at about 5.30 or six o'clock I received a message that the Canadian Press had put on the wire a news report that the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) stated Tuesday that the government will establish an Energy Supplies Allocation Board which, under existing legislation, would have the power to impose petroleum rationing.
I asked the minister between two and three o'clock, and at five o'clock or thereabouts, the Canadian Press was told. Then it was disclosed in the House that the Prime Minister had written a letter to the leader of the Social Credit group. In that letter he told him the following:
In this connection, you may have noted that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has indicated his intention to seek some administrative changes to the Energy Supplies Emergency Act and at the same time announce appointment of an Energy Supplies Allocation Board.
That is a letter from the Prime Minister to the leader of the Social Credit group. It was tabled by the Prime Minister some time before the adjournment at six o'clock.


An hon. Member:: At 5.25.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: At 5.25 p.m. I asked the question, the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan asked the question, and the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources just concealed the information from us. I have a tendency to believe that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources did not know what was in the Prime Minister's letter. If that is the explanation, I hold him free and uncriticized. But if he knew the information at that time, then it was his duty to let it be known to the House of Commons. The open government policy has proclaimed respect for Parliament, but it was totally ignored in this case.
Further I must say I am astonished that the Prime Minister, who obviously had written the letter or was writing the letter to the leader of the Social Credit group, and who was listening to my questions to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, did not send him a note and say, "Minister, bear in mind I am notifiyng the leader of the Social Credit party that we are going to do that". It all fits together very nicely. I was denied the information, the House was denied the information, but it was conveyed in a private arrangement to the Social Credit group by a letter from the Prime Minister, so that the government would get some points and some support, presumably, that evening from the Social Credit group.
I object very strongly, but I withhold further comment because I realize the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Prime Minister are not in their places.
I lay the foundation for raising the matter when the minister is in his place, because he had the nerve and the audacity to say in his speech after eight o'clock that he had announced already in the House the information about the establishment of the Emergency Supplies Allocation Board. This is very serious, and I want to indicate to the minister that if he does not have a pretty good explanation for the House, then certainly we will have reason to change our attitude to him and to
Privilege-Mr. MacEachen
what he tells us in reply to questions in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I want the situation which we are in to be clear: we are not concluding this point. The hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso (Mr. MacEachen) simply indicated that he is giving me notice. He raised the point and intends to pursue it, which of course is his right; it is very customary. When the other two members to whom he has referred are in the House and the point is raised, I expect to hear the hon. member of Cape Breton Highlands-Canso. If other hon. members want to participate in the matter, logically it ought to follow that intervention. But if they intervene now, of course, I would not be able to hear them a second time. I ought to hold open the right of the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso to complete his intervention. If I go on and hear others now, I do not think I can get back to them. That puts me in a rather awkward spot. If I am reserving it at this time, I will stop it now while the hon. member for Cape Breton Highlands-Canso has the floor. I do not think I can give the floor to anyone else on that point.


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Yesterday I was recognized by the Chair and asked the following question, and I quote from page 1014 of the official report:
Thank you for the promotion, Mr. Speaker. I wish to know if you could give me some explanation on a very important point. The right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) asked for leave to table the correspondence he exchanged with the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy). Will those two letters be an appendix to Hansard for today to avoid the problem we had about three days ago?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I must say that here again we need unanimous consent to have the letter appended to Hansard.
And two seconds later, with leave from the government House leader, the House gave its unanimous consent. Yet, Mr. Speaker, I have just read yesterday's Hansard and unfortunately, through some mistake, and despite the fact the House gave its unanimous consent to the tabling of the two letters in question, only the letter written by the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) to the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) was printed, and not the letter addressed to the Prime Minister by the latter. Can you shed light on this very important issue, Mr. Speaker?


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, obviously there is an omission from the unanimous consent. I am grateful to the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) for bringing it to our attention. Perhaps it might be agreeable to all members of the House if Your Honour reviewed this matter and had the correspondence attached to Hansard today. I would be prepared to agree to that, if it would be helpful.

November 7, 1979
Point of Order-Mr. Lefebvre


Thomas Lefebvre: Mr. Speaker, I am prepared to do that. I do not want to hold up the business of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Lefebvre: Excuse me, hon. members opposite did it often, if they do not mind. They are silent now that they are sitting over there. After receiving unanimous consent of the House yesterday, could somebody please tell us why it was not done then?


Mr. Speaker:: Perhaps it relates to the earlier intervention of the Prime Minister (Mr. Clark) when he was asked if he could table the letters. He said at the time that he did not have the English version of the letter from the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy), that he had his own and that he was prepared to table it. Also he indicated that if we could get the letter from the hon. member for Beauce later, it would be tabled as well. Simply there may have been some confusion. It was not clear whether the undertaking of the Prime Minister was to table one or two letters. In any case I think it was the consensus of the House that both letters should be tabled, and I believe the offer of the President of Privy Council and Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Baker) was to complete that. One letter has, of course, been appended to Hansard as tabled yesterday.


Marcel Prud'homme: Mr. Speaker, 1 think it is exactly on the same point. In my opinion the mistake which may have been committed yesterday should not have happened if one carefully reads Hansard and the speeches made by hon. members who took part in this exchange between on the one hand the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) and on the other hand the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), the member for Saguenay and others.
It is quite clear that we want the whole correspondence and not just the French and English copies of the letter written by the Prime Minister to the hon. member for Beauce. To understand better the debate, we certainly want to see the letter written by the hon. member for Beauce to the Prime Minister. If we really want to understand what actually happened we must be able to read what the hon. member for Beauce, the hon. leader of the Social Credit Party of Canada, wanted to ask the Prime Minister for him to take time to answer it. In any case, the Prime Minister's reply is quite clear to us because he recognizes-and that to us is very important-if you read that letter very carefully that:
[English)
Should we be faced with a disruption of oil supply sufficient to cause a national emergency, then I can assure you that the government is prepared to use the powers available to it under the Energy Supplies Emergency Act, 1979, to conserve supplies-


So this is very important to us because this answer from the Prime Minister is quite revealing of the new intentions of the government which is now prepared to use legislation passed by the former government. Indeed we would like to know what the hon. member for Beauce asked the Prime Minister that justified such an interesting answer for those who follow the debates closely. I think our hon. friend is probably right when he says that it must have gone unnoticed. However, it did not go unnoticed to us since we are trying to find out what the hon. member for Beauce could have asked the Prime Minister to receive such an extraordinary complete answer and so quickly, the very same afternoon, of course, of a debate which ended in a very important vote last night.


Mr. Speaker:: Again I say the simple answer is that the conversation at one time would indicate that the Prime Minister was only tabling his letter because that is all he had, and subsequently the other letter was not available.


An hon. Member:: It was, but only in French.


Mr. Speaker:: That is right, but the President of Privy Council has now undertaken to assure that that tabling will be completed so we will have both letters.
In order to clarify the situation, as we went through this a few days ago, this is correspondence. It was written originally, in this case, in the French language by the hon. member for Beauce (Mr. Roy) because that is the language he chooses to operate in, and it will not be translated by the House unless the House now orders that this be done when it is tabled and appended to Hansard as if it had been read as part of the record. Does the House agree and so order?


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


Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on the question of privilege just raised, I want to indicate that I want to participate in the discussion regarding the response yesterday by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) concerning the establishment of an Energy Supplies Allocation Board when that matter is raised.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


[Stage Direction]
Second report of Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs-Mr. Darling.
November 7, 1979

[Stage Direction]
First report of Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments-Mr. Robinson (Etobicoke-Lakeshore).

[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
A message from His Excellency the Governor General transmitting Supplementary Estimates (B) with regard to the sums required for the public service of Canada for the financial year ending March 31, 1980, and, pursuant to the provisions of the British North America Act, 1867, recommending such estimates to the House of Commons, was presented by hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board) and read by Mr. Speaker to the House.

[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. David Kilgour (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Mr. Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 32, 37, 58, 59, 77, 79, 187, 225, 254 and 379.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. Did the hon. parliamentary secretary say question No. 224 or 225 just after question No. 187?


David Kilgour: No. 225, Mr. Speaker.
I ask, Mr. Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand..


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Laurentian Pilotage Authority?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. J. Robert Howie (Minister of State (Transport)):: 1.	(a) Mr. P. Bailly (b) Mr. A. Y. Matte
2.	(a) $40,000-545,000 (b) $35,000-540,000
Order Paper Questions GREAT LAKES PILOTAGE AUTHORITY


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority?
2.	What is the annua) salary in each case?


J. Robert Howie: 1.	(a) Mr. R. Armstrong (b) Mr. L. E. Beland
2.	(a) $35,000-540,000. The Great Lakes Pilotage Authority is a subsidiary of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and half of the chairman's salary is paid by the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority.
(b) The vice-chairman is also an employee of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority and the Great Lakes Pilotage Authority is not charged for his services.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) arc the vice presidents of the Canadian National (West Indies) Steamships Limited?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Minister of Transport):: Transport Canada advises as follows:
1.	(a) Mr. G. R. MacGougan, assistant deputy minister,
Finance, Transport Canada
(b) Dr. A. G. Irvine, director general, Government of Canada accounting branch, Supply and Services Canada is the only vice president.
2.	No salaries are paid to either officer for duties arising from the company.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of Canadian Patents and Development Limited?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Hon. Ron Huntington (Minister of State for Small Businesses and Industry):: In so far as Canadian Patents and Development Limited is concerned: 1. (a) W. M. Hill; (b) Position not filled.
2. (a) $35,000-$40,000; (b) No salary attached to the position.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the Export Development Corporation?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


Michael Holcombe Wilson: In so far as the Department of Industry, Trade and

November 7, 1979
Order Paper Questions
Commerce is concerned: Export Development Corporation states:
1.	(a) The president of Export Development Corporation is
Sylvain Cloutier
(b)	There are 4 Vice Presidents: R. H. Sumner, V.P., Europe and Americas Division; V. G. McKay, V.P., Africa and Asia Division; J. R. Hegan, V.P., Finance; B. A. Culham, V.P., Underwriting and Assessment
2.	For the president, the annual salary range is $62,900 to $78,300. With respect to the vice presidents, this information has usually been treated as proprietary; to publish this information that no other financial institutions are required to divulge could be prejudicial to Export Development Corporation in a highly competitive hiring market.


Mr. Orlikow: 1.	Who (a) is the president (b) are the vice presidents of the St. Lawrence Seaway Authority?
2.	What is the annual salary in each case?


J. Robert Howie: 1.	(a) Mr. P. D. Normandeau (b) Mr. M. M. Bienvenu
2.	(a) $50,000-55,000 (b) $35,000-40,000


Mr. Herbert: How many (a) permanent (b) term employees were on the Department of Agriculture's payroll on March 31, 1979?


Hon. John Wise (Minister of Agriculture):: (a) 8,483; (b) 682.


Mr. Caouette: What is the current salary and expense allowance of the (a) Commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission (b) Assistant Commissioner of the Canadian Grain Commission (c) president of the Canadian Dairy Commission?


John Wise: Expense Allowance
(a)	S42,700-$58,500	Chief commissioner	None33,600- 46,200	Commissioner	None(b)	25,500- 28,756	Assistant commissioner	None(c)	42,700- 58,500	Chairman	None
NOTE: Section 4(1) of the Canada Grain Act provides for the governor in council to designate one of the commissioners as the Chief Commissioner.


Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension?
2.	Of the recipients of the Old Age Security pension, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are in receipt of the Guaranteed Income Supplement?
3.	Of those receiving the Guaranteed Income Supplement, how many persons in Canada, and in each province, are receiving the full amount?
4.	What is the average amount, in Canada and in each province, being received as a Guaranteed Income Supplement by recipients of the Old Age Security pension?
5.	Do the answers to the above questions take into consideration persons living outside of Canada who are in receipt of the Old Age Security pension and, if so, how many of such persons are there, and if they are considered as belonging to the various provinces, what is the number for each province?


Hon. David Crombie (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: In so far as the Department of National Health and Welfare is concerned:-
List i
Number of Persons in Canada in Receipt of
(i)	(2) Guaranteed	(3) Full GuaranteedOld Age	Income	IncomeSecurity	Supplement	SupplementNewfoundland	40,286	32,633	18,712Prince Edward Island	14,037	10,211	4,050Nova Scotia	85,697	56,706	22,246New Brunswick	65,154	43,383	17,933Quebec	518,400	327,913	134,300Ontario	778,360	354,243	94,529Manitoba	112,420	63,418	18,783Saskatchewan	108,043	58,950	18,574Alberta	145,465	80,502	26,026British Columbia	255,465	128,308	40,037Northwest Territories	1,176	942	760Yukon	662	364	220Total	2,125,165	1,157,573	396,170
Note: Above figures relate to January 1979.
List ii
(4) Average Amount of Guaranteed Income Supplement being received each month by recipients of the Old Age Security pension
Based upon Guaranteed Income Supplement Population


[Stage Direction]
Based upon Old Age Security Population
Newfoundland	$91.91
Prince Edward Island	78.87
Nova Scotia	70.31
New Brunswick	71.48
Quebec	66.29
Ontario	45.43
Manitoba	57.37
Saskatchewan	56.45

November 7, 1979
[Stage Direction]
Alberta	56.80	102.77British Columbia	51.09	101.94Northwest Territories	97.45	121.66Yukon	64.33	117.00Average in Canada	56.11	103.16
Note: Above figures relate to January 1979.
The left hand column gives the average amount of guaranteed income supplement paid in January 1979 on the basis of the total Old Age Security population (2,125,165). The average based upon the lower guaranteed income supplement population (1,157,573) is indicated in the right hand column.
List hi
(5) The Figures in Schedule I and II do not Include Persons Living Outside Canada who are in Receipt of the Old Age Security
The Number of Persons Outside Canada Receiving Benefits
Newfoundland	94
Prince Edward Island	44
Nova Scotia	321
New Brunswick	342
Quebec	2,754
Ontario	16,887
Manitoba	618
Saskatchewan	349
Alberta	630
British Columbia	2,318
Northwest Territories Yukon
Total	24,357
Note: Above figures relate to January 1979.
Motions for Papers
(b)	1976-77	13,434,95	1,612.18	Canadian Motor Sales CorporationNil	Nil	Canadian Honda Motor Limited9,029.36	1,083.39	Nissan Automobile Co. (Canada) Limited182,503.18	21,900.59	Volkswagen Canada LimitedTotal	$204,967.49	$24,596.16	(c)	1977-78	30,999.27	3,742.14	Canadian Motor Sales Corporation61,194.88	7,347.37	Canadian Honda Motor Limited31,574.69	3,788.97	Nissan Automobile Co. (Canada) Limited540,416.03	64,849.81	Volkswagen Canada LimitedTotal	$664,184.87	$79,728.29	(d)	1978-79	17,205.21	2,085.48	Canadian Motor Sales Corporation170,790.90	18,269.12	Canadian Honda Motor Limited10,378.26	1,245.39	Nissan Automobile Co. (Canada) Limited849,659.07	101,474.76	Volkswagen Canada LimitedTotal	$1,048,033.44	$123,074.75
Mr. Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, would you be so kind as to call notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 7, 19, 22 and 30.


Mr. Pepin: For the fiscal year ended March 31 (a) 1976 (b) 1977 (c) 1978 (d) 1979, what amount of duty was remitted on cars imported by foreign manufacturers using Canadian made auto parts, and who received such credits?
REDPATH SUGARS LIMITED-TATE AND LYALL LIMITED Motion No. 7-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all agreements, correspondence, notes and other communications relating to the requirement by the Foreign Investment Review Agency that Tate and Lyall Limited reduce its shareholdings in Redpath Sugars Limited.


Walter David Baker: Fiscal	Customs Duty
Year	Remitted
(a)	1975-76	Nil
Nil
27,669.53 131,102.45 $158,771.98
Sales Tax	Credits
Remitted	to
Nil	Canadian Motor Sales
Nil	Corporation Canadian Honda Motor
3,296.37	Limited Nissan Automobile Co.
15,732.48	(Canada) Limited Volkswagen Canada
$19,028.85	Limited


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, the reply in the name of the minister is as follows: The Foreign Investment Review Agency has been advised by the senior legal adviser to the agency that the papers are privileged under section 14 of the Foreign Investment Review Act. I would, therefore, ask on behalf of the minister that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Mr. Herbert:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
Total

November 7, 1979
Motions for Papers
POLAND'S KW1DZYN PULP AND PAPER COMPLEX Motion No. 19-Mr. Herbert:
That an humble Address be presented to His Excellency praying that he will cause to be laid before the House copies of the latest financing agreement by the Export Development Corporation for the sale of services and equipment for Poland's Kwidzyn Pulp and Paper Complex.


David Kilgour: Again, Your Honour, I would advise in the name of the minister that the documents requested involve papers that are confidential and not of a public or official character, and their production would publish information received by the EDC in confidence from sources outside the government. We would, therefore, ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 22-Mr. Herbert:
That an Order of the House do issue for the latest study by the Department of Transport into the feasibility and location of a bridge to cross the Ottawa River or the Lake of Two Mountains somewhere between Dorion, Quebec and Hawkesbury, Ontario.
David Kilgour: Again, Your Honour, in the name of the minister, the requested study on the feasibility of the location of a bridge to cross the Ottawa River, or the Lake of Two Mountains, somewhere between Dorion, Quebec, and Hawkesbury, Ontario, cannot be made available. The reason is that it has not been performed by or for Transport Canada. We would, therefore, ask that the hon. member withdraw his motion.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.
CONSUMER AND CORPORATE AFFAIRS-SOFT DRINK BOTTLES Motion No. 30-Miss Nicholson:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all socio-economic impact studies carried out by the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs in connection with banning returnable soft drink bottles.


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, may I say on behalf of the minister that the study has not yet been prepared but will be sent to the hon. member when it is completed. I therefore ask the hon. member to withdraw the motion.


Miss Nicholson:: Transfer for debate.


Mr. Speaker:: Transferred for debate.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I regret having to raise this point of order so late in the afternoon, but as you are aware this is the only time I can raise a point of order in connection with the production of papers. On October 31 the Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council (Mr. Kilgour), as it is reported in Hansard at page 810, said:
-notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 29 and 31 are acceptable to the government.
On page 811, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is reported as saying:
-I rise on a point of order. I hope it has not escaped the attention of the House that when the first four motions for the production of papers were called, the motions were granted.
My point of order is in two parts. The first part deals with my motion No. 29 and motion 31, which belongs to the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). As of this day these papers have not been tabled. Under the rules, there appears to be no time limit for the production of papers. My point is that I am somewhat confused about the agreement because there has been an apparent agreement to table papers and, therefore, the motion is removed from the order paper as though the papers have been produced.
I can understand a delay of one, two or three days, but it seemed at the time it was agreed that the papers would be produced or that the papers had been found and were therefore readily available. Is there any limit as to the time the government can take to produce these papers? That is my first point.
My second point also deals with the production of papers on that same day. The Parliamentary Secretary to President of Privy Council said at page 810 of Hansard:
Notices of motions for the production of papers Nos. 18 and 23 are acceptable to the government subject to the authorization of the government of Quebec.
The first motion deals with flooding in the Lake of Two Mountains area, and the second with the public transportation situation in Montreal west. The assumption is that when the province of Quebec gives agreement, then these papers will be produced. My difficulty, first of all, is that I have no idea if the government has contacted the government of the province of Quebec to inquire whether it is possible that they may give their agreement to release these documents. Or alternatively, if the government knows that the government of the province of Quebec will not agree to the production of these documents, the government is able, under the guise of producing papers, to make this statement in the House which leaves me to believe that at some future date I may receive these documents.
My last point is that I would assume from what I learned on October 31 that the government will make some effort to see whether it is possible for those papers to be produced. I therefore wonder if any effort has been made on their part, whether it be by phone call, letter or whatever, that at some date in the future-hopefully not too long-there will be a statement from the government of the province of Quebec that they agree to the production of these papers or, to the con-
November 7, 1979

trary, they do not agree, at which point in time I will then be able to continue with any arguments on which I wish to proceed in this House.
There are two points I am making. The first concerns the documents which the government agreed to produce and on which there appears to be no time limit. The second is that the government says "subject to the actions of someone else", without indicating whether they intend to pursue the matter or whether even, in my capacity as the hon. member for Vau-dreuil, I must now contact the government of the province of Quebec to see if I can get a release of the documents which I require.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I want to associate myself briefly with the comments made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil and to point out the difficulty in which members are placed. When the government says that it has no objection to giving us papers, the order for the motion to produce papers is struck from the record, but then in fact the papers are not produced. My staff has made innumerable telephone calls without any success.
The motion which I put was a very simple one. I asked for all the form letters which are now being used in connection with establishing relationships in the case of sponsored relatives in Southeast Asia. It is a matter of importance to the people of Toronto. It is a contentious issue on which we hear a lot of different opinions, and having those forms to examine would assist my work.
The government has said that it is willing to produce the forms, and yet a week later, apparently, there is no hope in sight of my getting them. My concern is that the motion has now been stricken, and this gives the impression that my request has been granted when it has not. I am sure that there is no deliberate intent to obstruct, but in raising this matter I hope that a solution will be found.


David Kilgour: Mr. Speaker, I can only say that I will take notice of the remarks made by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) and the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). The hon. member for Trinity has mentioned phone calls. Certainly no phone call has come to my office from the hon. member. If she could have phoned a week or two weeks ago, I would have been delighted to look into the matter instead of taking up the time of the House to deal with the matter this afternoon.


Aideen Nicholson: Mr. Speaker, I do not want to pursue this matter unnecessarily, but since the parliamentary secretary, perhaps unintentionally, seems to be questioning my truthfulness, I could provide him with a list of days, dates and names of people to whom the phone calls were addressed.


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. This will come up daily almost.


Herb Breau: Weekly.
Supplementary Estimates (B)


Mr. Speaker:: Weekly. Shall the remaining notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Hon. Sinclair Stevens (President of the Treasury Board):: Mr. Speaker, I may have missed your calling of motions, but I have a motion which 1 would like to put, if 1 may, before we get on to orders of the day.


Mr. Speaker:: I called it very slowly in both official languages. In any case, I am sure that we will have the consent of the House to revert to motions. Do we have that consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Mr. Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 59,1 move:
That the Supplementary Estimates (B), 1979-80, tabled earlier this day, be referred to the several standing committees of the House as follows:
May I dispense with the reading of this list?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Speaker:: It has been moved by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Stevens) that the supplementary estimates tabled earlier this day be referred to the several standing committees of the House in accordance with the list attached, which will form part of the motion. Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
[Editor's note: List referred to above is as follows:]
To the Standing Committee on Agriculture:
Agriculture Votes lb, 15b, 20b, 35b, 40b To the Standing Committee on Broadcasting, Films and Assistance to the Arts: Communications votes 5b, 15b Secretary of State votes 20b, 45b, 50b, 75b, 90b, 115b To the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence:
External Affairs votes 10b, LI7b, LI8b, LI9b, 20b, 30b, L36b National Defence vote 10b
To the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs:
Finance vote 5b
Industry, Trade and Commerce votes lb, 6b, 10b, L41b, 55b National Revenue votes lb, 5b To the Standing Committee on Fisheries and Forestry:
Environment votes lb, 30b Fisheries and Oceans votes lb, 10b To the Standing Committee on Health, Welfare and Social Affairs:
Health and Welfare vote 10b Public Works vote 51 b
To the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs:
Justice vote 40b Solicitor General vote 5b

November 7, 1979
Supplementary Estimates (B)
To the Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Estimates:
Privy Council votes lb, 15b Science and Technology vote 15b Supply and Services vote 5b Treasury Board vote 35b
To the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works: Energy, Mines and Resources votes 1 b, L37b, 45b, 60b, 65b Public Works votes 5b, 10b
To the Standing Committee on Regional Development:
Regional Economic Expansion votes lb, LI6b, 25b
To the Standing Committee on Transport and Communications:
Post Office vote 1 b
Transport votes 5b, 10b, 15b, 35b, 4lb, 42b, 60b, 105b To the Standing Committee on Veterans Affairs:
Veterans Affairs vote lb


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Herb Breau: Six o'clock.


Mr. Speaker:: It being six o'clock, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock p.m., pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.
November 7, 1979


[Stage Direction]
(Seep. 1070)
[Stage Direction]
Ottawa, November 5, 1979
The Right Honourable Joseph Clark,
Prime Minister,
Room 409,
Centre Block,
House of Commons.
Mr. Prime  Minister@: The population of certain areas of Canada, especially the eastern region, that is Quebec and the maritimes, is seriously concerned about the security of gasoline and heating oil supplies next winter.
It is therefore vitally important that your government announce immediately to the population of Canada what action
it has already taken or intends to take and what guarantees it can give to avoid any possibility of a shortage which could cause panic and eventually lead to an excessive price increase.
Moreover, it is also extremely important that all necessary action be taken to protect and guarantee the quotas of independent distributors.
I therefore hope for a quick reply, in the form, for instance, of a ministerial statement.
Sincerely yours,
Fabien Roy
c.c. Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn Hon. Walter Baker

Thursday, November 8, 1979