1980-11-06

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. With the substantial increase in the price of hard wheat and durum on the world market, and given the cost-price squeeze with which farmers are faced, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Swift Current-Maple Creek (Mr. Hamilton):
That the initial price of wheat be increased to $6.25 a bushel on hard wheat and $8 a bushel on durum wheat.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion for debate requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to propose a motion of urgent necessity. Whereas the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has announced stringent new fishing regulations which affect commercial salmon fishermen on the west coast of Canada, yet for undisclosed reasons he has failed to place corresponding limitations on the large unlicensed charter boat operators who provide a fisherman's paradise for hundreds of well-to-do foreign tourists, allowing them to take hundreds of thousands of pounds of salmon from British Columbia waters each year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen):
That, in the interest of conserving our fast-dwindling stocks of Pacific coast salmon and in the interest of equity, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans be
required to implement measures immediately which will restrain the impact of recreational charter boat operations on salmon stocks; such measures to include a system of licensing, gear restrictions, seasonal closures and catch limits commensurate with the restrictions which have already been placed upon other persons who earn their income through fishing.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LOUIS RIEL
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the trial and execution of Louis Riel has been condemned and damned by scholars throughout Canada, and whereas he was a fighter for the Metis and led the protest against indifference toward the western provinces on the part of the Canadian government, 1 move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House do justice to Louis Riel and all Metis throughout Canada by granting him a posthumous pardon, settling this matter once and for all.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDUSTRY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and hope I will receive unanimous consent for my resolution. Because of the promise of the Liberal party during the last election, with the help of the NDP, to refinance the Trident Aircraft company of Sidney, British Columbia, a commitment obviously intended to unseat the incumbent Progressive Conservative in the riding of Esquimalt-Saanich, an effort which obviously failed, and because the company has now closed its doors again for lack of economic viability, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):

November 6, 1980
That the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce be required to make a statement on motions explaining why, aside from bare-faced political chicanery and expediency, the government decided to go on financing from public funds a project which long since had shown itself to lack economic viability.


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROGRESSIVE CONSERVATIVE PARTY
Mr. Jack Masters (Thunder Bay-Nipigon):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of positions taken by some premiers and the Leader of the Opposition that the original idea behind confederation was to ensure a double majority for constitutional changes which, if followed to its logical conclusion, would undermine the concept of parliamentary supremacy which has been accepted as a principle by Canadians for 113 years and would lead to a system of government akin to that of the United States, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni):
That this House urges the official opposition to review immediately its constitutional position so as to ensure that it is not advocating for Canada creeping republicanism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Presentation of this motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: There is unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: It is moved by the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Nipigon (Mr. Masters), seconded by the hon. member for York South-Weston (Mrs. Appolloni):
That this House urges the official opposition to review immediately its constitutional position so as to ensure that it is not advocating for Canada creeping republicanism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, thank you for recognizing me-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am not familiar with this situation and I am wondering if the hon. member who proposed the motion-


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: A point of order, Madam Speaker. You had recognized the Leader of the Opposition.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I want to ascertain who has the first right to speak.


Charles Joseph Clark: Surely it is the person who has been recognized.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member who moved the motion sat down and did not seek the floor to speak. I therefore recognize the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you, Madam Speaker. We will not have much time to debate this motion now but there are some very important matters which should be put before the House and the people of Canada.
The motion suggests that there should be a review of the constitutional position taken by one party in this House. I would devoutly hope that there will be a review taken by the Liberal party of the policy they are forcing on many of their members.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I say this particularly since the motion was apparently motivated by a desire to protect the parliamentary principle. What we are interested in here is the defence of the principle of the supremacy of Parliament in two ways. One way, of course, is to have the Parliament of Canada and our partner parliaments in the legislative assemblies across the country maintain their right to make decisions in the spirit of the partnership upon which this federalism is based and not to have those rights eroded and run around by use of the instrument of a national referendum. This could undermine the essence of Canadian federalism by writing out of any agreement on constitutional change the elected legislatures and governments of any of the provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The second matter which deeply concerns us here is in relation to the rights of Parliament and our ability particularly to deal with constitutional change-
[ Translation]
-and the determination of the Liberal government and party to deny Parliament, here in the House of Commons and in committees, the right to hold public meetings, the opportunity to have a full discussion on all options dealing with the constitution, the basic Canadian legislation. The joint committee on the constitution has advised us today, as we know, Madam Speaker, of a decision to deny Canadians the right of stating their own views on the Canadian Constitution, on the
November 6, 1980

constitutional resolution introduced by the Canadian government.
In the first place, closure was imposed by the Canadian Parliament. We have now double closure in the joint committee. Secondly, an impossible schedule has been set for the committee. Thirdly, the Liberal party has shown today that it is determined to deny Canadians the right to see directly on television or hear directly on radio the proceedings of a joint committee dealing with the most basic and essential issue in our country, that is, the constitution. This, Madam Speaker, is unacceptable to our party as champion of the rights of the Parliament of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Under Standing Order 15(2), as it is now 2.15 p.m. I must interrupt the debate.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know of the publication today, apparently for the first time, of a letter dated August 13, 1980, from Madam Speaker to the chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, a committee of this House, stating explicitly, that "the committees are without authority to broadcast their proceedings". The Prime Minister will recall that he told this House and I, apparently based on error, the contrary not many days ago in this House when he said that the committees were masters of their own proceedings.
Madam Speaker has ruled that in the matter of broadcasting, the committees are not the masters of their own proceedings. Clearly, then, the only way in which the people of Canada can have an opportunity to see and hear the discussion on the Constitution of Canada is for the government to take a decision in policy to initiate an amendment to a motion of this House, which my party, and I am sure the NDP, would accept and approve without debate, that would allow the full televising and full radio coverage of the joint committee proceedings on the resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Prime Minister, therefore, relates to the policy of the government. Will the government initiate action immediately to ensure that the proceedings of the constitutional committee will be televised and broadcast?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I do not want to presume to intervene in the matter
Oral Questions
that has been raised relating to a letter you allegedly wrote to one of the members. But I submit for your consideration and, perhaps, conveyance to the Leader of the Opposition that that is not a ruling of the House, that the doctrine of this House, as I understand it and as has been explained to me by the President of the Privy Council, is that, indeed, the committee is master of its proceedings. As far as I know it is against the rules to discuss matters which have been discussed in committee while they are pending until the report is made.


Mr. Kempling:: Another gag.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the whip of the Conservative party saying "another gag". I am prepared to hear argument on this matter. I am not an expert in procedure and I doubt whether the whip who is opposite me is an expert. But the point, as I stated, Madam Speaker, is that perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should address to you the question: Was that a ruling that you conveyed to a private member in a letter, or is the rule of this House that committees are masters of their own procedures?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you and 1 both know that it is outside the rules of this House to put a question to you on this matter, although you will probably have an opportunity to decide later. We have here a clear difference in the interpretation in the rules of Parliament between the Speaker of the House of Commons, writing in an official capacity to the chairman of a special committee of the House of Commons, and the government House leader.
Let me ask a question of the Prime Minister which is, admittedly, hypothetical. In the event that it is determined that Madam Speaker is right and the government House leader is wrong, will the Government of Canada agree to initiate immediately proceedings that will ensure that the deliberations of the joint committee on the constitution will be televised and broadcast live, so that Canadians can know what is going on with regard to their constitution in a committee of this House and the Senate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as the Leader of the Opposition has said, the question is hypothetical, and I think it is also somewhat offensive since it presumes on a ruling which you have not yet given. As to the substance of the suggestion of the Leader of the Opposition, I point out to him that one can hardly say that a committee has been gagged when the entire press of the country can be present. The matter of televising or not televising is certainly not one which involves freedom of speech or freedom of the press. It is a matter that I understand the committee has decided in one way after I, at this place in the House, indicated last week that I had no preference one way or the other, and that I thought that the committee should be left free to decide.


An hon. Member:: Don't weasel around; make a decision.

November 6, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the facts will show that I am not a member of that committee, that I have in no way influenced it in one direction or another-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear a lot of "oh's" from the other side. If any single member had even the inkling of a clue to the fact that I had indicated any preference to any committee member, I wish he would stand in his place and contradict me.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister indicated that the committee had decided. The House and the country know that the Liberal party had decided to vote against television and radio coverage of the committee proceedings.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Prime Minister another question. Could he tell me and this House of Commons on what date he, or the government House leader, or the Minister of Justice, or any other minister, first became aware of the contents of the letter dated August 13 to the Liberal member of Parliament for Don Valley East, the chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped? On what date did the knowledge of the contents of this letter dated August 13 become known to any minister of the Crown?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition in the preamble to his question indicated that the Liberal party had decided, if I had not. I fail to see how the Leader of the Opposition can draw that inference if I tell this House that there was no decision on my part and certainly none on the part of cabinet. Members, of course, are free to indicate their preference, but I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition and to every member opposite that it is the Liberal party as a government, after, I would say, years of dragging their feet by the Tories, which moved to bring television to the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What date did you say-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: I was going to remind the Prime Minister of the question, but perhaps he is going to answer it. What 1 want to know is-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Two people cannot have the floor at the same time.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Did the Right Hon. Prime Minister have something to add to that answer?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I had, Madam Speaker, but if he prefers-


Madam Speaker:: Then I will recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister is, on what date did he or any minister of the Crown become aware for the first time of the contents of the letter dated August 13, 1980, to the Liberal member of Parliament for Don Valley East, the chairman of the Special Committee of this House on the Disabled and the Handicapped?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I cannot speak for every member of cabinet but I can be quite precise in my answer to the Leader of the Opposition. It was exactly at 2.20 on November 6, 1980.


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE-PRESENTATION OF INTERIM REPORT-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct a question to the President of the Privy Council, and indicate to him that the entire press is not allowed into that committee; television and radio are not allowed in but, more importantly, Canadians are not allowed to view the proceedings of that committee either.
On October 29, 1980, at page 4214 of Hansard, in reply to my question about the proceedings of the committee the President of the Privy Council said the following:
-and that in this House we cannot decide any procedural question concerning the committee, unless we get a report from committees.
I should like to ask the minister if it is his interpretation that, should an interim report have been presented requesting the permission of the House to broadcast the proceedings of the committee on television and radio, that that, in fact, would have ended the life of the joint committee?


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the question has two faults: first, it is hypothetical and, second, it requests an opinion. I wonder how I could possibly answer a question that is so much out of order.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, a supplementary question for the President of the Privy Council. This is not hypothetical. The matter did come up and it would obviously influence the work of the committee. Because of that interpretation, I should like to quote from Beauchesne, at page 193, citation 591:
A special committee ceases to exist at the moment its final report is presented to the House.
My question relates to an interim report. Is it the policy of this government that, had a report been tabled in this House, in fact its members would be instructed to vote against it on the basis that the committee would end?
November 6, 1980

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, obviously, the question being the same, it would be ridiculous of me to contradict myself and give a reply other than the one I just gave. But may I be allowed, through the question, to indicate to the Leader of the Opposition who questioned the Right Hon. Prime Minister about the matter that, as far as 1 am concerned, since he mentioned my name in his question, I have never read the letter he referred to; I only learned of it at two o'clock on November 6, 1980.


SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE-REQUEST FOR ASSURANCE PROCEEDINGS WILL BE TELEVISED
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. The government House leader said in this House on October 24 that the committee would have the right to decide whether or not to have television, and the Speaker has ruled that she does not have the authority to authorize the use of television unless the House gives her that authority. Therefore, considering the historical importance of this constitutional debate and the right of the people of Canada, through television, to witness this debate, will the Prime Minister assure the House that the government will bring in a motion later today authorizing that committee to televise its proceedings?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, that seems to be an exact repetition of the question asked by the Leader of the Official Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is referring to what the Leader of the New Democratic Party calls a ruling, which I have stated is not a ruling in my view. Perhaps the hon. member's seatmate can tell us if it is a ruling when the Speaker writes a letter, of which none of us seems to have any knowledge on this side, or very few of us anyhow that I see around me. Therefore, I do not conceive how the official opposition can seriously maintain that a ruling has been brought down when just about nobody on this side of the House knows of its existence.


Walter David Baker: Here it is.


Charles Joseph Clark: Is Smith a nobody too?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I see the bearded one over there wanting to get the floor, and maybe you should give him the floor, Madam Speaker, if he wants to ask a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister knows that that answer is not only nonsense, but it was pedantic nonsense of the worst kind.
Oral Questions
Since the referendum some of us in the country representing all three political parties across the land have been prepared to put aside petty politics to create a package for constitutional change which might unite this country. Would the Prime Minister not agree, apart from substance in effecting constitutional change, process in a democracy is just as important?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: If the Prime Minister agrees with that, why is he refusing now to say the people of Canada are going to be permitted the right to see one of the most important debates in the history of our country on television?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I find it objectionable that the hon. member asked his first question in terms of a so-called ruling that has not been given and asked me to base a position of the government on a ruling that does not exist. If he wants to term that pedantic, that is his right. But it would have been less pedantic on his part if he had asked a question without prefacing it with a falsehood.
In so far as my position and that of the government is concerned, it is that the committee can decide what it wants. If hon. members feel very strongly about it, they have representatives on this committee. I am sure they can reopen the question if they want. I am not a member of it. I am abiding by the rules of this House-


An hon. Member:: You gag your own gang.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in not giving instructions to that committee.


Charles Joseph Clark: Not as the Speaker interprets them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I believe that in every other circumstance members opposite would want me to conduct myself in that way.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we have just witnessed at this time, the complete abdication of national leadership, which is so important in this debate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Considering that only one Liberal on that committee, the hon. member for Lincoln, who was widely reported to have been considered to be named chairman of the committee, favoured television and public debate, will the Prime Minister at last admit the truth that it was his government and his Liberal party which decided that television is not to be used, and that the people of Canada are going to be shut out from this important debate?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. gentleman suggests that I admit the truth. I have been telling the truth on this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I really find that offensive.


Charles Joseph Clark: You find the truth offensive?

November 6, 1980
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, I find the small and petty attitude of the Leader of the Opposition offensive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Lincoln is as loyal a Liberal as can be found in this House at any time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can tell the House that the fact that he voted contrary to other Liberal members on that committee is proof of two things; first, that the members are not gagged and, second, that the members were free to vote in the way they wanted.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Baa, baa!


AIR TRANSPORT
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, while I am loth to change the subject, my question is for the Minister of Transport. For the past five to ten years the Department of Transport has adopted an adversary position with regard to General Aviation. Can the minister tell me whether it is his policy or only that of his director of aviation administration when a $5 landing fee is applied to General Aviation landings at major airports, obviously as a deterrent; when no program of support is available for important secondary airports such as Boundary Bay and Toronto Island; when General Aviation aircraft are prevented from landing on available parallel strips to reduce congestion when the practice is common elsewhere in North America; when no formal appeal procedure is allowed when a pilot is given a medical rejection; when DOT regulations are so prohibitive that the U.S. has 60 times as many instrument-rated pilots per capita as Canada and all are allowed to fly in Canadian airspace; when DOT requires encoding altimeters above 14,000 feet, but to put them in is maddeningly unreasonable; and finally when important safety items such as ELTs are treated so casually as to cost lives?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, obviously the head of the department is the minister, and I am responsible for the decisions.


John Raymond Ellis: Will the minister tell me why he allows all of these things to take place when, by consultation with available and knowledgeable associations in the aviation field, he could be a support to General Aviation rather than an adversary?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only take one of these questions. It has to do with landing fees. I presume that was the first question I was asked. It has to do with landing fees for
General Aviation in four of the larger airports in Canada. The purpose is simply to have everyone make a proper contribution to the maintenance of these airports. I looked into this in depth and 1 found that this is the first increase in the last two years. I also found in similar instances in the United States, for example, that the cost of landing fees goes up to $50 as opposed to the $5 my department charges. Therefore, it was a judgment call and the minister made it.


AIRPORTS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Transport. It arises out of the very serious difficulties being experienced by the management of the western air region and, indeed, the Pacific air region as a result of increased service demands caused by a very dramatic increase in traffic. Traffic has increased by some 32 per cent over the last two years, generated revenues from these two regions have increased 100 per cent, yet the region is hampered by its inability to provide adequate services and parking facilities because of inadequate financial resources and centralized bureaucratic control. Is the minister aware of this serious situation that has developed, and what is he doing or contemplating doing about it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I am very much aware of this. The Minister of Finance stated the other day that I had asked him to raise the air transport tax. In return, he promised he would add that revenue to my budget for that particular responsibility in my department. I am now asking cabinet for more money for investment in airports. I will be very pleased to send the hon. member the list of expenditures made in western airports- Edmonton, Calgary, Regina and so on.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: While I appreciate the good intentions of the minister, there are some very immediate and urgent problems which require attention, such as basic maintenance, snow removal and parking. Plans were laid for these some time ago, but for some reason or other they have been withdrawn. Can the minister undertake if he intends any relaxation, that he will provide the respective regions with more leeway with regard to making decisions within their own regions? Also, will he provide commensurate funding to meet the demands that are required because of the increased traffic?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I said a moment ago that I agreed with that. There has been no relaxation and no accentuated centralization as far as I know, and certainly will not be as long as I am minister.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The minister and his officials cancelled a program to enlarge parking facilities at Edmonton International Airport. Why was that program withdrawn? It is a
November 6, 1980

revenue-generating proposition which is self-liquidating, yet the minister saw fit to withdraw that program.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, there will be an opportunity in a few minutes to talk about that specifically because my estimates are before the committee this afternoon. Edmonton has been well treated.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: We will get the figures in a few minutes. Edmonton has three airports. The international airport has been growing; substantial amounts of money have been spent on it. The municipal one is thriving and efforts are being made to assist the Villeneuve airport.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF MINISTER OF STATE FOR MALAWI
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. Bakili Muluzi, Minister of State for Malawi.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


GOVERNMENT EXPENDITURES
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance. The budget announced that Canada will increase its defence spending by 3 per cent in real terms, which represents an increase of $649 million over and above the effects of inflation during the next three years. At the same time, expenditures in the social affairs envelope will fall $1.4 billion behind the projected increases in the CPI; dollars that could and should go to social programs will be spent on expensive armaments. Is it the government's position that over the next three years spending for guns and weapons of war will have a greater priority than spending on programs which will help people very much in need of assistance?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the government expenditure plan has provided for a real growth in defence expenditures over the next several years in accordance with the commitments which it has made to its allies and in accordance with the desirability of maintaining Canadian defence capabilities. I believe that decision is widely accepted in Canada. It does not represent in any way a change in or a downgrading of our priorities in the social field. The fact is that expenditures on social development remain a basic priority, constitute the largest single element in our budget and have
Oral Questions
increased over the past ten years by 300 per cent. I think the hon. member ought to keep those figures in mind as well.


Terence James (Terry) Sargeant: Madam Speaker, this morning the Canadian Council on Social Development reported that this government's budget will have a severe negative impact on the cost of living of lower income Canadians and that it will push both unemployment and inflation higher. Further, in light of the fact that four of our NATO allies, West Germany, Belgium, The Netherlands and Denmark, have all announced that they will restrain their defence spending rather than increase it by 3 per cent, will the minister give an undertaking to this House that he will review our country's commitment in this area with regard to seeing whether we too, like our European allies, can restrain our defence spending in order that social programs will not suffer?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, it is not my intention to review the commitment we have made to essential defence expenditure. I would be inclined to review that commitment if the hon. member could show that there is any downgrading of our commitment to social development. That is not the case. It still remains a basic priority, and each year there is an annual increase in the total amount spent on social development.
The hon. member talked about inflation. That is, of course, an important consideration, but the universal programs in the social development category, as was pointed out by the Minister of National Health and Welfare, are fully indexed against inflation, which adds substantially to the total cost of these programs.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Gilbert Parent (Welland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister. There has been a great deal of speculation in the media in the last few days since the presidential election in the United States regarding the future relationship between Canada and the United States. In view of the fact that this is the fifth U.S. president to be elected since the Prime Minister has been in power, could he indicate to this House what he anticipates will be the relationship with our largest trading partner?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-


Mr. Paproski:: Take it easy now.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am not sure why the opposition is nervous. This is a perfectly legitimate question. I suppose hon. members opposite are frustrated that they have not thought of asking the question themselves. I can assure

November 6, 1980
Oral Questions
them that the press has asked me this question many times. Generally I have deferred to the Secretary of State for External Affairs, but since he is not here I just want to repeat with emphasis that his view is that of the government, to wit, that we expect to have and entertain very good relations with the new administration of the United States when it takes over.
I wrote to the president-elect the night of the election returns not only congratulating him and expressing our desire to continue improving our relations, but also asking him to seek to visit Canada at a very early occasion in his mandate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CROWN CORPORATIONS
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport and is about a matter which has interested me for some time. I refer to the discrepancy between the salaries of the chief executive officers of Air Canada and CNR. I am wondering when this very large discrepancy, which I believe still exists, will be adjusted and whether the failure of the government to do so is related to reported hostility by the Prime Minister to the president of Air Canada as a result of his not buying the airplane the Prime Minister wanted him to buy a while ago, the air bus.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the salaries of both the president of CN and the president of Air Canada have been decided upon. The decision has been made. Is there a connotation that they should have the same amount of money? I could not hear that question. If there is such an implication, this is the first time I have heard about it.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, the hon. minister asked me if there is a connotation that they should have the same amount of money. Since he asked my opinion, I think there ought to be some reasonable parity between the two positions. I think Mr. Taylor is doing at least as good a job as Mr. Bandeen, but let me ask a question on one further point. Can the minister confirm or is he aware of reported moves by the board of Air Canada to increase quite substantially on an unaccountable basis the expense account of Mr. Taylor, perhaps to take into account the period of time when Mr. Taylor's salary was not adjusted while Mr. Bandeen's received a very substantial boost?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Yes, Madam Speaker, I have heard the representations of the members of those two boards. The salaries have been decided upon, and there is a degree of retroactivity in them.


AIR SAFETY
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam
Speaker I also have a question for the Minister of Transport. It is with regard to the alarming statements coming out of the Dubin inquiry into air safety. It has been stated that pilot-controller friction is nearing the danger level, and that the relationship between air traffic controllers and pilots has deteriorated to the point where there could be an incident and that the potential is there for an accident. What action has the minister taken to correct this situation? Has he met with his officials, and can he fill the House in as to what corrective measures he will take in this very serious situation?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, when my predecessor appointed Mr. Justice Dubin to the commission, I understand that there was an informal agreement between them that the department would not make substantial changes to its modus operandi without the consent of the judge. That is my understanding, so consequently each time a subject is brought to the commission it is fully studied by the department. Occasionally the views of the department are put to the judge. A number of actions have been taken, and we might talk about that this afternoon in the committee at which I will be present.


A. Daniel McKenzie: Madam Speaker, charges have also been made at the Dubin inquiry that Air Canada is flying unsafe planes, that Air Canada maintenance supervisors routinely allow passenger jets needing vital repairs to fly, and that many times on-time departures come ahead of safety. Are those statements true or false, and has the minister met with Mr. Taylor to discuss this very serious problem in the maintenance of these planes?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, that is exactly why a commission was created, to receive all these views. Justice Dubin is there to present a report in due course and to decide what is right, what is not as right or what is wrong in what he has heard. This is really the purpose of the commission, and I think it would be illogical for me to comment on allegations made before this commission. I call it the "Parliament of the air". It receives views pro and con, and sooner or later, as Madam Speaker does, Justice Dubin will have to say what he thinks of what has been said before him.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Transport who, as far as Toronto is concerned, does not seem to exist. In view of the fact that the potential solutions to air traffic related problems in and
November 6, 1980

around metropolitan Toronto have been about as dormant as the minister's own activities, could the minister tell this House when decisions will be made and actions taken on such matters as the SOMPS report, which is long overdue, the over-crowded facilities at Toronto International Airport, the disposal of lands at Pickering, Toronto Island and the STOL situation, the expansion of Mount Hope, the Buttonville satellite airport and so forth?
In other words, why the delay in dealing with these long-lasting problems, particularly since his predecessor, the hon. member for Vegreville, made decisions and found solutions to these problems some time ago?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I note that my hon. friend is asking the same question he asked some months ago. The SOMPS report is known. It has been useful in the planning for railway development, airport development and so forth. A decision on the third terminal at Malton will be coming up in the next few months. The decision on the Hamilton airport has already been announced. I do not remember what other elements there were in the question, but I will be pleased to try to answer if I can be reminded of them.


Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, the minister says that my question was similar to one I asked several months ago, and he is indeed right. I did ask that question, no action was taken then, and no action has been taken since.
Since the minister seems to be confused about a variety of questions on air transport in Toronto put together in one question, I will simplify my supplementary question and ask him specifically about the Toronto International Airport situation where, as the minister should know, aircraft movement has increased to over 10,500 aircraft in the last four years, now reaching 59,637 aircraft movements and increasing very rapidly. In view of the fact that the SOMPS report recommended the construction of a third terminal, and because the existing facilities, particularly at terminal 1, are now at times overcrowded and inadequate, will the minister stop stalling and tell us when he will make a decision as to what actions and decisions will be taken at the Toronto International Airport?


Jean-Luc Pepin: I am quite sure, Madam Speaker, that if the hon. member would look at the question he asked me, he would realize that some months ago I gave an answer on the Hamilton airport.


Otto John Jelinek: I was talking about Toronto.


Jean-Luc Pepin: With regard to the third terminal at Toronto International, I gave an answer a moment ago. I said that this was in the course of being decided now and an announcement will be made in the coming months. What else can I do?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Jean-Luc Pepin: You have not been the minister during the last three years; another gentleman was for one.
Oral Questions GRAIN


INQUIRY RESPECTING DISCONTINUANCE OF EMBARGO ON SALES TO U S S R.
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Transport, who sometimes is responsible for the Wheat Board.


An hon. Member:: Sometimes.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: In view of the fact that the United States has moved rather aggressively into our traditional market of China for the sale of wheat, even though they asked us to respect their embargo on wheat to the Soviet Union, and in view of the fact that the Reagan administration is unlikely to favour the continuation of the embargo, would the minister now assure the House and the farmers of Canada that we will ignore the embargo and sell all the grain we possibly can to the Soviet Union?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the Minister of State responsible for the Wheat Board has been saying for a number of weeks now that we will continue to export grain to the Soviet Union along normal and traditional lines. We no longer agree that there should be a maximum or a ceiling on our exports. He has been saying that for a number of weeks now.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: That statement by the minister has been contrary to the stated policy of the government.
I have a supplementary question, Madam Speaker. In view of the shortage of cash on the prairies and since the University of Saskatchewan agricultural economics department has identified losses of $9 million due to the embargo on barley sales, and earlier identified losses of over $120 million on wheat sales, will the government continue to dither over the calculations, or will they establish the payments as quickly as possible and, if so, how much and when?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, my colleague the Minister of Agriculture said a number of days ago that he would come up with an answer to this question within a few weeks. I think he mentioned November, if I remember well. So this situation is being attended to.

[Translation)


NATIONAL PAROLE BOARD
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. Recently, and more specifically in Quebec, much has been made in the newpapers of the request for parole for the terrorist member of the FLQ, Paul Rose, and the fact that a specific request to that effect may be addressed to the Solicitor General. Can the

November 6, 1980
Oral Questions
minister tell the House whether in fact he has had such a request and, if so, what the stand of his department is on it?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, might I underline first of all that the government does not make those types of decisions; they fall within the independent responsibility of the Parole Board. I have been advised by that board that it has not yet reached a decision in the matter of Paul Rose.


THE CONSTITUTION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maison-neuve, in his capacity as one of the joint chairmen of the committee on the constitution, with respect to the business before the committee. As the matter of the televising and broadcasting of the committee's proceedings is not closed, can the joint chairman of the committee tell me when he received the letter of August 13, 1980, from whom was that letter received, and what did he do with it after he received it and before it was produced to the committee?


Mr. Serge Joyal (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Treasury Board):: If Madam Speaker allows me, of course I will answer the question put to me by the opposition House leader. The letter was brought to my knowledge this morning by the clerk of the House attached to the committee at the time when 1 heard of a suggestion originating from a colleague of the hon. member asking committee members to study the possibility of televising and broadcasting the debates of the committee.
That was the first time I read the letter, although during previous discussions about gathering the necessary information on procedures I had already met the clerk, but he did not raise with me the point contained in the letter from Madam Speaker. It was this morning, therefore, that 1 learned of the existence of that letter. Having received and read the letter I asked that it be photocopied for distribution to members of the committee. Having read it and heard comments from various members of the committee I came to the conclusion that the interpretation given by Madam Speaker to the Standing Orders of the House was that broadcasting and televising the debates of a committee fell within the purview of the House of Commons.


Walter David Baker: I have a supplementary question for the hon. member for Don Valley East-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


An hon. Member:: He is chairman of the committee.


Walter David Baker: -with respect to the business of his committee. Could he tell the House when he delivered the letter to his colleague, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, when he received it, whether he gave it to any minister and, if so, to whom?


Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Madam Speaker, may I say through you to the hon. member that 1 never forwarded the reply to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve.


Walter David Baker: To anybody else?


David P. Smith: The seven members of the committee were aware of the reply from Madam Speaker. I do not recall that any other person was sent a copy of it.


Walter David Baker: There are seven Liberal members.


David P. Smith: No, there are two Conservative members and one NDP member.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Transport. The minister will know that his department has prepared detailed costs for improving facilities at Toronto Island Airport so that they could be used for STOL aviation to Ottawa and other points in Ontario, that the cost of this improvement is only $5 million and that the revenue would indicate a pay-back in four years. Will the minister set aside the money immediately to allow that work to be done at the Toronto Island Airport so that the public can take advantage of STOL aircraft service from Toronto?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, with regard to the cost of preparing the Toronto airport for STOL, I do not share the certainty of my hon. friend. I have seen estimates that are not as clear as the figures indicated here. What I intend to do on STOL is, first, to meet, as soon as circumstances will allow, the committee which is constituted of federal participants, officials of my department, members of the regional municipal council, members of the Toronto municipal council and officials of the government of Ontario. I will be meeting them in the coming days to assess what degree of enthusiasm there is on their part for this project. That is one of the first things I will do.
The second thing-and I am doing it now-is finding out if in the estimates of my own department there could be some money allocated for that purpose, but obviously other levels of government would have to do their share.



November 6, 1980


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, I think we all want to know whether the minister is in favour of STOL transport, because his seatmate, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, certainly is supporting research into STOL at de Havilland with the Dash-7 and other planes like it. We would like to know where the minister stands on this. If the minister is in favour of STOL, will he use his best efforts to change the decision of the Canadian Transport Commission to enable Canadians generally to take advantage of pretty excellent technology produced in Canada and demonstrate to people throughout the world that Canadian air technology is first class, so that we have some method of selling and exhibiting it?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, the decision of the CTC was a rather intriguing one, as my hon. friend knows. The decision was a favourable one but "not a strong one". So my own support for the project depends, in good part, on what extent the project will be demonstrated to be a viable one. That is why I indicated a moment ago that I would be in touch with others interested in the same project to see what extent of enthusiasm and money they would allocate to it.


PRESENCE OF SECURITY GUARDS BEHIND CURTAINS IN CHAMBER
Madam Speaker:: I wish to advise hon. members that I have received from the Sergeant-at-Arms a report relating to the presence of members of the protective staff behind the curtains during the sitting of the House on Thursday, October 23, 1980, just prior to the vote.
When it became apparent that the Chair was having certain difficulties in putting the question on that occasion, normal precautionary measures were taken. Members of the protective staff placed themselves in the opposition lobby to be available should the Sergeant-at-Arms require their assistance. The guards moved behind the curtains when it became impossible for them to hear the Speaker or to observe proceedings from the lobby, and they left as soon as the vote was called.
While I am satisfied that the actions of the security guards on that occasion were taken in good faith, in understanding of their duty, and the past practice of the protective service, I have asked the Sergeant-at-Arms to review the procedures to find the most appropriate way in which the protective staff could discharge their important responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, under the condition that you will cause and bring forward such a report out of your office as Speaker of this House, I am prepared to withdraw my question of privilege on this subject.
Privilege-Mr. Clark PRIVILEGE


MR. CLARK-STATEMENTS MADE IN SENATE BY GOVERNMENT MINISTERS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, yesterday I gave notice orally, and again this morning in writing, of a question of privilege which I believe affects the rights of members of the House. I argued a large part of that question yesterday and will not impose upon the time of the House to repeat those arguments, except I want to draw the attention of the Chair, in coming to its decision, to page 4460 of Hansard. In replying to questions from myself and the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) said:
Anyhow I do not intend to comment on what Senator Perrault said in the other place. If he has a question to put in the Senate, he has colleagues there who could do it.
He was referring to me, my colleagues, or any member of this House of Commons. Clearly the purport of it was that the President of the Privy Council did not intend to answer questions relating to government policy in this House which were raised as a consequence of statements made by his colleague in cabinet, the government leader in the other place.
I think the House has a very clear right to know if a new policy is being put forward here by the President of the Privy Council. The general policy followed-and indeed a policy repeated again today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) in replying to a question relating to the Wheat Board-has been that there will be ministers in this House who are prepared to answer to members in this House relating to questions of public policy. That practice is distinctly different from the policy outlined by the President of the Privy Council when he said that if we had questions to put to ministers who serve in the other place, then we should be denied the right as members of Parliament to put them here and, indeed, should pass those questions off to senators or members of the other place.
We have a right to know whether a new policy is being put forward here. Will ministers of the government sitting in the House of Commons be refusing to clarify statements of ministers in the other place, as the President of the Privy Council has now done on two occasions? Will they pretend that they are ignorant of any policy stated on behalf of the Government of Canada by ministers who sit in the other place? Will we now have to arrange, as elected members of the House of Commons, to have questions put by appointed Senators to ministers of the Crown that cannot be put by elected members of the House of Commons to ministers of the Crown? Obviously it would not be an acceptable procedure for us.
Recently, and this was what gave rise to this question, the government House leader in the other place, when asked a question about the possibility of extending the reporting date of the joint committee on the constitution, said the following:
-it is conceivable that the committee may say, "Because of the vast public interest in the work of the committee, we recommend to both the Senate and the Commons that we be given an additional period of time in which to hear other witnesses from across the country."

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Clark
In other words, there was a clear indication by the government House leader in the other place that there would be a willingness on the part of the government to consider extending the date of report of the joint committee on constitutional matters which, as Madam Speaker knows, has been a matter of active debate in the House of Commons. We could not get any confirmation from the President of the Privy Council as to whether or not his colleague in cabinet was speaking for the government when he gave that answer.
We all know that the government House leader, and indeed any minister, has a right to decline a question. There is no obligation upon them to answer, and often they do not answer. They have that right to decline a question, that is well-established, but I do not believe that any minister of the Crown has the right to decline categories of questions and to define categories of questions to which no response will be given. In my judgment, what has been done by the President of the Privy Council in this House is that he has defined a category of questions on which, I gather under no circumstances under his control, does he, at least, intend to reply for the government. That is a category of question relating to statements of government policy made on behalf of the government by ministers in the other place.
Also, I believe it is implicit in what the President of the Privy Council said that his position and the position of the Government of Canada is that elected members of the House of Commons-people who have stood for election and have been elected to this place-are not to be permitted to get answers from elected ministers. Instead we have to go to appointed ministers and ask appointed senators to pose questions to them if we are to have either clarification of public policy or statements of public policy.
The government is responsible collectively for policy enunciated in either this House or the other place. It must be able to respond to either House. Particularly, if I may say so, there is an obligation upon this government to respond to questions put in this elected House by elected members to elected ministers. I am fearful that in the statements and conduct of the President of the Privy Council we have seen a departure from that point.
If Madam Speaker finds a question of privilege, I would move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That the failure of the government to take seriously the right of the opposition to put questions to ministers in this House respecting any statement by any minister on a matter of government policy, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, very briefly and very succinctly, I would like to raise two points. First, I was asked if the statement made by Senator Perrault was government policy. That transpires from comments made before and after my reply and I would like to emphasize that only the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) can
decide and declare in the House whether a statement made outside the House by a minister represents government policy or not. Therefore as minister, as President of the Privy Council and as government House leader I had neither the right nor the power to say whether or not such a statement represented government policy.
Be that as it may-and I am getting to my second point, Madam Speaker-the member for Yellowhead (Mr. Clark), the Leader of the Opposition, referred to part of my statement but he should have read it in full. I spoke clearly, and this is important because those are the facts on which he wants to rest his alleged question of privilege.
This is what I said, and this is my reply which is found on page 4460:
Madam Speaker, the question could perhaps be put in the Senate but I do not know how I could comment on Senator Perrault's reply-
And this is important, I also said:
-with which I am not acquainted. Anyhow I do not intend to comment on what Senator Perrault said in the other place.
Madam Speaker, had I been stupid enough, I would have attempted to comment upon something with which I was not acquainted. However, Madam Speaker, I do not possess the same good qualities and the same faults as the Leader of the Opposition. I could certainly not comment upon a statement with which I was not acquainted, of which I was not aware, and that I did not have the right to comment upon in this House. In any event, Madam Speaker, it is obvious that the Leader of the Opposition, instead of attacking the substance of our constitutional proposal, would rather resort to technicalities and procedural arguments, founded or unfounded, and in this case obviously unfounded, to waste the time of the House and to avoid discussing the substantial issue. Therefore, Madam Speaker, the question raised by the hon. member for Yellowhead, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, is groundless because first, I do not have the right to comment on whether or not a statement made by a minister outside the House is government policy and second, I certainly could not comment upon a statement with which I was not acquainted and of which I was not aware.


Madam Speaker:: With respect to the question of privilege raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), it is quite legitimate that members in this House should insist on receiving answers to the questions which they ask of ministers. That is quite legitimate, but it certainly is not a question of privilege. It is a matter of debate, and quite legitimate, and perhaps it is a very important matter of debate. But it certainly is not a question of privilege.
The Leader of the Opposition further insisted that the minister was introducing categories of questions to which he
November 6, 1980

might or might not answer. I remind him, and all members in the House, that there are no categories of questions to which one might or might not answer. Ministers can choose not to answer questions though, which is their right. In support of this I cite Beauchesne's fourth edition, citation 181(3):
A minister may decline to answer a question without stating the reason for his refusal, and insistence on an answer is out of order, no debate being allowed. A refusal to answer cannot be raised as a question of privilege, nor is it regular to comment upon such refusal. A member can put a question, but has no right to insist upon an answer.
So this has been a matter of debate but, certainly, not a question of privilege.
I have written notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles).


MR. KNOWLES-BROADCASTING OF PROCEEDINGS OF SPECIAL JOINT COMMITTEE ON CONSTITUTION
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, thank you for giving me the floor in response to the notice which I sent to you about an hour ago. I raise a point of privilege having to do with the performance of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the House today, in which I feel he is grossly misleading this House, and in which he is also reflecting on Your Honour. He is also compounding the difficulties that we, as members of this House, have in doing our work.
First, may I flesh out the point that I made about the Prime Minister reflecting on Your Honour. As we all now know, you wrote a letter on August 13, 1980, not to a private member of Parliament, not a letter which was a piece of social correspondence, but an official letter in reply to a letter that the chairman of the Special Committee on the Handicapped and Disabled had written to you on July 11. I have a copy of that letter before me. It is a very interesting two-page letter about the desire, not just of the chairman, but of the committee, to have the facilities of broadcasting coverage for that committee.
As I say, that letter was written to you on July 11. It is obvious that you gave it very thorough consideration, as your reply was dated August 13. Again, your reply was written not just to "Mr. David Smith, MP," but to "Mr. David Smith, MP, Chairman, Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped, House of Commons, Ottawa, Ontario." In the letter you dealt with his request, which he made on behalf of the committee on July 11, for the right of that committee to have television and radio coverage.
In your letter you recounted how television came into being in the House of Commons, but you made the point that when the matter was settled in the House of Commons it was on very clear terms. This is spelled out in the last sentence of your second paragraph, which I quote:
With regard to standing and special committees, the committee submitted a report to the House which, among other matters, stated that it would be contrary to the order of the House for any radio and television coverage to take place in any standing or special committee on TV and radio broadcasting.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
You developed that point further in the last paragraph of your letter and I like the first part in particular-in which you said:
Although I am personally very sympathetic to the endeavours of your Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, it is my opinion that any committee seeking to televise its proceedings must first get the authorization of the House.
I submit that is your opinion as the Speaker of the House of Commons. You stated that any committee seeking radio and television coverage would have to get the authorization of the House first. I resent very much the Prime Minister standing up today and saying that that might not be an opinion. He said, "How do we know it is an opinion? It is just a letter that the Speaker wrote to a private member of this House." We all know that we cannot ask you questions on the floor of the House. But we also know that the rule is that if any member puts a direct question to Your Honour, you are obligated to reply. I submit that the reply you made in that letter is an opinion. It is a firm ruling that, in your view, no committee could have authorization from you to institute radio and television coverage but would have to get the authorization of the House of Commons. The Prime Minister stood up today and said, "Oh, that was just a personal letter. It was a hypothetical position which members opposite are putting up."


John Edward Broadbent: Sheer rubbish!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, that is bad enough in itself. But bearing in mind that a question of privilege, to be valid, has to relate to something which is interfering with the capacity of the members of this House to do their job, I recount for you what we have had to endure in this respect when we have asked, from this side of the House, for television and radio coverage of the committee on the constitution. The answer has been that "it is up to the committee", "the committee can do it", "the committee is free", "the Prime Minister has no opinion", and so on. But when we get to the committee and we try to make a motion-the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) this morning presented a motion that we have radio and television coverage-we are met with the statement by the chairman of the committee that he has learned that there is a letter from Your Honour which deals with this matter which says that the committee cannot do so.
At that point I am satisfied that the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal) had not even seen the letter. I know that he had not seen it because he said things about it which turned out to be incorrect. He said that he understood that there was a letter from you, Madam Speaker, saying that it would be illegal-or at least that it would not be legal-to authorize the coverage of our committee. I pointed out that the Speaker never gives a legal or constitutional opinion, that the Speaker can only give opinions on points of order. The hon. member accepted that.
At the end of that procedural discussion the chairman agreed that it was possible for the committee to broadcast its proceedings if it received the authority of the House. So the

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
next thing, of course, was that there was a debate on that motion. And then, all of a sudden, some other member turns up with a point or order that because the motion which set up our committee did not have in it the phrase, "the right to report from time to time", we could not make a report requesting television coverage without running the risk of that bringing on the end of our committee.
I believe that we on that committee have the right to say that this frustration has gone a little bit too far.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: We come back to the House and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) raises the point with the Prime Minister that it has been established that the committee cannot be televised unless it receives the authority of the House on the basis of your ruling. Then the Prime Minister stands up and says that that is just a private letter Madam Speaker wrote to a member of the House.
Surely things are a little more firm, a little clearer than that. This is a run-around and it is a case of being pushed from pillar to post. I say that if ever there was a case of members of Parliament being denied the opportunity to do their job as members of Parliament, it is on this issue of the right even to request radio and television coverage of the proceedings of that joint committee.
I am doing my best to stick to the procedural point. I am not getting into the substance of the debate in the committee, although I am tempted to do so after the things which I heard this morning in the committee as to the reasons why it should not be broadcast or televised, such as, "the lights would be too hot", "some people won't want to come", and "too many would come." We had the silliest arguments I have ever heard.


An hon. Member:: All by Liberals.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Do not condemn all the Liberals. There was one Liberal there who voted our way. Everyone was present, for the vote and even the non-presiding chairman voted. It was a clear gang-up. You may say, Madam Speaker, that that is up to the committee, and one cannot deny that the committee has the right to make the decision by a majority, but it comes only after we have been pushed from one position to another. First we are told the committee can make its own decision, and then we get into the committee we are told, first of all, that we cannot, then we are told that we can only have broadcasting if we get the authority of the House, and then we are told that we cannot even ask the authority of the House without causing the committee to die.
It makes one wonder if the drafting of the motion to set up the committee was not done so carefully as to leave out the right to submit reports from time to time. I submit that the authority of the members of the House to do their job is being frustrated and challenged by this position taken by the side opposite. The Prime Minister said that it is up to the committee, and the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has said the same thing. I suppose that the President of the Privy
Council will now say that the committee has decided by a vote of 13 to 11 that it does not want coverage of the proceedings.
Even if the motion had. carried, there was still the other point of order as to how we may submit a report without bringing about the demise of the committee. Some Conservative said, "Let's submit it and get the committee over with." But surely this is not the way to run a free Parliament or a committee system. My leader said in the question period today that since the days of the referendum some of us have been doing everything possible on the side of redrafting our constitution and making headway in that area. My leader and the rest of us in this party have taken a certain amount of flak because we have found some good things in the proposition before us. I do not know how much longer we can take that flak from one side and take this kind of abusive treatment from the government of the day.
Just this afternoon my leader suggested that the Prime Minister might put a motion, today, to give the committee authority to have its proceedings covered by radio and television. The Prime Minister wondered why he should put such a motion when the letter written by the Speaker to the chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped was only a personal, private letter, not an opinion.


Mr. Lalonde:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: 1 believe that the co-chairman of the joint committee did not see the letter until some time around 11.30 or twelve o'clock this morning in the middle of the committee meeting. He had been told that there was such a letter. As I have said, on the basis of that letter the hon. member first of all said it was illegal, then he backed away from that once he received the letter and said that the motion was in order but it was clear that we could not proceed by ourselves, that we must go to the House. Surely this matter must be straightened out.
The Prime Minister could have straightened everything out today in a very few seconds by simply saying, "All right, the government will bring in the necessary motion giving the committee the power to have radio and television coverage." Your letter, Madam Speaker, made it quite clear that it is not determined for all time that television and radio are to be only in the House of Commons. Your letter makes it clear that, as the order now stands, coverage can be only of the House, but that it can be extended to the committees if the House so orders that a committee can have permission to have radio and television coverage.
Some of us feel that, in view of the importance of this issue, the Prime Minister should have grabbed at the opportunity today, but he failed to do so. Perhaps I am a little more worked up about this matter than I sometimes am on these issues, but it is because I sat through most of that committee meeting this morning. I was at a committee meeting chaired by you, Madam Speaker, for a while. Then I left it to go to the other, then I left that one and went to another, then I went back to it, and it was only an organizational meeting called for 9.30. I thought it would last for 15 or 20 minutes, but it was
November 6, 1980

still going at approximately 12.45, and even then it adjourned to meet again at 3.30, and I do not know how long it will last.
There is a lot of good will around here. Even my friends to the right, who sometimes sound as thought they are contentious and cantankerous over the issue, I believe are approaching this matter with a degree of good will, certainly good faith. But the good will is being dried up by virtue of the kind of performance we had at a simple organization meeting of that committee which is still not over. 1 think it is a serious matter which should be gone into.
If the matter cannot be resolved in any other way and you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, Madam Speaker, related to the misleading statements made by the Prime Minister, I would be prepared to make the appropriate motion to the effect that the question of the way in which a committee can get radio and television coverage, in light of the motion which is on the books of the House of Commons, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has advanced a case for Parliament. In supporting him in that case, I think it is important that we recount the history of this matter. First, there has been a history of stifling of debate and discussion in this House of Commons. That has been the underpinning of the history of this matter. Standing Order 33, closure was invoked before all members of Parliament had a chance to answer the invitation of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that all members should have an opportunity to speak.
Second, there was a refusal to increase the time during which the committee could respond to the matter. Third, we now have the issue that was raised today, namely, that the Prime Minister is further attempting to stifle, submerge, hide under the rug, put away or put aside the right of the public to view what is happening in this House of Commons, by playing games with the rules. If ever the government House leader had a duty as a parliamentarian, it is to rise in his place now and say, as a member of the government, that if that is the opinion of the Chair-and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has correctly characterized that opinion- then the government accedes to it on the grounds of openness. If it is necessary for this House to move, then the government House leader ought to bring in such a motion.
I say to him, Madam Speaker, and I repeat what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said, that if such a motion is brought in today-and apparently that is what is required according to your ruling on the question of procedure-it will go through without debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!
Privilege-Mr. Knowles


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre agrees with me. The government knows, therefore, that it is not going to lose precious time.
I ask the government House leader, through you, Madam Speaker, in support of the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre and in an effort to preserve something of respectability and the sense of openness in this institution, given the importance of the discussion before that committee, to stand in his place now and say that he will bring forward the appropriate motion in light of the assurances that I have given.
I think this is important, Madam Speaker. I think it is very relevant to the operation of this place that he, as leader of the House of Commons, clear up this mess, a mess created by his leader and a situation that is absolutely intolerable to the appropriate operation of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Lome Nystrom (Yorkton-Melville):: Madam Speaker, as someone who was at that committee this morning, I should like to say a few words on the subject.
Earlier the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that your letter does not really mean that a ruling was made. I want to say to you very clearly, Madam Speaker, that the feeling of all members at that committee this morning was that a ruling had been made. The letter was hanging over the heads of the members of the committee and was taken as a ruling by all those present.
Someone has already said that we had an indication by the Prime Minister on an earlier occasion in the House that we would be free to choose whichever path we wanted in regard to broadcasting the proceedings of the committee on radio and television.
We also had the statement of the government House leader that the committee was free to determine its own course and make its own decision. That is the understanding we had in committee this morning. The co-chairman of the committee is my good friend, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal)-

-and I have a great deal of admiration for him. He has, for a very long time, been one of my best friends in the House. I find he deals honestly with all hon. members.

He had drawn to his attention during the proceedings, I gather-and perhaps he could enlighten the House on this in detail for a few moments-the letter from yourself to the chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. He had to read that letter to the members of the committee. It was our clear impression at that time that if we were to decide that the committee's proceedings should be televised, that would go against your ruling, Madam Speaker. With that type of information before the committee, I am sure that a number of members felt somewhat intimidated.

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
An hon. member from New Brunswick said that if we were to report back to the House with a request that the committee's proceedings be televised, that would terminate the committee; it would be the end of that committee. He quoted to that effect from some books on procedure. It was a double whammy, Madam Speaker-not only were we perhaps doing the wrong thing, but if we came back to the House with a request for permission to televise the committee hearings, that would be the end of the constitutional committee. At that I noticed some members who were sitting opposite me wilt like flowers on a hot July day-except for the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey).
I think it is very important, Madam Speaker, that you understand that the impression left with that committee was that this was a ruling. The interpretation given by the Prime Minister today may be valid in his own mind and in the minds of some others who were not there, but it was not the impression of those of us who were at the committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, you will note that I submitted to you in writing a notice of motion on the same question prior to the calling of orders of the day this afternoon.
I intend to raise one or two matters, possibly for clarification, regarding what I believe has resulted in the violation of the rights of individuals and members of Parliament.
I support the position taken by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). I could wish that he had been a little more vigilant about the protection of the rights of members when the motion was passed, however.


Charles Joseph Clark: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the government House leader has said on a number of occasions that the committee is master of its own proceedings. For instance, at page 4162 of Hansard he is reported as follows:
I am of the opinion that the joint committee which will be established will have the power to determine whether or not it wishes its deliberations or proceedings to be broadcast.
That is quite clear. On October 24, as reported at page 4074 of Hansard, he said:
It will be up to the committee to decide whether the debates should be televised. As to the material organization that would be involved that aspect would come under the responsibility of Madam Speaker.
So it has been very clearly stated in this House by the government House leader that the committee had the right and the power to establish whether television and radio broadcasting should be used by the joint committee studying the constitution.
During the debate on that motion that I placed before the committee, the co-chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal), made committee members aware of a letter that he had received regarding your ruling, set out in the letter dated August 13, 1980, to
the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith). I want to say to the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, through you, Madam Speaker, that members on this side who sit on that committee, fully accept his assurance when he said he had not had knowledge of this letter prior to raising the matter in committee. There is no doubt in my mind that such is the case. I think the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, if he were asked, would accept the proposition that your letter of August 13 had a considerable effect on the determination and on the discussion that ensued after the information was made known to the committee.
I should just like to read one additional sentence from your letter, Madam Speaker, that has not been read as yet. In the third paragraph there appears the following:
Failing such a decision of the House-
Namely, on television broadcasting.
-the committees are without authority to broadcast their proceedings.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that your letter was interpreted by the co-chairman as a ruling that even if the committees had passed a motion to permit television and/or radio broadcasting of the proceedings of the joint committee, in fact the committee was not empowered to do so on the basis of your ruling as expressed in the letter of August 13, 1980, to the hon. member for Don Valley East. Possibly the entire work of the committee, in terms of moving motions for the right to have the proceedings broadcast on television and radio, was futile as the decision had been taken some months earlier by yourself. Madam Speaker, that such was not possible.
I think we find ourselves in a "Catch 22" situation now, Madam Speaker, regarding our privileges. On the one hand we have your ruling, while on the other hand we have the assurances of the government House leader and the assurances of the Prime Minister today. On October 29, however, as reported at page 4214 of Hansard, when reaffirming that the committee was master of its own procedure, the government House leader said:
Madam Speaker, as Liberals we respect the freedom of our members and I must say to the hon. member that the committee is master of its own procedure, that it is not parliamentary tradition for the House of Commons to get involved in organizing the work of the committee-
Here are the pertinent words:
-and that in this House we cannot decide any procedural question concerning the committee, unless we get a report from committees.
That question as to whether or not television and radio broadcasting should be allowed in the committee was raised by a Liberal hon. member from New Brunswick. The reference was to page 193 of the current edition of Beauchesne, section 591, which reads:
A special committee ceases to exist at the moment its final report is presented to the House.
It was the interpretation of our members, and I believe it was also the general interpretation, that we had to refer back to the House for permission in order to have broadcasting. Yet the interpretation given was that if the interim report was
November 6, 1980

made to this House, the joint committee would also cease to exist. Not only is it a difficulty in a "Catch 22" situation for members of the committee in terms of broadcasting, but it also raises serious doubts as to whether there arises any other need for clarification of assurances given by the government leader in the other place that the date was also a matter which could be examined by committee members and a report could come back to Parliament. On that issue as well members are now caught in a dilemma because should such a report be brought forward, the committee would end. I do not interpret Section 591 in that way at all because it refers to a final report, not an interim report. I believe that the interpretation as well is wrong.
What I am saying to you, Madam Speaker, is that these interpretations were given, quite apart from the assurances we have from the government House leader (Mr. Pinard) from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and from the government leader in the other place that in fact this committee had the right to determine the presence of radio and television broadcasting.
With those assurances, and in view of the developments which have now taken place, I believe that my privileges as a member of that committee have not been respected. I believe that, before the committee can continue, this matter should be clarified. If not, the good will of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaks, which was resident in the committee and which I believe is still there, will be eroded. I would think it is incumbent upon this House to clarify the matter now.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, since in any procedural debate, the letter and the spirit of the rules as well as the precedents must be considered, in order to be consistent with the position I have always taken in this House concerning the televising of committee proceedings, 1 wish to say immediately that I accept the request to reconsider the situation and that 1 hope to be able to report to my colleagues before the adjournment today on the position of the government, pursuant, however, to the Standing Orders of this House and to parliamentary practice.
Having said this, and without binding the government at this stage concerning the decision which might be made on this matter, I would still like to comment on the procedure to be followed if the government decides to abstain from getting involved in the decision of the committee.
Once again, I emphasize that these comments will be subject to the action that I will take in the next few minutes and the report which will be made later today, I hope, to the House of Commons.
First of all, Madam Speaker, reference has been made to a letter that you wrote to the chairman of a special committee of the House. As I said earlier during the question period, I was informed of this letter at two o'clock today. Before that, I was
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
not aware of its existence and even less of its contents. I read it while the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was speaking.
1 should inform you that the Prime Minister specified in his reply to the House a little earlier that he had read this letter and had been informed of its existence only around 2.20 this afternoon.
So it is undeniable, Madam Speaker, that cabinet members-and I give the benefit of the doubt to opposition members. I presume that the Leader of the Opposition and his House leader, as well as the House leader of the New Democratic Party and his leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent)-I give them all the benefit of the doubt and I take their word that they were not aware either before this morning of this letter. However, in spite of the answer given by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith) to the effect that a copy of this letter had been handed some time ago to the committee members, to some backbenchers-


Marc Lalonde: They had been informed.


Yvon Pinard: In any event, what I am saying should not upset my colleagues opposite since I say that I give them the benefit of the doubt as to whether or not they were aware of the existence of this letter. So as far as we are concerned, we were not aware of it. I do not think the Leader of the Opposition nor the Leader of the NDP was aware of it. Whatever the nature of this letter, Madam Speaker, and also in keeping with the reservations I expressed earlier regarding the openmindedness that we want to demonstrate, as the Prime Minister said so clearly, this letter does not constitute a ruling because it is just an opinion. It is so true that in the very text of the letter, the last two lines of the conclusion read as follows:

-it is my opinion that any committee seeking to televise-
And so on.

That is an opinion, Madam Speaker, which was expressed in light of advice given to you at the request of a member, and an opinion voiced without the benefit of arguments from either side of the House. So it is not a decision of the House after a procedural debate and, in my humble opinion, I do not consider that the opinion contained in that letter amounts to any kind of precedent whatever on which to base arguments in this instance.
In addition, and I say so with respect, Madam Speaker, I do not agree with the person who offered you that advice and, as I said earlier, it is obvious that my opinion on the subject is known. I have always considered that a decision of the House, the one taken in January, 1977, and approved by the House, did allow the televising of debates in the House and in committees, it is clear from that decision. I have always maintained and I still maintain that that decision of the
4506

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
House, which was voted on and accepted by the House, must have precedence over any report from a subcommittee or from special committees which has not been endorsed by the House. What your adviser told you in that opinion, Madam Speaker, is that the special committee responsible for supervising the advent of television in the House had tabled a report some time in November, 1977. But one significant fact he forgot, or even if he did mention it-and no one seems to have taken that into consideration-is that that report is worth absolutely nothing from a legal standpoint, from a procedural standpoint, because the House never did concur with it. I feel it would be the height of stupidity to pretend that a report which has not been approved by the House must gain precedence over a decision or an order of the House. I am convinced that no hon. member would argue the contrary.
So, Madam Speaker, with respect I would suggest that the opinion given to you by your adviser in this instance does not take into account the fact that the report of the committee responsible for conducting that experiment has never been approved by the House. Therefore the decision of the House takes priority and that decision is explicit and very clear. We agreed that Parliament, that the House and the committees had the right to televise their debates. If at a given moment the special committee which no longer exists had deemed advisable to submit a report it would have done so. Its mission, and I was a member of the committee as was the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), was to supervise the experiment. We wanted to be certain that the introduction of television in the House, that this experience would show that it could be done while respecting the principle of electronic Hansard. This took place in 1977. I am convinced that if the special committee were still in existence in 1980, its recommendation would probably be different because, in the light of experience, experience which the committee did not have back in 1977 when it submitted its report which was not accepted by the House, it is obvious that the concept of an electronic Hansard can be respected when our proceedings are televised.
On this first point of the content of the letter, which is not an order of the House but simply an opinion, I say that the letter does not bind anybody, that the adviser who gave you his opinion on the subject forgot to attach enough importance to the fact that the report of the committee was never approved by the House and that he did not recognize the fact that we have a three-year experience of televising our proceedings, which can be of some benefit to the members of the committee, which makes them experienced enough to make their decision to televise their own proceedings. There is also, Madam Speaker, the fact we should face, namely, that this morning the committee decided against broadcasting the proceedings on television and on radio by 13 votes against 11. That is a fact.
Thus, the situation in which we find ourselves following the request made by my hon. colleague, the House leader of the
Progressive Conservative Party, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, if we are to meet his request, is the following: on the one hand, we have to decide whether we may, without offending the committee members and without any disregard to that institution which is a committee of the House, intervene and say that your decision is not right and, on the other hand, we on the government side have to decide whether the committee proceedings will be televised. It can also be done by negotiation with the members of the committee in light of the new development, that is, the letter in question. Though we do not agree with its contents, and despite the fact the opinion it expressed at the very last minute, and the persons involved and concerned were advised of it a bit later, they can be consulted, as well as the House of Commons, and negotiations can be held with the House leaders. So, what I mentioned at the start of my remarks is this: subject to new developments or those consultations, Madam Speaker, which could lead to an agreement on televising those proceedings, I still wanted to dot the i's with regard to the lack of legal or parliamentary basis of the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and those who spoke after him.
However, there is more. I said a while ago that we were, that I was willing to take steps in an attempt to try to give an answer in this regard to the House later on today, but I referred at that time to the attitude that has always been mine, as well as that of the right hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), with regard to the televising of those proceedings. That attitude is this

I even remember the very words used then by the Right Hon. Prime Minister, specifically, that he was neither for nor against it, and that strictly from a procedural point of view he felt, as I still do, that it was up to the committee to decide on its procedure, including the televising of its proceedings.
For my part, I said that if it were only a matter of cost, in the case where the committee should decide or had decided on televising its hearings, two additional formalities would have to be respected. First, it would not suffice for the committee to decide that its hearings are to be televised; its decision would have to be ratified by the Senate since we are dealing here with a joint committee; and, second, I said that the commission of internal economy, under your chairmanship, Madam Speaker, would have to approve the expenditure. I have always maintained in this House that money would not be an issue, as far as I was concerned, that would prevent the hearings of the committee from being televised. Let that be clear. The stand 1 have always taken with regard to the televising of debates has always been the one I have just outlined, just as it has also been that of the Right Hon. Prime Minister.
So, in view of the circumstances, we have never said that the House of Commons was against their being televised: we said it was up to the committee to decide, the cost being subject to the approval of the Senate and the commission of internal economy. And there was one condition, that the televising of the proceedings, apart from not being contrary to the concept
November 6, 1980

of an electronic Hansard, was not to result in delaying the report of the committee. That was the only condition I had put on the televising of this committee's proceedings. The fact the proceedings would be televised was not, for any consideration, to allow the committee to report later than December 9.
Having said that, Madam Speaker, I conclude by repeating that in the next few minutes I shall take steps and consult in order to determine whether, without limiting the rights of anyone, we can come to an amicable agreement about the televising of those proceedings as quickly as possible, provided the fact the debates will be televised does not result, first, in delaying the report of the committee and, second, in hindering the work of the committee. Even if the televising should start in a few days, that should not prevent the committee from pursuing the work it has started. Third, I would not want either to prejudge the decision of the Senate which will necessarily have to be consulted regarding that matter, because it is a joint committee. I would not want to place the Chair or the other commissioner of internal economy under any obligation, but I do not see that this would be a major problem, since 1 am one of the commissioners of internal economy and have already mentioned this issue to some of the others, and they do not see any problem in this regard. That takes care for now of the issue of televising the committee proceedings.
There is a second issue involved in the comments made by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). Concerning the report of the committee, he read, in the English version of Beauchesne, section 591, on page 193, which says the following:
A special committee ceases to exist at the moment its final report is presented to the House.

It is interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that the French version is more explicit. If you look at the Fifth edition of the French version of Beauchesne, on page 197, you will Find the following under section 591-and the wording is so different in the French edition that section 591 contains two numbered subsections, while the English version has only one paragraph:
(1) II importe que la motion proposant restitution d'un Comite mentionne que celui-ci doit faire rapport de temps a autre, car s'il le faisait une fois sans autorisation, il cesserait d'exister.
It is therefore quite obvious that when the House considered the motion, it knew or should have known that the wording of the motion did not authorize the committee to report occasionally. In this case, the procedure seems to me relatively clear. There is a difference between the English and French versions of Beauchesne, but no contradiction. The French text is much more explicit and much more complete, and I thought it my duty to inform the House of this difference because it is always a good idea to have a complete picture rather than half-truths.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
Madam Speaker, this is what I had to say about these questions which, essentially, are not questions of privilege, but we are willing in this case, as we have always been, to co-operate and show our good faith.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege. I am pleased to learn from the government House leader that his government is prepared to reconsider its position which, to this point, has been one of refusing to allow television and radio coverage of the discussions on Canada's constitution. I do not know in what position the comments of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) in relation to a decision of yours leaves the Chair. That is a matter you will have to decide as, indeed, you will have to decide what interpretation it would be appropriate to place upon the comments offered by the President of the Privy Council in relation to certain of your advisers. That is a matter for you to consider as you review his remarks.
For my part and that of my party, I can simply say that on many occasions we have learned to interpret your opinion as a ruling. That is probably the position that is held by most members of this House of Commons. I regret that it should be put into some question by the government House leader, but that is a matter you will have to consider.
1 want to make one or two points. One is certainly that a decision by the government to reconsider its refusal to let television and radio into the committee should not be seen as disposing of the question of privilege because, if they continue to persist in that refusal and not let the public know what is going on, the question of privilege will be very much alive.
I think it is also obvious to all of us, since there appears to be some doubt on the other side as to whether Your Honour's decision is a decision in the letter to the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), that it is going to be important for all of us to have clarified exactly what is the capacity of a committee of this House of Commons in relation to having television and radio coverage of its proceedings.
If I might, I would like for the benefit of the House-I know Your Honour needs no reminding of it-to review the elements upon which Your Honour based your decision in your letter to the chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped. You were referring to the deliberations of the Special Committee on Television and Radio Broadcasting of the Proceedings of the House and its Committees, and you went on to say, and I quote from your letter:
With regard to standing and special committees, the committee submitted a report to the House which, among other matters, stated that it would be contrary to the order of the House for any radio and television coverage to take place in any standing or special committee on TV and radio broadcasting.
A motion on the order paper, during the 31st Parliament, which would have appointed a special committee to supervise the implementation of radio and television broadcasting in committees was not debated before that Parliament dissolved. To date, during the current Parliament, no further action has been taken in respect to the broadcasting of the proceedings of committees. Failing

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
such a decision of the House, the committees are without authority to broadcast their proceedings.
You concluded with the following:
Although I am personally very sympathetic to the endeavours of your Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, it is my opinion that any committee seeking to televise its proceedings must first get the authorization of the House.
I refer to those reasons given in your capacity as Speaker of the Elouse of Commons in response to a formal request for a ruling by a chairman of a special committee of this House, because I think it important that it be understood that your decision was not related to the nature of the committee from which the request came, nor to the nature of the request. Your decision was based, as your letter makes clear, upon the deliberations of the special committee which had looked into television and radio broadcasting, and its conclusions and the fact that there had not been an opportunity for a successor committee to consider any of those matters. I think it is important that that be borne in mind and what we in this party regard as a clear ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons on a question on which her decision has been requested in a formal way by the chairman of a special committee of this House.
I think it will be useful for the whole House to know just how this letter came into the possession of the committee. Indeed, I was not clear from the response of the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve (Mr. Joyal)-and 1 am sure it was my fault and not his-as to whether the letter was presented to him by the clerk of his committee. He indicates it was the clerk of his committee. It was not clear whether it was the clerk of his committee or the clerk of the Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped.
I think there will be some lively interest in this House as to how the clerk of that committee came into possession of that letter, a letter which had not been generally known about or generally circulated either to the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), to myself or-we have the word of the government-any ministers of the Crown. I think that will be something which we will all want to be informed about.
The government House leader made reference to the fact that the committee has itself taken a decision on this matter. 1 want to make only two, 1 hope, non-contentious points. The first is that that was very much a party decision. The vote was 13 to 11.


An hon. Member:: Twelve.


Charles Joseph Clark: Excuse me, 12 to 11? Thirteen to 11. I am reminded by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) that I should not be referring to votes. I apologize for falling into the habit which has been practised by his government House leader. My colleague tells me that there is nothing improper with that, and I am sure you would interrupt me if there was, Madam Speaker. The point is that it was a party vote. The representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party and New Democratic Party on that committee voted for the right of the people to see and hear what was
going on. With the one exception of the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey), the members of the Liberal party of that committee voted against the right of the people to see and hear what was going on.
The other matter which is important to note is that the vote was taken in that committee after there had been a ruling offered by the chairman, then in the chair the hon. member for Hochelaga-Maisonneuve, indicating that the committee did not have the power to do what the motion was asking it to do. 1 think we can assume that there was at least the possibility that some of the members who voted against the motion did so because they thought they were being asked to do something which would violate one of Your Honour's rulings. I think it probable that on their minds was the fact that they would not want to violate a ruling Your Honour had made in your official capacity as Speaker in response to an official request by a chairman of a special committee of the House of Commons.
The government House leader made reference to decisions which have to be taken in the Senate and by the commission of internal economy. We naturally do not dispute the necessity of the other place's agreeing to this change in the procedures and the reference to the special joint committee, just as it has agreed to other terms of reference of that committee. That is obvious, and I hope that could be achieved speedily. Indeed, I have been impressed by the independence of thought of Liberal members in the other place and hope that that proves contagious in this House.
In relation to the commissioners of internal economy I simply want to remind the government House leader of his own words as reported at page 4162 of Hansard. He said, and I quote:
If the committee wishes to be broadcast, then all that needs to be considered is the financing. The financing will be allowed if it is requested through the commission of internal economy at this level.
The financing absolutely "will be allowed". In other words, there was no objection on October 28 on the basis of financing, in the words of the government House leader. I am sure that in the interest of consistency, since he had no objection then, he will have no objection now or later.
I think what is clear is that the decision is the decision which has to be taken by the government itself. It is a decision this House of Commons must take, and I am pleased that the government is pulling back from secrecy and is prepared to consider at least giving the people of Canada the right to see and hear the discussion on the Constitution of Canada.
I must comment quickly on the suggestion of the government House leader in relation to the interim report and the capacity of the joint committee to make an interim report. He is arguing that the terms of reference are either ambiguous on the question of preventing the special joint committee from making such a request. If that is so, I am sure that is an oversight. I would not want to believe, nor would the people of Canada, that that joint committee was deliberately denied by this government the right to make interim reports on matters important to it.
November 6, 1980

I am sure if that is the interpretation the government House leader places upon the matter, since he is now prepared to reconsider the question of televising and radio broadcasting of the proposals, he would also be prepared to submit a change in the terms of reference which would allow interim reports to be made if it was found necessary for them to be made.
I think what is at issue here is a fundamental principle. We are in a situation where there have been two gags applied to Parliament so far, one in closure which cut off the right of this House of Commons to debate the Constitution of Canada, and a second in the insistence of all of the government, with the exception of the government House leader in the other place, on the December 9 deadline. We hope that the government House leader in the other place will prove to be persuasive and bring members of the government to his point of view so that there will in fact not be an artificial limitation on the right of Canadians to be heard on this important question. That is a two-piece gag. We hope there will not be a three-piece gag by also refusing the people of Canada the right to see and hear discussions by their Parliament about their constitution.
What is at issue here is the principle that the public of Canada has a right to know about the Constitution of Canada. That is a position that is upheld universally here. I am pleased to see that as a result of frequent pressure there is now at least some willingness to reconsider the refusal to let the people of Canada see and hear what is being said about their constitution by their elected and appointed representatives. I hope that decision will result in a reversal of the position that the government has taken to shut the public out of constitutional discussions.
I repeat my point that even a decision of that kind, if it is taken by the government, may not necessarily dispose of the question of privilege which is before us, nor will it of itself clarify the question as to whether a committee of this House has the right to decide on its own whether to have its proceedings covered live by radio and television.


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, on this question of privilege I want to augment what my leader was saying with regard to comments by the government House leader a few minutes ago when he read from the French version of Beauchesne as to the ability of the committee to make interim reports. There are a number of matters which are before the committee at present which may require the committee, so that it may conduct its affairs properly, to make reports to both Houses.
Before you make your ruling on this question of privilege, Madam Speaker, it would be useful to bring to your attention the fact that on Monday night in the Senate a motion was moved to amend the main motion. The amendment was moved by Senator Smith, and in it he asked that the time given to the committee be extended before it makes its report. While that debate was taking place, Senator Ray Perrault, Leader of the Government in the Senate and a member of the cabinet, intervened to explain why he felt it was unnecessary for the
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
Senate to amend the motion and to lengthen the time available to the committee before making its report. Senator Perrault said this as the government House leader in the Senate, as reported at page 1146 of the Senate Hansard of November 3:
As far as the proposal to extend the time of the hearings is concerned, I have received advice from the Clerk of the Senate because advice was sought on this point, that it would be possible for the joint committee to recommend extended hearings. The joint committee in an interim report to both Houses could ask for an extension of the reporting date. Both Houses, of course, would have to adopt such a report simultaneously. The possibility exists, then, according to our Senate procedural advisers, that an extension of time could be considered by the joint committee, and 1 want to assure honourable senators on that point.
On the basis of that assurance from the government House leader in the Senate that it would be possible for the committee to make an interim report to request that the time limit be extended, the Senate then proceeded to vote against the proposed amendment.
I would request from you, Madam Speaker, a ruling on the matter raised by the government House leader when he said that any report made by that committee would result in the termination of that committee, because clearly the information given by his counterpart in the Senate was completely contrary to that. It was given to the Senate on November 3. We saw yesterday and today that the government House leader in this House refuses to feel bound in any way by commitments made by the government House leader in the Senate, but clearly a joint committee is in existence, the membership of which is drawn from both the Senate and the House of Commons. It is incumbent upon the government to speak with one voice and to make it clear whether or not members of a committee ought to have their hands tied, or whether they will be able to report to both Houses to request that important changes be made to the terms of reference. This is essential, and I do not see how the committee can continue its work unless it knows the rules under which it is operating.
So I would request from you that when you give your ruling on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) you also clarify, for the benefit of the House, the point raised by the government House leader in contradiction of the explicit undertaking made by the government House leader in the Senate.


Hon. Janies A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, there is a very important element to this and I hope that the Chair will not lose sight of it. It is one that causes me considerable concern. I say to the Chair with great respect, and to those who advise the Chair, that I am not at all satisfied that there was no knowledge on the government Treasury benches of this ruling by the Special Committee on Television and Radio Proceedings of the House of 1977 or by your immediate and distinguished predecessor. It seems to me that Mr. Speaker Jerome ruled on this matter as well. I find it passing strange that when the government House leader was giving me an assurance on October 24, as reported at page 4074 of Hansard of that day, that:
It will be up to the committee to decide whether the debates should be televised.
-the existence of this letter, or the report of the Special Committee on Radio and Television Proceedings of the House

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
and its subsequent adoption by the House, or the subsequent ruling by Mr. Speaker Jerome, would not be known to any single member of the government and would not be known, for example, to the Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) who was the government House leader when these rulings were made. Yet the Deputy Prime Minister, the former government House leader, did not intervene when the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) was giving the House an assurance that the committees were "masters of their own destiny", or when the government House leader was giving us the assurance that the committees had the right to decide whether or not their proceedings should be televised.
What concerns me, Madam Speaker, is that I believe the House has been seriously and, in my view, deliberately misled. I can come to no other conclusion. I accept the word of the government House leader, as obviously 1 have to do under the rules, and I accept the word of the Prime Minister, but we have not heard from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) as yet. Did he know of the existence of this letter? We have not heard from the Deputy Prime Minister. Did he know of the existence of the letter?


Mr. Chretien:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member should know that I did not know of it until around 2.20 this afternoon.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the minister wants to rise on a point of order, he can do so, but he cannot raise a question of privilege while someone else is speaking on a question of privilege.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, obviously I will accept the intervention of the minister and I will withdraw without equivocation-


Marc Lalonde: Disgusting. You are casting aspersions right and left.


James Aloysius McGrath: It would be interesting to know whether the hon. gentleman who now intervenes from his seat knows of the existence of this letter because he is obviously the author of the face-saving compromise which the government House leader brought before the House this afternoon to try to save face.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have rarely seen in this House behaviour as disgusting as the one shown by the hon. member.


An hon. Member:: Watch yourself.


Marc Lalonde: It is quite clear that just as no one on the front benches on the other side was aware of your letter, no one on the front benches on this side knew of this letter. The way in which the hon. member is casting aspersions right and left is reprehensible, and he should be ashamed of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, what I find reprehensible is the fact that the Prime Minister and the government House
leader could stand on their feet in the House, time and time again, and tell the House, without equivocation, that the committee had the right to decide whether or not it should televise its proceedings, notwithstanding the fact that there had been rulings on record, and that these rulings were not known to either the Prime Minister, the Deputy Prime Minister or the government House leader. That boggles the mind; it stretches credibility. I am informed that one of the rulings was made by the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) who was then chairman of the Special Committee on the Constitution.
The fact remains that we are now told we may be able to reach agreement, if we can find money through the commissioners of internal economy and if it does not delay the proceedings of the committee. We are told these things now, but we were not told these things last week. Last week there was no suggestion that there would be any strain on the finances of the House or on the commissioners of internal economy, or that the televising of the proceedings of the committee might unduly delay the committee. No, on the contrary, we were told without equivocation that the committee had the power and the authority to decide whether or not to televise its proceedings and that the money was available.
I want to point out to Your Honour, in the strongest possible terms, that I feel aggrieved as a member of this House. I believe that I have been misled. Whether or not I have been deliberately misled is a question for Your Honour and subsequently, we hope, for the committee to decide. But the fact is that there is a serious prima facie case of privilege before the House right now and I submit that Your Honour should so rule.


Madam Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). I am sorry he was disappointed that I did not recognize him before, but I recognize members in the order in which they rise. It is the turn now of the hon. member for Oshawa.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I want to deal with this very important question of privilege. I do so in replying to what I regard as a logically absurd and, beyond that, morally offensive argument put forward by the government House leader, and I choose my words with care.
First of all 1 shall speak with regard to his question about a letter written by you, Madam Speaker, dated August 13, containing the following words in the last paragraph:
Although I am personally very sympathetic to the endeavours of your Special Committee on the Disabled and the Handicapped, it is my opinion that any committee seeking to televise its proceedings must first get the authorization of the House.
The government House leader is a lawyer and I am not, but I have spent a little time studying legal theory, as a matter of fact. I know enough, when the Speaker of the House of Commons writes a letter in her official capacity to the chairman of a committee saying that it is her opinion that such is the case, whatever the government House leader may say, that
November 6, 1980

that is the case. It is not simply an idle opinion; it is a judgment coming from the Speaker of the House of Commons.
It is a specious argument of the worst kind for the government House leader to come before us and try to pass off the view that a letter written by the Speaker of the House of Commons saying that it is her opinion simply means an informal suggestion.
A person sentenced to jail for five years should try that when the judge says, "It is my opinion that you should go to jail for five years." A person receiving such a sentence would not, to understate it a wee bit, have very sound legal grounds for appealing the case by saying that the judge was merely expressing an opinion. That is exactly analogous to the kind of phony argument the government House leader tried to pass off in the House of Commons today. That is my first point.
The people in the committee clearly understood when they received this letter which mysteriously appeared from some interesting source. We do not know the ultimate source. I am not questioning at all the honesty of the chairman of the committee as to the time he got the letter and who actually put it in his hands, but certainly I am dubious about the person who originally had the letter transmitted. We would like to know very much who had that letter sent on. The argument of the government House leader that this letter constituted a mere passing judgment without significance, is totally spurious. It was a sound, considered judgment, and the government House leader knows it very well.
My second point deals directly with the phony arguments we have heard in the House of Commons for the past ten days that somehow members of committees do not vote as their parties wish them to vote. The committees of the House of Commons are structured in party terms because it is well understood that members of a committee will not vote as isolated individuals, somehow making up their own minds independently of their considered party positions. It is quite the contrary. In a parliamentary democracy the committees are structured by party members because party members are expected to vote, as a rule, as their party caucuses decide is appropriate for them to vote. That is a well-understood and well-accepted democratic practice in the parliamentary system.
What do we have on the substance of the issue? I will be interested in hearing what the government announces later today. On this issue, and even after a ruling was made about the letter, a motion was put forward requesting the House of Commons, based on the decision of Madam Speaker, to authorize this committee to establish televising. What arguments did Liberal members make, not as isolated individuals making up their own minds, but reflecting government policy? Some said the lights would be too strong.


Marc Lalonde: Oh, come on.


John Edward Broadbent: "Come on" is right, but these are the arguments used against television. The lights would bother members. Some said there would be grandstanding.


An hon. Member:: What are you doing now?
Privilege-Mr. Knowles


John Edward Broadbent: Some said the people would use the opportunity to grandstand. The third argument was that some people would be afraid to appear, some members of Parliament would be afraid to be here because of the television cameras.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Members of the public.


John Edward Broadbent: Excuse me, members of the public would be afraid.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) is quoting quite extensively from proceedings of that committee. I think he knows the rule that the proceedings of another committee should not be discussed in the House. I would remind him of that rule, and allow him to continue.


John Edward Broadbent: That is a fair comment, Madam Speaker. I was just making passing comment about what was going on in the committee which showed the intellectual levels reflected by Liberal members.


Some hon. Members:: It was just an opinion.


John Edward Broadbent: I will be watching if the government shifts its policy, as it seems about to do. For a week the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) were evasive on this. Suddenly they are under heat, they feel some pressure. The only time a Liberal acts with any sense of justice is if he is forced into it. Perhaps that is what we will see this afternoon. I wonder whether all those Liberal members who voted against this in committee, when there is a resolution before the House, will stand up and vote against it now. It will be interesting to see, or will they act with the same degree of independence in the House as they acted in committee?
In conclusion, this is not a light matter. The matter before us is one of great concern. We are debating a measure in this Parliament. It is a resolution which, if it carries, will change the Constitution of Canada. It will bring the constitution home to Canada. The matters are of profound importance. Therefore, in the view of both parties in the opposition, at least, they are matters which the people of Canada ought to have the right to witness through television.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Let there be no illusion. For a week the government, the Liberal party, decided that the people were to be shut out. Then they voted that way in committee and they thought they had their way. But today they felt some heat in the House, so perhaps they are about to change their minds. They had better change their minds, if they want to have any support and reasonable consideration by members of all parties in the committee; that is all I can say. If they continue with their anti-democratic attitude in the process of constitutional change, they will do irreparable harm to the country, which is something members on this side will not tolerate.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. Particularly in light of the very interesting remarks and submissions made by the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), I think Madam Speaker could take judicial notice, in your capacity as Speaker of the House, of the fact that there is unanimity with respect to the position being put forward in support of this particular motion by both opposition parties.
I think it is very interesting to note that the unanimity extends to the NDP which supported the government in moving this matter out of the House quickly to committee and are now expressing very serious concern with respect to the activities of the government vis-a-vis this particular operation of its committee. When we talk about fundamental rights, and rights of individuals and members of Parliament, nothing could be clearer than the position taken by the government House leader. On October 24, 1980-and this was understood-he said that it was up to the committee to decide whether the debate should be televised, and as to the material organization which would be involved that aspect would come under the responsibility of Madam Speaker.
Clearly Madam Speaker's ruling in the letter to the chairman of the Special Committee on the Disabled and Handicapped is a ruling. It is a ruling on your part. If it is not certain in the mind of the government House leader what is the situation now, and in view of his undertaking that there would be no problems with respect to financing, I think he will find himself in a new situation. If I can be permitted to speculate on what the New Democratic Party will do in this situation, they will lose the support of the NDP for the cozy deal entered into between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party.
It is a serious matter. The government should give very serious consideration to what position it takes if it wants to proceed in an orderly fashion on this particular motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, 1 want to participate briefly in this debate. I wish to indicate to the member for Saskatoon-West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) that I think he misspoke himself, to be polite, when he suggested that our party supported the quick removal of debate on the constitution from the floor of the House of Commons. Our party opposed closure when it was moved by the Liberal party. We supported the extension of time for the debate. The Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has just spoken up and said that we supported the reference to the committee. That is absolutely correct. We have taken a position, which I know the Leader of the Opposition disagrees with, but it happens to be a position which is one of principle.
There are a number of principles contained in the resolution of which we are in favour. There are a number of amendments and improvements which we intend to make in a constructive way. That is the manner in which our party has approached
the debate. That is the manner in which we have approached the question of the constitution. It is the manner in which we intend to continue to try to remove from petty, partisan politics the question of the patriation of the constitution as far as possible and the manner in which it will be patriated. It is because of that commitment, Madam Speaker, that I want it to be made perfectly clear what the position of the New Democratic Party is with respect to the process. As my leader has stated today, it is not simply a question of the proposals themselves, it is a question of the process under which the government works and the way in which it works in presenting this package to the Parliament of Canada and the Canadian people.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bob Rae: Closure, in our view, was a mistake. It was a very serious mistake, one which damages the credibility of the government when it says it wants to develop as broad a consensus as possible. In our view the attitude which has been expressed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) with respect to the attitudes and the positions of western Canadians is a very serious mistake.
Finally, the way in which the government has treated this committee and the attitude it has taken with respect to the question of the extension of time-


Charles Joseph Clark: Was your deal a mistake?


John Edward Broadbent: No, our deal was not a mistake.


Bob Rae: The question of time, the question of the treatment of the committee and the way in which we deal with television have been serious mistakes on their part. The Leader of the Opposition has raised a question. He asks if the treatment with respect to the general package was a mistake. My answer to him is, no, sir.
I have no hesitation in saying, and my leader has no hesitation in saying there is a time to state certain principles and there is a time to take a position as a federal party. The Leader of the Opposition can take a position-I am not entirely clear what it is, but he is entitled to take a position. I do not begrudge him that position. But I think there is a very fundamental point which the government has to recognize. It is that the Prime Minister cannot come before the House of Commons and say it is up to the committee to decide what to do, and then have Your Honour make a decision.
I might add it is not simply a decision out of the blue. As a member of the finance committee last fall, under the chairmanship of the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), we looked into the question of whether or not it would be possible for us to televise the proceedings of the finance committee when we were discussing the question of interest rates. At that point we were informed by the legal officers of Parliament that it would not be possible for the committee itself to decide to have televised hearings. We were required to obtain the approval of Parliament. When we requested the unanimous approval of Parliament under Standing Order 43,
November 6, 1980

unanimous consent was not forthcoming. That was the reason we did not have televised hearings.
It is not good enough for the Prime Minister and the government House leader to say that your opinion, Madam Speaker, is simply a matter of opinion and that the committees have this power. It is a fact that parliamentary committees have been told consistently by the law officers of Parliament that it requires authorization from the House before the proceedings of a committee can be televised. So it is not simply your own ruling, Your Honour, but a matter of consistent rulings by the law officers, which have been expressed to a number of committee chairmen.
What the Prime Minister is doing is putting the Chair, the House and himself in an impossible position because he is saying it is not up to us, it is up to the committee. Then, lo and behold, in an act of totally spontaneous animation, the members of the committee suddenly agree that there will not be television. The reason for that is obvious. It is the policy of the Liberal party that this matter, rather than be handled in a tripartisan way will be changed from what was a positive package, which was an attempt to appeal to most people, into the policy and attitudes of one party at one particular time in our history. Only the Liberals could do this. When that happens, Madam Speaker, it is a very sad moment for Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, I think I have a right to make a contribution in this matter. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the government House leader have made statements to the effect that it was up to the committee to decide about television coverage. This was a fatuous suggestion. It was totally and utterly misleading insofar as the House was concerned.
The question of television coverage of committees was before a committee and it was decided at that time that it should be a decision of the House. Anybody with any serious intention of passing on information knew that it was not possible for any committee to decide to televise its hearings; they knew that the permission of the House was required.
There has been a question raised with respect to the funding of coverage. Under Vote 5, that funding is within the control of the Speaker. The cost of televising and of reporting committee proceedings all comes under Vote No. 5. Also under Vote 5 are moneys which have been voted upon and allocated to interparliamentary relations. Some of the allocations which have been made have not been spent. As treasurer of one particular group I know that there is a quarter of a million dollars not expended from this year's allocation. There was a change in the nature of a conference early in September which was held here, rather than in the Conference Centre, and we were able to save close to a quarter million dollars. That money is available. It does not require an item in any supplementary estimate to transfer it.
There is also the question of whether Room 200, which is the present site of the committee, is not suitable for television
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
coverage as it does not have the facilities. There is the Conference Centre, which is all set up for television and broadcasting.
I would like someone to suggest that the first ministers' conference, which dealt with the subject of the constitution, is more important than a joint committee of the Parliament of Canada considering actual changes to the constitution. Therefore, to me it is just as important that the joint committee meetings be held, for example, in the Conference Centre where there are the facilities, rather than being faced with the objection that Room 200 is not set up for television, which therefore would cause a delay in the time that is available to the committee before the guillotine falls upon the date of reporting. I suggest that if a diligent search is made in those other compartments in the Speaker's purse, sufficient money will be found for the proceedings to be televised and broadcast, because we have the proper locale.
The objections which have been raised are merely a smoke screen. It seems to me that it is now up to the government to put forward a motion which would permit the committee to televise its proceedings. It is as simple as that.


Madam Speaker:: After hearing the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald), I think it would be reasonable to cut off the debate, unless there is someone on the government side who wishes to have the floor, because I have not recognized many hon. members on that side.


Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, I would like to refer briefly to a debate which took place during the summer of 1978 in the committee which was dealing with Bill C-60. It was a joint committee of the House of Commons and the Senate, and it was examining the government's then proposals on the constitution.
At that time it was felt by that joint committee that it was imperative that its meetings and sessions be televised and broadcast to the country. At the time these committee meetings took place there was much debate on the subject, and motions were put forward to the effect that the proceedings should indeed be televised and broadcast. The difficulty which that committee found, and which it ultimately decided upon, was that it was in somewhat of a bind because, unlike the committee itself, the House of Commons and the Senate were not sitting throughout the summer. It was noted that it would be impossible at that point in the proceedings of the committee to go back to the House and the Senate for permission to televise and broadcast the proceedings.
There were some informal discussions between the committee and Mr. Speaker Jerome at that time. I believe that he personally was in agreement with the importance of the debate which was taking place in committee and felt that it was a very critical and crucial debate. Indeed, he suggested that it could be a pilot project for all committee hearings to be televised and broadcast, but that it would have to await the resumption of the House in the autumn to receive its approval to proceed
4514

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
with the broadcasting and the televising of the committee proceedings.
If the committee did receive the approval of the House, Mr. Speaker Jerome felt that committee was the logical committee to undertake the initiative to show what broadcasting and televising of such proceedings would bring about and how it would benefit Canadian people as a whole. Unfortunately, in order to set that precedent, the committee would have had to continue sitting into the autumn. It did not. It completed its deliberations in August and reported back to the House when it resumed in the autumn.
I wanted to point out that there had been discussions, that, indeed, a way had been foreseen as to how the proceedings of such a committee could be telecast and broadcast. It would be by reference to the House, as you pointed out in your letter, Madam Speaker. I believe that it is one of the matters which you should keep in mind in making your ruling later today.
[ Translation]


Mr. Eymard Corbin (Madawaska-Victoria):: Madam
Speaker, I would like to say very briefly, as a member of the committee, that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) referred to me earlier as a member from New Brunswick. My riding is, of course, Madawaska-Victoria It is I who in committee this morning called the attention of all members of the joint committee on the constitution to the interpretation of Beauchesne about the order of reference which says clearly that we cannot make a report. We are not authorized to make any interim reports.
I thought it was my duty to draw this interpretation of Beauchesne to the attention of the co-chairmen of the committee. I do not want to impute motives to anyone, but listening to the debate today, I feel things are put in such a way as to make believe-and if it is not the case I apologize-that there had been some kind of collusion between the government, and the government House leader. I must say, Madam Speaker, that it is the duty of every member of any committee to see to it that the rules are followed. And my concern, as a member of that committee, was to make sure that by coming back to the House to request permission to televise its meetings, the committee would not automatically cease to exist. My motivation was quite honest and justified. We have the duty not only to seriously consider all the matters which are presented to us, but all committee members, in co-operation with the chairman, have the responsibility to make sure that the rules are properly interpreted and that the orders of reference are also obeyed and that our work is being done within the framework which has been approved by Parliament, in this instance by both Houses. That is what we did this morning.
The fact that the committee reached a conclusion disturbs me. This morning, the majority of its membership decided not to give radio and television coverage to its proceedings. It has been repeated time and time again and it has been the ruling of all past Speakers, all your predecessors, Madam Speaker, that the committees are free to make up their own mind. In so doing, this morning we operated within the framework of that authority given to us by both Houses of Parliament. Furthermore, I find it unbelievable that opposition members quite often accuse the government, and especially the government House leader, rightly or wrongly and without any justification, of always wanting to dictate to the members of the committee. As the hon. member for Provencher said this morning, we will have to get the litmus test before we can sit on the committees. I find it very hard to believe that he should come back today to the same point through a legitimate argument, I must admit, rising on a matter or privilege and on a point of order.
Today hon. members bring to the floor of this House a question which we should have been allowed to bring back to the House as a report, otherwise the committee would have ceased to exist. Today, they want the government to impose a decision upon the committee, they want the government to ask the House to allow the committee to reconsider the decision it reached this morning. This disturbs me because the decision was reached in due form, in good faith by all the members who were attending the meeting and, what I do not understand and what I do not accept, is the fact that the government House Leader is now being asked to impose a decision upon the membership of the committee. That is beyond all understanding.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to be involved any further in this debate but I mentioned in my remarks a while ago that I would be taking some action, that I would consult, and consider the matter, and that I would advise the House as to our position, if needed. If hon. members are interested in whatever I have to say, I am prepared to report right now. If the House would rather hear from you instead, I will resume my seat.


Madam Speaker:: Do hon. members agree to listen to the President of the Privy Council who would like to report on the negotiations being held and on any information he might have received on the matter now before us?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: The President of the Privy Council has the floor.


Yvon Pinard: government for its part will not object to their doing so, but whatever their decision, we shall respect it. We want to be consistent with the position that we have always held until now, namely that we should not interfere in the affairs of the committee nor give it any instructions.
What I shall do, Madam Speaker, is simply to be consistent with the procedural arguments that I held earlier today in this debate and with the position that the government has taken until now concerning the committee, and I shall not give any instructions to the committee on behalf of the government. No one can say, therefore, that we are for and against televising the proceedings.
We shall not take a stand on this issue and we shall let the committee decide for itself. I am simply going to speak to both co-chairmen and ask them if in the light of these new facts-if they judge that today's debate has brought up new facts-they want to take another vote or reconsider the matter. For our part, as a government, we have no instruction to give them; they may do as they wish. We respect the decision which has already been made and if they want to make another one, we shall respect it also whatever it may be. We want to keep our distances, as we have done since the beginning. Madam Speaker, we shall maintain firmly our position in this debate, but if you make a ruling, whatever it may be, we shall respect it as we have always done in the past and we shall act accordingly.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise in response to the point of order raised by the government House leader, and perhaps he can correct me if I am being unfair. He knows I would not want to be unfair to his position.
I believe he has said that if it is the decision that the committee has the power to decide itself to seek radio and television coverage, the government would not act in any way to stop the committee from doing that. I am not sure that that reflects a great deal of reconsideration because, at least in words, that appears to be the position the government has been putting forward for some time.
We would like to be assured that Liberal party members on that committee will not be operating under a whip which urges them to vote against radio and television in the House. That assurance would be very helpful to us and, indeed, would serve the interest of the people of the country.
The question before the House remains: does the committee have the power to make that decision? We would not want the minister's statement today to be taken as the final indication that that power does rest with the committee. We have an abundance of rulings, including your own, Madam Speaker, that the committee does not have that power.
What we would like to have from the government House leader, as a result of the reconsideration he says he has undertaken this afternoon, is a very clear statement-in light of the fact that we have a ruling from Your Honour-that the government will introduce a motion to ensure that this House can vote as a full House upon the amendment of that motion
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
to allow the people of Canada to see and hear the constitutional deliberations on television and radio.
It is clear to us, although Your Honour has yet to decide and still has to respond to the question of privilege-that you have decided on the question of the competence of the committee that it does not have that competence, as you have stated in a formal decision.
The question before the House, then, is whether the government is going to accept its responsibility and bring in a resolution, or motion, that will permit the committee to have radio and television coverage of its proceedings. We would like to have an undertaking from the minister that such is the intention of the Government of Canada.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall explain it very briefly to the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark). There are five possibilities. First, that the committee refuses to reconsider its decision, in which case the government will not intervene. Second, that the committee reconsider its decision, take another vote and reach the same decision, in which case the government will not intervene. Third, that the committee decide to review its decision and, in fact, by way of a vote, change it, in which case the government will not intervene. Four, that you, Madam Speaker, give a ruling to the effect that the argument is founded according to which it is up to the committee to decide, in which case again the government will not intervene. And, five, that you rule that the House of Commons alone can authorize the televising of the committee hearings. As I indicated earlier, we have always respected the decisions of the Speaker of the House.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, if what we heard earlier in the day was absurd, the Liberal government has just outdone itself.
If 1 understand the logic of the government House leader, he is saying that after great' deliberation the government has not reached a decision. He is saying to backbench members-and I do not say that in any critical sense-to the regular members of the Liberal party on this committee, that they ought to humiliate themselves. That is the position-if it means anything. He is saying to members of that committee, "You deliberated carefully today. You came in with one decision and recommended it."


Stanley Howard Knowles: Thirteen to 11.


John Edward Broadbent: "With a 13 to 11 vote, but now we think you have the right"-big deal-"to reconsider the decision."
1 find that incredible, Madam Speaker. If the government is changing its mind on the question of televising the proceedings of this committee, as it ought to, then surely it ought not to humiliate its members of Parliament who sit on that committee. I am not cricitizing the members for this, Madam Speaker. If this was a caucus decision of the Liberal party, or a

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
government decision, then I do not criticize members, as individuals, for voting as they did in committee. In this House of Commons we act as parties so I do not criticize members of that committee who voted as they did. I criticize the caucus, or the government, for deciding that members ought to vote that way. That is the way we work in the House of Commons. On crucial matters the Conservative caucus decides how their members on a committee should vote, as does the Conservative party.
The government puts forth a hypocritical argument, suggesting that somehow its members are autonomous, that they voted one way this morning and that now they may reconsider.
If the government had any integrity at all on this point, Madam Speaker, surely it would admit it is wrong and ought to have made the decision to televise the committee proceedings in the first place. It would say that the Government of Canada intends to introduce a resolution to this House to permit the committee proceedings to be televised. That would be the honourable course of action.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Instead of admitting it is wrong, and among other matters, that is the Liberal party's great historical failure, never admitting that it is wrong, instead of saying it made a mistake and has now changed its mind, it is going to force ordinary members of Parliament to reverse themselves as individuals. What an uncharitable, dastardly, despicable course of action that is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I just want the government House leader to know that I listened to him very quietly. I gave him the opportunity to take the only position which is acceptable in these circumstances. There is no other acceptable decision in this House today except for the government House leader to stand on his feet in this place and move a motion in amendment of the resolution that stands in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). There is nothing else acceptable in this Parliament. I give the government House leader another chance.
I did not speak idly at the outset of the debate. I have been in the hon. member's position, and I did not speak idly with respect to it. Quite frankly, I expected a more acceptable response. I expected the government House leader, not just as the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, but as leader of the House of Commons, to take his responsibilities with respect to that very seriously. I want to tell him now that I am sadly disappointed and I say that to him directly. Our relationship in this House of Commons has been a good one, notwithstanding differences of opinion that have arisen. I do not like to see a good man being made a tool of a bad government.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Look who is talking.


Walter David Baker: But that is what has happened to my hon. friend. Nothing occurred during the course of these events that gave me any idea that that kind of response would come from the Leader of the Government in the House of Commons, indeed from the leader of the House of Commons. In the best interests of this place I say to him that nothing else is acceptable. Nothing else is acceptable to us with respect to the operation of this place than for my hon. friend later today to seek the permission of the House of Commons to revert to motions, and introduce an amendment to the motion in the way discussed by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), so as to take the responsibility which is implicit in the ruling given by Madam Speaker. This is a responsibility which lies on the shoulders of the government, led in this House by my friend, the government House leader. Nothing else is acceptable. He should understand that, and so should his colleagues.
There have been some discussions in this House about the importance of the motion of closure to the operations of the House. That matter is important, but this is important too. We have been fed nothing but double talk. The issue is a clear one. As a government does it want this done or not? It is its responsibility. The government cannot hang the backbenchers and private members out to dry to evade their responsibility but that is what the government is doing.


Mr. Chenier:: Just worry about your guys.


Walter David Baker: My friends over there say "Do not worry about us". I am not worried too much about them. But I am worried about what the people of Canada are going to see, what they are going to think of this Parliament, and what they are going to think of the process which is as important as the resolution. I am worried about the operation of this place in the face of a government which has become so arrogant that it would fly in the face of a request to televise a committee. Is that what the minister of communications wants? Is that the kind of openness which the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) responsible for freedom of information wants? Is that what the government wants? My friends say this is pompous indignation. I tell you it is righteous indignation, and hon. members opposite are going to feel the effects of this for a long, long time.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I attempt to sum up in just a sentence or two what has been said over here. If it is true that the government has had second thoughts and has decided to permit radio and television broadcasting of the proceedings of the committee, I tell the government to do it directly. Do not do it in the contrived way of asking the 13 Liberals to cast a different vote tonight than they cast this morning. I say to the government House leader to do it directly, and bring in the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Be a man.
November 6, 1980


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I regret the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has left the chamber because I wanted to give an answer. The hon. member asked us not to humiliate our members on the committee. That is exactly why I would not ask them to vote again on the issue. Because we respect our members on the committee, I would not make that move, and because we respect the parliamentary procedure and practice we will not interfere in the committee's right to deal with its own procedure.
That being said, I want to give the House leader of the Tory party an answer, who in my view is also a good man and a tool for a better position. He has asked me to move a motion to ask a legally constituted committee to change its mind. I will not do that. I will do what I said I would do, and that is to respect this parliamentary committee which has rendered a decision. If it wants to reconsider that decision, it may do so, but we will not interfere.
We could have chosen the route of doing nothing.


An hon. Member:: That is exactly what you are doing.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we could have chosen to let you rule on this matter, waited for your ruling and allowed the decision to stand. 1 have offered to talk to the co-chairmen to let them know that if they want to reconsider their decision, we will not object because the government has no position on this.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: We are not against television and we are not for television in the committee. We have always said it was up to the committee to decide on its own procedure. A decision has been made and we respect the membership of that committee. If they reconsider, we will accept their decision, whatever it is. That is what I intend to do unless the opposition objects. If the opposition objects, we will act as good parliamentarians and wait for your decision on this issue, Madam Speaker.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the government House leader has said that the government is not going to interfere with the committee but he will talk to the co-chairman.


Yvon Pinard: If you wish.


Charles Joseph Clark: He has said the government could have chosen the route of doing nothing. What troubles us, Madam Speaker, is that the government has chosen the route of doing nothing. One question that is open to this House is this: what will be the reaction of the Government of Canada if you persist in the decision you issued to the chairman of the special committee on the handicapped and ruled that the committee was not competent to make a decision to request radio and television coverage of that committee? That has been your ruling, Madam Speaker. If you persist in that ruling, the question then becomes, will the government act? The House leader listed five points. The fifth one had to do with whether the government would act in those circumstances, and the House leader did not answer that.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, I did.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles


Charles Joseph Clark: What he said was they would respect that situation. He did not say what the government would do. He said earlier that the government does not intend to interfere. A failure to act on this question, where only the government can act, is to express an opinion. It has expressed an opinion against the right of the people of Canada to see and to hear what is going on in the constitutional committee in the discussion of the Constitution of Canada.
I rise to make that last point, and I apologize for the heat in making it, but I do it simply because I think there has been an attempt to suggest that a change of position has occurred when no change of position has occurred at all on the part of the government.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I did say I would not recognize any more speakers, and then I had a series of points of order and answers to those points of order. However, I think it is time now to put an end to this debate. I will try to do my best to allow the House to come to a normal conclusion of what everyone will recognize has been a very lively debate.
On several occasions the opinion I expressed in this letter, which is referred to, has been mentioned as being a ruling, by many hon. members. I have some doubt as to whether that should be considered a ruling. I base that doubt on very common sense arguments. If I write a letter to an hon. member, I might expect that member to reply to me and disagree with some of the words I put in my letter. There could be an exchange of correspondence between myself and a member, or even the chairman of a committee. It is on that common sense argument that I am not prepared to affirm that what I wrote in that letter is a ruling. It is an opinion. If it were a ruling, nobody could refute it. Therefore, rulings have to be dealt with extremely carefully. Writing a letter is a different matter from making a ruling in the solemn House of Commons.
I did express an opinion; that is quite clear. I have the letter before me. I can read from it as hon. members have done. 1 expressed an opinion "that any committee seeking to televise its proceedings must first get the authorization of the House". I will certainly try to be consistent and stick by that opinion, but only after having considered the context and the background against which I expressed that opinion, namely, that I was answering a letter regarding a request from a committee of Parliament dealing with the handicapped and disabled, which was travelling across the country. They were asking me whether the proceedings could be televised through the device of certain hook-ups of community channels, or possibly the bicycling of tapes from that committee. There could be a context or background against which this opinion would have to be interpreted. I want to take time to do just that. I repeat, I will be consistent with the meaning, after second thought and careful reading of that letter, and of the opinion which I expressed in the last paragraph of the letter.

November 6, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
Notwithstanding that opinion which was expressed, I want to remind the members that the matter of deciding if broadcasting is to take place lies with all sorts of people, but not with me. I cannot decide whether the proceedings will be broadcast. I might express an opinion on how that can happen. If a decision is taken in respect of that, in the committee or in the House, there are proceedings to allow that to happen. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) referred to how these things can happen. Therefore, the decision will not be made by me. I want to make it quite clear that that is not my responsibility.
With regard to the interpretation the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) put on the third paragraph in my letter, he said that I had affirmed that the committees are without authority to broadcast their proceedings. Later on in the debate the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) read that paragraph in its entirety. I just want to warn the hon. member for Provencher that he should not take it to mean that these committees have definitely not been endowed with authority to take those decisions. "To date", in this Parliament, "no further action has been taken" with regard to "the broadcasting of the proceedings of committees. Failing such a decision of the House, the committees are without authority to broadcast their proceedings." They were thus not consciously deprived of that authority. The matter, and I will check into the record, simply has not been resolved.
The intention might have been to give those committees that authority. I will have to refer back, and this is precisely what I want to do, to the minutes and the resolution, and look in greater detail at the context in which my opinion was expressed. I repeat, I will do my best to be consistent with the opinion I expressed and to ascertain whether that opinion is in reference to certain circumstances which cannot be paralleled with the circumstances that we are now discussing. I will take this matter which has been raised as a question of privilege, under advisement.


POINT OF ORDER
Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Could we also have an explicit ruling from you as to whether the committee is empowered to issue interim reports to the House or whether that will result in the termination of the life of the committee, as suggested by the government House leader this afternoon? This is critical to the whole conduct of the committee's activities.


Madam Speaker:: That was not raised in the question of privilege. I will base my ruling on what was raised in the House in the course of the exchanges on the question of privilege.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Could I get some clarification from you, Madam Speaker. I apologize, Madam Speaker, I am genuinely confused. What I would like is to request from you at this time a ruling as to whether the committee on the constitution has the authority to issue interim reports, or whether the issuing of a report to both Houses would result in the termination of the committee under the terms of reference granted to the committee.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has asked me to interpret the order of reference of that committee. It is not for me to interpret it.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Victoria-Madawaska (Mr. Corbin) quoted Beauchesne. Also, the government House leader this afternoon read from the French version of Beauchesne, which I do not have before me, in support of an argument that any issuance of an interim report by the committee would result in the termination of the life of that committee. That quotation was read into the record by the government House leader. It leaves the House in a very difficult situation.
An explicit assurance was given in the Senate by the government House leader in the Senate that interim reports would be legal and proper. In the House of Commons this afternoon his counterpart, the government House leader here, indicated his firm belief, quoting Beauchesne, that the issuance of any report by that committee would lead to the termination of that committee.
What we need from you, Madam Speaker, is a judgment on the basis of Beauchesne, citation 591, as to whether an interim report by that committee would lead to the termination of that committee.
[ Translation]	H


Yvon Pinard: HE
Madam Speaker, it is getting late and I do not intend to go on	H
at length. 1 shall simply refer you to the text of the motion	HE
passed by the House and the citations from Beauchesne men-	H
tioned by my learned colleague. 1 believe that you will find	H
there all that you need to make a ruling.	H
[English]	H


Madam Speaker:: I will not render a decision. I will only tell	H
the hon. member that I will look at that problem if and when il	HE
arises, but not at the present	time.	H


Charles Joseph Clark: On the	H
same point of order, Madam Speaker, perhaps the government	^H
House leader would simplify matters if he would tell us	^H
whether it was his intention and the intention of the govern-	^E
ment in drafting that reference to preclude and prevent the	HE
special joint committee from	making interim reports.	^H
[ Translation]	^H


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition HE is trying to make me say something that probably did not cross H| my mind. All that I have said is that the resolution or motion HE

November 6, 1980

is there. It has been passed. A question of privilege has been raised and you must look at the facts.
What were the motives of the government? I could spend a lot of time replying to the right hon. member because, without any context, this element could lead to false conclusions. I do not want to spend too much time on this issue, but since I have been asked what could have motivated us in the wording of the motion passed by the House and debated, for too long in my opinion, I shall note that I could say quite a lot on this issue. The right hon. member is well aware that we could easily have avoided the committee stage and not have referred the matter to a committee. He is very lucky that we have not done so, but he still complains. He is not even complaining about the substance, but about the form.
We decided to go to a committee, and we chose to do this so that the opposition would have more time to look at the technical aspects of the proposal, Madam Speaker. If the right hon. member wants to know the motives of the action taken by the government, I could spend a lot of time explaining why we wanted to extend this courtesy to the opposition and decided on a three-stage debate when we could very well have chosen a single-stage debate.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker what I am interested in determining is whether it will be possible for the joint committee on the constitution to make interim reports to this House and to the Senate of Canada without, by the very fact of making such reports, terminating the existence of the committee. I suppose the reason we ask that question is that there has been an explicit assurance given by the minister's colleague in cabinet, the House leader of the government in the Senate, that there would be the possibility of interim reports. The government House leader in this chamber has now given us a version of his reading of Beauchesne which would suggest that what his colleague said in the Senate is not true in the House of Commons. We obviously cannot have a situation where that prevails.
Perhaps we could simplify matters-if the government House leader does not want to speak of motives relating to what we have done in the past-if he would tell us whether he is prepared to join with us now in expressing the view and acting on the view, if that is necessary, that the special joint committee on the constitution should have the right to make interim reports. It would also simplify matters if the government House leader expressed the view that the action of making interim reports would not stop the life of the joint committee. Would he agree to join with the House of Commons to take such action as is necessary-and the Senate-to ensure that the life of that committee would not be jeopardized by its reporting back to the two Houses which gave it birth?
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition is asking me to render a decision in your stead. His own colleague has raised a question of privilege. You have a ruling to make and he puts the question to me; in other words they want to know what I think. Before you take your decision I am expected to give him a legal opinion as to whether your ruling is going to be right or wrong. As I see it, Madam Speaker, that approach is ridiculous. Then the hon. member will be seeking the floor to ask me whether the committee will be allowed to travel. Then again, can the committee not wait to report only in February? And again he will rise to ask me: can we take your place and govern? Well, my answer to that one is no, our party was returned to power in the last election. We assume our responsibilities, we show respect for Parliament and we have agreed to three stages in a debate which could very well have been limited to only one. The Leader of the Opposition undermines the character of this institution when he attempts to restrict the debate to questions of procedure rather than deal with the substance of the proposition which is aimed at turning Canada into a new country, a modern country with a renewed federalism.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, may I put the same question to the government House leader in another way? What is the point of his offering to speak to the two co-chairmen of the committee and telling them that the government would not mind their reconsidering the matter of radio and television broadcasting unless-if perchance the committee changes its mind and votes for it-it has the authority to make a report to this House? Should that not be cleared up, or would it not be better for the government to bring in the motion itself?


Yvon Pinard: It is much simpler than that, Madam Speaker. For me, the usefulness of speaking to the two co-chairmen, if the opposition parties do not object, is that it will give them an opportunity to review all the comments made on that question by members of the House today. Should they feel that those comments bring to light new facts which would warrant reconsideration on their part, the decision is theirs. They will base their decision on that. They will settle the issue in committee, not here in the House of Commons. They do not need to report to the House of Commons to have that permission. The committee can very well review the question and change its decision. As I said earlier to the Leader of the Opposition, should the Chair rule that the House of Commons must decide, then we will respect the ruling. He has sought to cast some doubt on my comments, but again I repeat that we will abide by the ruling. Abiding by your ruling, Madam Speaker, means that we will act accordingly.

November 6, 1980
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. On this point the government House leader keeps referring to the three stages the government has chosen for the manner in which the proposed resolution should be dealt with. He says that the government was forthcoming in the matter of the three stages. No matter what his view or interpretation is on whether the government was forthcoming or not, the fact is that the matter is before a committee, so that committee has to function.
There are a number of motions which I intend to move this evening in terms of the working of the committee which might result in committee members making the decision to come back to this House and ask for permission along certain lines. The way the matter stands now, before we go to that committee at eight o'clock tonight, it is still that if we do not get a ruling prior to that time, the point will be made that if the committee makes those requests, by the very fact that its requests will be made in a report to this House the committee ceases to operate. I suggest, with all respect, that the matter should be clarified before that committee reconvenes its sittings at eight o'clock tonight because those issues will be before it at that time.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am afraid hon. members are asking me to rule on something which is quite hypothetical. 1 now have Beauchesne citation 591 which says, and I quote:
A special committee ceases to exist at the moment its final report is presented to the House. The report cannot afterwards be sent back to the committee with instructions to amend it in any particular way unless the House agrees to revive the committee by adding the following words-
Obviously, if and when that report comes back to the House, the House can agree to something else, and it is not for me to determine in advance, not knowing what that committee will report back to the House, what is going to happen. Therefore, there is no need for me to rule on this particular point, and I would like to proceed with the routine proceedings of the day, if I have the permission of the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this has been a detailed and confusing day for all of us. Perhaps the point has not been made as clearly as it should have been.
We are not concerned at this stage about the final report, although that is an important matter. What we are concerned about is the right of the committee to make an interim report because there may well be an interim report, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has suggested, recommending that there be an amendment in the reference to allow televising and radio broadcasting of proceedings. There may be an amendment allowing the committee to travel. There may well be an amendment allowing certain groups of people to be paid to come to give their views on the constitution. Those would be interim reports, and the argument put forward by the government House leader is that once an interim report is issued, the committee is dead. Naturally, if that is the case-Your Honour is shaking your head, and we shook our heads too, but that is what the government House
leader said-the committee will be meeting tonight on other questions in the same circumstances in which it met this morning on the question in relation to television.
The members of the committee will be meeting under what they take to be an edict as to what they are not free to do. They met today and believed they were not free to ask for radio and television coverage, so they did not. Unless this question is resolved, they may meet tonight believing they are not free to make an interim report, and they will consequently not make an interim report. That is why it is urgent that the question of interim reports-not of final reports-be resolved.


Madam Speaker:: If I may answer the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on the point, as I read the citation, it seems to me that the special committee ceases to exist at the moment its final-not interim-report is presented. As I understand the rules, that committee can decide that it is making an interim report to this House. Therefore, if the report is an interim report, the committee still exists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Eymard G. Corbin: Madam
Speaker, I respect your interpretation of the English version of Beauchesne, but for those of us who use the French text there is ambiguity. It is not clear, it is far from being clear. If I read the reference of the House-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I did not read the French text, but the logic of the English version is absolutely impeccable and I would be surprised if the translation were that far off. Still I take note of the comments of the hon. member but I cannot accept his intervention because I have already said that the question is closed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I wonder whether the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton would not like to be reminded that today is Thursday.


Walter David Baker: I want to thank my hon. friend for his reminder of the calendar. The government House leader may have some announcements in mind with respect to the business of the House for the next little while. Perhaps he could make them.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, today is the last day of debate on the budget. There will be a vote this evening at 9.45. Tomorrow we will begin study of the report stage of Bill C-6,
November 6, 1980

an Act to revise the Bank Act. Next week, beginning Monday, we will continue with the Bank Act revision until adoption on third reading.


Some hon. Members:: Wednesday!


Yvon Pinard: Sorry, hon. members are right, beginning Wednesday since the House will not sit on Monday. An order has already been made to that effect. As specified in the motion adopted by the House yesterday, the hours lost on Monday will be recuperated but they will have to be spent on the banking legislation and that is why I say, Madam Speaker, that we will consider that bill until adoption on third reading. As a result of a meeting with parliamentary leaders it has been decided that if there is to be a debate on the proclamations which are to be tabled shortly after the budget debate and which concern the energy policy that debate will not begin before November 21. That was the agreement among parliamentary leaders. Since that has been agreed to by all parties we are now free to begin the uninterrupted study of the banking legislation with the hope that it will pass third reading as soon as possible.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. Will the government House leader indicate to the House when he will be calling the continuation of the second reading debate of Bill C-42, the Post Office Crown corporation bill? Could he also tell the House whether, in keeping with the recommendations made in the report of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments, tabled in the House in July, the regulation-enabling clauses of the bill will be sent to the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments? Is the government prepared to send the regulation-enabling clauses of the bill to that committee?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as to the last question of the hon. member, I understand-and this is the agreement I had with the House leader of the hon. member's party-that there is a notice of motion for concurrence in those reports on the order paper. Such motions would not be put before consultation with me, according to the understanding we have, since there are at least two other groups looking at the same matter, namely, the task force on regulations, the special committee of the House, and the Economic Council of Canada which is supposed to report some time in January or February on the same subject. So I would not like to deal with these reports at this stage before those two groups at least have had a chance to report.
In so far as Bill C-42, the Post Office Act, is concerned I intend to call that bill for second reading. We had hoped it would have been sent to committee much earlier, but there are more speeches to come from the hon. member's party than were expected. We hope that after we conclude our debate on the Bank Act, this bill will be sent quickly to the committee so that we can go on to deal with the bill on access to information
Order Paper Questions
and send that to committee with the least delay possible before we deal with the last seven allotted days before December 10.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I might have confused the government House leader. The question I asked relates expressly to Bill C-42. It would certainly facilitate passage of that bill in terms of debate on second reading if the government House leader were prepared to send the regulation-enabling clauses of Bill C-42 to the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments for study following second reading debate. Is he prepared to do that?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I will consult with the Postmaster General as soon as possible. But in any case we would much prefer the bill to be sent to committee right away, if possible.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise today on behalf of my constituents in British Columbia and those of my colleagues, the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon), the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen), the hon. member for North Vancouver-Burnaby (Mr. Cook), and the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman), who strongly express their opposition to a federal excise tax on natural gas.
The petitions presented herein contain in excess of 6,000 signatures of British Columbia residents and are in addition to the over 26,000 tabled by my colleagues last October 24. As this is the last day of the debate on the budget which imposes this unjust and unconstitutional export tax, as well as a crippling tax on domestic users of natural gas, I appeal to all hon. members to reject this deceitful and destructive budget. I respectfully submit these petitions on behalf of my five colleagues and myself to you, Madam Speaker, and I ask for their serious consideration.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 80, 1,417, 1,512, 1,582 and 1,604.

November 6, 1980
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names and addresses of all members of the news media from the Soviet Union who have been granted visas to operate in Canada and, in each case (a) what was the date that they came to Canada (b) who did they replace, if this information is available?
2.	What are the names and addresses of former members of the Russian news media granted visas to operate in Canada over the past six years and, if any are no longer in Canada, to the knowledge of the government, what is the reason?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: 1.	N. Y. Bragin (a) October 8, 1974 (b)K. Y. Gevyan-dov
V. N. Osetrov (a) September 29, 1976(b) V. K. Kurnikov
V. R. Polonskiy (a) October 30, 1976(b) I. I. Mironov A. V. Sandakov(a) March 1, 1979	(b) A. A. Palladin
2.	K. Y. Gevyandov (left Canada September 27, 1973)
V. K. Kurnikov (left Canada October 9, 1976)
I. I. Mironov (left Canada September 8, 1976)
A, A. Palladin (left Canada March 8, 1979)
In so far as the Canada Employment and Immigration Commission is concerned, we are not aware of their reasons for departing Canada.
Note: The government does possess the addresses, however, they are not given since departmental policy in keeping with the spirit of the Canadian Human Rights Act is not to provide such personal information.


Mr. Blenkarn: Has the government made any loans to Jamaica and, if so (a) in what amount (b) what are the repayment terms (c) has Jamaica defaulted on any payments?
to Jamaica, two under government account (section 31) and the remainder under corporate account (section 29). Total value of these loans was Canadian $8.1 million under section 31 and Canadian $42.6 million under Section 29. There are no arrears in payments to EDC. Because of commercial confidentiality, EDC cannot disclose its rates of interest. Attached is a detailed schedule of these loans indicating dates signed, amounts of financing and principal outstanding, and purpose of each loan.
In so far as the Canadian International Development Agency is concerned:
(a) $ 1,290,331
390.000
3.000.	000 1,298,759
191,097
599.000 173,703
1,182,381
1,294,065
1.000.	000
1,005,106
294,935
2,000,000
2,000,000
500.000
1,600,000
4.000.	000
7.000.	000
3.000.	000
500.000 400,471 819,395 768,585 666,508 304,270 729,231 590,355 927,789
10,000,000
(b) 30-7-3 per cent
(c) No
Export Development Corporation Loans Signed With Jamaica


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Department of Finance, the Export Development Corporation and the Canadian International Development Agency as follows: On November 9, 1976, Canada entered into a loan agreement with the Government of Jamaica to provide a Canadian $25 million loan from the Department of Finance, with repayment in full six months thereafter and interest payable at the average annual rate of interest on six-month Treasury bills, namely 8.93 per cent. Principal on the loan was rolled over three times due to Jamaica's financial difficulties, but interest was kept current. On August 9, 1978, the loan was converted to a three-year loan at the Crown corporation rate of interest on three-year money, namely 8.875 per cent, with the entire principal due at term, subject to interest being paid annually and to maintenance of a standby arrangement with the IMF. Jamaica has been current with respect to interest payments since conversion of the loan into a medium-term instrument. The Export Development Corporation has extended six loans
Loan No. 7429 (section 29)
Borrower: government of Jamaica Amount of financing: Canadian $1,676,655.88 Principal outstanding: Canadian $815,895.88 Date of signing: October 9, 1974
Loan No. 0005 (section 29)
Borrower: Jamaica ministry of Finance Amount of financing: Canadian $1,160,084.28 Principal outstanding: Canadian $1,160,084.28 Date of signing: March 31,1976
Loan No. 0018 (section 29)
Borrower: Jamaica Telephone Co. Ltd. Guarantor: Jamaica Ministry of Finance Amount of financing: Canadian $2,500,000.00 Principal Outstanding: Canadian $1,504,000.00 Date of signing: July 19, 1976
Loan No. 0114 (section 29)
Borrower: Jamaica Ministry of Finance Amount of financing: U.S. $31,500,000.00 Principal outstanding: U.S. $3,045,373.22 Date of signing: October 29, 1976
Loan No. 0051 (section 31)
Borrower: Port Authority of Jamaica Guarantor: government of Jamaica Amount of financing: U.S. $5,196,900.00 Principal outstanding: U.S. $819,270.00 Date of signing: October 16, 1979
To finance the export sales of railways and related equipment by M.L.W. Industries Division.
To finance the export sales of six locomotives and spare parts by M.L.W. Worthington Limited.
To finance the export sales of telephone equipment by Northern Telecom Limited.
To finance the export sales of the upgrading and expansion of electrical power transmission and distribution system by Montreal Engineering Company Limited.
To finance the export sales of a container port complex by Dominion Bridge Company Limited.
November 6, 1980

Loan No. 0558 (section 31)	To finance the rehabilitation of a rail
Borrower: Jamaica Railways Corporation	line from Alcan s bauxite mine to the
Guarantor: government of Jamaica	port, by Canron/Sysco.
Amount of financing: U.S. $2.0 million Principal outstanding: U.S. $2.0 million Date of signing: May 29, 1980


Mr. Herbert: For each of the past ten years, how many Class C "call-outs" have been engaged by the Canadian Armed Forces?


Mrs. Ursula Appolloni (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Defence):: Fiscal Year	No. of person years of Class C "call-outs"
70/71	not available*
71/72	not available*
72/73	not available*
73/74	7
74/75	142
75/76	248
76/77	368
77/78	341
78/79	405
79/80	498
Records for fiscal years 1970/71 to 1972/73 are not available. However, it is known that average strength during that period was less than 7, the strength in 1973/74.


Mr. Dinsdale: 1.	How many grain hopper cars were provided by the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba under the agreement reached with the previous Progressive Conservative government?
2.	How many new hopper cars were provided by the government in the fiscal year (a) 1979-80 (b) 1980-81?
3.	Did the CNR and CPR provide new hopper cars in (a) 1977 (b) 1978 (c) 1979 (d) 1980 and, if so, in each case, how many?
4.	Did the Liberal government proceed with the lease arrangement for providing hopper cars advocated by the Progressive Conservative government and, if not, for what reason?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: 1. No formal agreement was reached with the governments of Alberta, Saskatchewan and Manitoba concerning the supply of grain cars. However, in accordance with verbal commitments Alberta and Saskatchewan have each ordered 1,000 cars for grain service; Manitoba agreed to lease 450 cars for up to one year and in fact leased 653 cars for a shorter peak period. (500 March-September, 1980; 153 May, 1980-January, 1981).
2.	(a) None;
(b) 2,000 (currently being delivered).
3.	No.
4.	Yes.
Starred Question PUBLIC OPINION POLLS


Mr. Cossitt: Will the government take steps to making public, the name of the pollster, the cost, nature and results of all public opinion polls taken by any branch of government on or after October 14, 1980, within one month of the poll being completed?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: The department will make public the name of the pollster, the cost, nature and results of all public opinion polls as required by the freedom of information legislation introduced in the House of Commons.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, would you be so kind as to call starred question No. 1,424?



HOUSING


Mr. McGrath: Will CMHC rehabilitate the AHOP homes in the Virginia Park area of St. John's, Newfoundland and, if so (a) what is the total to be spent (b) how many units are involved (c) what amount has been paid in legal fees and to whom and in what amounts (d) what is the estimated total in legal fees to be paid (e) on what date will the project be completed?


Mr. Raymond Savard (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, concerning question No. 1,424, CMHC is currently rehabilitating 151 units in the Virginia Park area of St. John's, Newfoundland, which were built by Brenjay Construction Company Limited in 1974-75 under the Assisted Home Ownership Program.
(a) $3,800,000 is the current estimate which includes repair costs, legal and consulting engineering fees, administration and children recreation program costs.
Part (b) 151 units.
Part (c) As of July 29, 1980, $27,036.16 has been invoiced and paid to date; a further $63,000 has been committed.
T. Williams of the firm Williams, Williams and Buffett, paid as of July 29, 1980 - nil Committed	-$31,500
- $31,500
Total

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Patterson
N. Whalen, of the firm Martin, Whalen and Hennebury, paid as of July 29	-	$27,036.16Committed	-	$31,500.00Total	-	$58.536.16Part (d) Estimated total	legal	fees: budget of $100,000.
Part (e) Contract completion date is December I, 1980, for exterior shell of all dwelling units and July 31, 1981, for the complete work. The contractor is currently ahead of schedule and subtantial completion of all works is expected by the end of October, 1980.


David Michael Collenette: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Wednesday, November 5, 1980, consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Mr. Alex Patterson (Fraser Valley East):: Madam Speaker, when six o'clock was called last evening, I was drawing a brief verbal picture of the contrast between the conditions which led up to the celebrations on our one hundredth anniversary, the attitude of the people at that time, and the attitude and feelings of the nation at present. Perhaps I can enlarge on that comparison and point out the reasons for this change of attitude on the part of the people.
A reference to the first two paragraphs of the statement of the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) given in the House on October 28 might provide some relevant information. The first paragraph reads as follows:
It is a budget which sets new directions for the economy-directions which will ensure both energy security and economic security for Canadians in the years ahead.
The second paragraph reads:
-we have inherited many difficulties from the decade of the 70s.
I call the attention of the House to those statements because a great deal of the blame for the deterioration of economic conditions and a deterioration in the feelings and expectations
of the people lies directly at the feet of the present government. My assumption or declaration is substantiated in those two paragraphs. The first paragraph points out new directions, which implies that the directions of the past have been inadequate and have not accomplished anything as far as the country is concerned. The second paragraph indicates that we have inherited many difficulties from the decade of the seventies. The first nine years of that decade were under the guidance and control of the Liberal government. Therefore, as far as this is concerned, the blame lies on their doorstep as well.
One big problem in the Canadian political system is the widespread cynicism with which the public views politicians, political parties and elections. When the Liberals were in opposition last year, they capitalized on that cynicism. Through lack of the full truth, sometimes through untruths and sometimes through deception, they misrepresented the policies of the Conservative government and encouraged the public to believe they were the defenders of integrity, in the hopes of being re-elected. Part of the country re-elected the Liberals, and now, they are in office, we find just how much integrity the government possesses. I suggest that it is practically nil.
If a government had set out deliberately to promote cynicism in the public of Canada, it could not have done a better job than the Minister of Finance did in introducing his budget last week. The government promised to keep oil prices down, and it is raising prices higher than those projected in the Conservative budget. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) promised to protect the needy against inevitable energy price increases, and the budget does nothing for them. The Liberals promised fiscal responsibility, and the budget shows that they are planning a 15.2 per cent increase in government spending. The Prime Minister crossed back and forth across the country decrying the 18 cents per gallon excise tax of the Conservative party. In one breath the Minister of Finance announced there would be no excise tax, and in the next he slapped on what he called a Canadian ownership charge which could easily be 30 cents per gallon next year. Depending upon what oil company Petro-Canada decides to buy, it could be 60 cents per gallon or $1. Who knows what the limit will be?
The minister announced in one paragraph that the government had abandoned the export tax on natural gas, and in the next he announced an export tax on natural gas. How cynical can a person be. He said, "We have abandoned our decision to impose an excise tax on the export of gas", and then he turned around and said, "Yes, we have done that, but we have decided to put the tax on foreign and Canadian purchasers". Instead of abandoning it, he doubled its effect by making it applicable not only to the users abroad but to Canadians. How magnificently generous the minister is. I say this with some degree of skepticism and perhaps worse than that.
The Prime Minister promised he would work at bringing down the budgetary deficit, yet the budget increases the deficit by $3.6 billion this year. I will come back to some of these items in a few moments, but first I want to say a few words
November 6, 1980

about the condition of the country as a result of 12 years of Trudeau administration.
I and many of my colleagues in the House were deprived of the right to speak in the Parliament of our country by the high-handed, dictatorial imposition of closure by the government. The government has no comprehension of the aspirations of western Canada. There is no appreciation of the western point of view. Instead, there seems to be a deliberate attempt by the Prime Minister to isolate western Canada.
We are all aware of the actions of the Prime Minister and his government during their first term of office from 1968 to 1972. They were typified by his classic statement, "Why should I sell your wheat?" Promises have been made to western Canada to come to grips with the sources of western discontent, to rectify the discriminatory freight rates. The promises were made but they were never kept.
After introducing a constitutional amendment act which strikes at the very heart of the federal system, making the provinces second class citizens and the western and Atlantic provinces third class, we are presented with a budget that is essentially a massive confiscation of western economic power.
When westerners voice their disapproval of these actions, the Prime Minister goes out of his way to add insult to injury and calls us "hysterical", "irrational" and "lacking in reason". It has a very familiar ring. In the spring of 1976 the Prime Minister proclaimed that Quebec separatism was dead. In the fall of 1976 Rene Levesque and the Parti Quebecois were elected to office in Quebec. So much for the views of the Prime Minister as to when discontent becomes separatism. Late last week surveys were taken which showed that one out of four Albertans believed Alberta should separate. It is frightening that 25 per cent of the population wishes to separate and the Prime Minister says that the feeling for separatism is nil in western Canada.
I should like to refer to a meeting held in my riding approximately two weeks ago at which the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was the guest speaker. The feelings that were vented at that meeting were such as to cause tremendous concern. They represented a reaction to the government's policies and attitude toward western Canada. One businessman said afterwards, "I travel around all the time and I talk to a lot of people in this community. What I hear scares me. I am afraid, I am afraid". Yet the Prime Minister said the feeling of alienation and separatism in western Canada was nil. I say he does not know what he is talking about; he does not know how the people feel. We in western Canada are not hysterical; we are not lacking in intelligence or reason; we are not irrational. For the benefit of the Prime Minister and everyone else involved in this regionally-based central Canadian Liberal government, I must state categorically that I do not appreciate certain things and I reject them. I reject the unilateral constitutional proposal of the Prime Minister. I reject his unilaterally and federally imposed charter of human rights and its eroding of parliamentary supremacy by transferring legislative powers, including those concerning the natural resources dealt with in the budget, to the federally appointed
The Budget-Mr. Patterson
supreme court. I reject the proposal of the Prime Minister to turn British Columbia and the other western provinces into second and third-class citizens. I want no part of colonial status. I reject the concept of having another nation amend our constitution in a way which would never be approved by Canadians. These things were all tied up, not only with the constitutional debate, but with the budget debate as well. We reject the massive transfers of jurisdiction over property and civil rights and education to the federal government under the constitutional proposal.
We have talked about the rights that were supposed to be enshrined in the constitution. With this in mind I want to quote the words of Harold Laski-at least my friends in the New Democratic Party will realize who he is. He said:
A vigilant legislature and the existence of a citizen body which is conscious that rights do matter and is willing if need be to fight for those rights is the best guarantee of human rights.
Mr. Speaker, I hope to have the opportunity to speak some time later in the constitution debate. 1 wish to reiterate what several of my colleagues from the west have said in their own way and I advise the Prime Minister and his cabinet to withdraw the suggestions and proposals which are before us and start over again so as to bring something back which will be acceptable right across the country.
I move on, now, to the catalogue of broken promises which have become evident in this budget. I suggest that the budget is the epitome of hypocrisy. In his press conference a week ago the Prime Minister in the same statement in which he said separatism in the west was nil, went on to admonish western Canadians for not electing members of Parliament to the national government. I was amazed that none of the reporters challenged him on that point. I remind the House that a little earlier he had said there were no members elected. But there had been members elected in the previous government. It was not satisfactory as far as he was concerned.
The Prime Minister promised there would be no excise tax on gasoline. The Minister of Finance makes provision for what he calls a Canadian ownership charge of up to an extra $4.50 per barrel. During the election campaign last February the Liberals were promising some form of assistance to lower income Canadians. The budget has done nothing at all in this area of assistance. It provides that the cost of oil will be 85 per cent of the world price by 1984. That is exactly what our budget provided. In addition, the minister neglected to add his Canadian ownership charge, which all Canadians will have to pay on home heating oil, gasoline and oil products.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but his time has expired. I believe he is nearing the end of his speech but if he is to continue, unanimous consent would be required.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Alexander Bell Patterson: Thank you, Mr. Speaker. A major part of our policy when we were in government was to cut deficit and

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mr. De Bane
we directed a good deal of our effort toward that end. We felt we could have cut the budgetary deficit in half by 1983-84. This government, which promised to work on cutting the deficit, has broken that promise again. The deficit is up by $3.6 billion. It now costs some $12 billion per year in interest payments alone on the national debt-more than the total federal government budget when the Prime Minister took office in 1968. Canada cannot go on in this way.
In conclusion, I would like to quote a statement made by Mr. William Simon, former secretary of the treasury of the United States of America to a committee:
You asked, Mr. Chairman, about the consequences of deficits. But we all know what they are. We know that neither man nor business nor government can spend more than is taken in for very long. If it continues, the result must be bankruptcy.
Mr. Speaker, we as a nation will become bankrupt. We already have a bankrupt government.


Mr. De Bane:: Mr. Speaker, may I call it six o'clock? [English]


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: As suggested by the Minister for Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) the Chair will call it six o'clock.
Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until eight o'clock this evening.
At 5.57 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. When the debate was interrupted at six o'clock, the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) had been given the floor.


Pierre De Bané: Mr. Speaker, I am quite pleased to have an opportunity to take part in the debate on the budget brought down by my colleague the Minister of Finance (Mr. Mac-Eachen) because it is surely one of the most complete statements on a policy which will certainly surely characterize the various aspects of the Canadian economy during the next decade, not only at the energy, fiscal and budgetary levels, but also at the industrial, technological and regional levels.
If Canada has a special characteristic compared with other countries it is because implicitly or explicitly as a result of its size and its space since 1867, the federal government has recognized that it should assume a responsibility to enable all Canadians to take advantage of the opportunities available in this country. And what is more remarkable in the budget
brought down by the Minister of Finance is perhaps that for the first time it had such a regional character.
Several of the measures proposed by the Minister of Finance are directed to specific areas, whether the centre, the north, the west, the province of Quebec or the maritimes. Personally, as the minister in charge of regional development, I mean to alleviate regional inequalities, for I know as well as any other hon. member to what extent one's quality of life and standard of living are largely conditioned by the area in which one lives. And if one resides away from the areas where most of the economic activities are concentrated, one, more often than not, is very likely to get fewer advantages and benefits than one would be otherwise entitled as a Canadian.
As an MP who comes from one of the less-favoured areas, the riding of Matapedia-Matane, I know what disastrous effects the problems of unemployment, of per capita incomes that are lower than the national average, can have on the morale of the men, women and children who live there.
If there is anything that is obvious to every one of us, it certainly is that the opportunities for development, for growth and employment, are, to a large extent determined by the area where one lives. There are several areas where the opportunity to earn about as much as the average fellow-citizen is just about non-existent.
That is why I am so pleased with the measures introduced by the Minister of Finance in his budget: several of them are designed specifically to reduce regional disparities.
I do not want to spend time on all those measures, but may I be allowed to say that, generally speaking, the economy and the principles on which this budget is built, to my mind are based on common sense, courage and justice; in addition, they avoid all sorts of solutions that are as erroneous as they are simplistic. As I said at the beginning, this budget represents the gigantic effort of undertaking a new policy whose magnitude in the field of energy will mean, not only security of supplies for Canadians, not only justice for Canadians, regardless of whether they live in the producing or the consuming provinces, but also the opportunity for Canadian industry to get off to a fresh start.
For many months I have been speaking with my colleagues on both sides of the House about the great and immediate need for their ideas and assistance in improving the federal response to the economic development needs and goals of the people of Canada. There is a need for concerted action by the Government of Canada to respond to the diverse opportunities open to Canadians across the country. Such action requires more than the attention and efforts of one agency or department. It must be the result of the efforts of all members of the House and of ail the agencies and departments of the federal
November 6, 1980

government in concert-I emphasize in concert-with the people and other governments of the country.

The economic strategy and specific budgetary measures proposed by my colleague support the point that I want to make. These proposals reflect a very cohesive federal policy which was greatly needed. Such proposals will enable us to take corrective action and develop in each area of Canada a solid economic and energy base in full recognition of both our energy dependency and our development potential related to this dependency.

In my opinion, Madam Speaker, the most important aspect of our strength as a nation lies in our diversity from region to region, combined with our willingness to share with each other the benefits, both economic and social, which this diversity brings.
In his budget speech, the Minister of Finance stated that the concept of sharing was for him close to the very fibre of the Canadian tradition. I share his vision of our tradition and I strongly support his view, and indeed the government's view, that Canada's economic and social destiny will depend upon the continued effort and commitment of every Canadian to share the wealth and economic opportunities which we have together made possible.
[ Translation]
It is this concept of sharing, coupled with the sad realization that poverty and inequality still persist in the way of life of many Canadians, which have brought me to suggest the new special program of a 50 per cent investment tax credit. This program, which I shall describe in detail in a few moments- and I am very grateful to the Minister of Finance for having accepted what I suggested to him in co-operation with other members of my party-recognizes clearly the existence of disparities, not only among the vast regions of this country, but also within the same areas, and even, Mr. Speaker, within the richest provinces.

The special investment tax credit of 50 per cent which is under the broad direction of my department, is intended to stimulate investment, employment and economic growth in the areas of Canada where development is most desperately needed. In these specially designated regions, the federal government will offer eligible industries an investment tax credit of 50 per cent against federal taxes, payable for eligible capital costs.

This is certainly a very generous fiscal incentive. I would add that it is without precedent in Canadian history. No federal government and no provincial government has had the audacity to go as far in the past as granting a 50 per cent tax credit. And what should be noted is that there will be no minimum. The smallest investment in the authorized sectors
The Budget-Mr. De Bane
will be eligible for the tax credit. There will be no useless paperwork. This will be an automatic tax credit, which will therefore be very simple to administer. There will be no paperwork, no authorization is necessary, and the tax credit will apply to even the smallest investments, whether to purchase a machine or to enlarge the facilities of a small manufacturing industry.

Madam Speaker, as you and the business community are no doubt aware, there is a system of investment tax credits already in place which was stated in 1975 and amended in 1978. Under this program the amount of credit varies from region to region in three tiers. In the Atlantic provinces and the Gaspe it is 20 per cent; in other regions designated under the Regional Development Incentives Act it is 10 per cent; in the rest of Canada it is 7 per cent. To this, the government has now added a fourth tier-the specially designated areas to which I have referred, areas which by national standards are most in need of assistance to overcome their problems of low income and lack of meaningful employment opportunities. [Translation]
Consequently we are proposing a fourth level tax credit of 50 per cent. This measure is unprecedented as no government, as I have said, whether federal or provincial, has ever gone that far. For example, a few years ago, Quebec and Ontario had a special program of tax credit as an incentive to small and medium businesses. The tax credit to investors was in that case of 25 per cent only. Now, the tax credit-I see that Madam Speaker has returned to the chair-will be limited to $15,000, plus half of the taxes to be paid over that amount. For instance, if a company invests $100,000 eligible for tax credit and its federal taxes are $25,000, the tax credit will bring down the taxes thus: $15,000 plus half the taxes for the year, which is $12,500. Therefore, the tax credit will amount to $27,500. As the tax due was $25,000, the tax credit cancels out the federal taxes. It is interesting to note, Madam Speaker, that the manufacturing industry has already, in some cases, the privilege to claim, as a deduction from their income, an allowance on the capital cost called amortization, which may reach 50 per cent of the cost of acquisition of the eligible goods. This new tax credit formula will, in effect, substitute a tax rebate for the amortization deduction, which is, of course, much more advantageous.
When goods subject to depreciation are sold, the income tax law stipulates that, in some cases, the total amount of depreciation claimed over the years, becomes taxable. Whereas in the case of tax credit, there is no such taxation; moreover, the amount of credit which has not been claimed one year may be carried over other taxation years. In a word, Madam Speaker, a company which, for example, owed $15,000 in taxes can completely cancel this out simply by making an eligible investment of $30,000.

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mr. De Bane

Let me offer another brief illustration of how this fourth tier tax credit would work. Suppose a small manufacturing company acquires $20,000 worth of new machinery for an expansion in 1981. It would be able to claim $10,000 against its federal tax payable when it filed its income tax return for the year, giving it a gross gain of $10,000.
However, the company would not be able to claim the regular capital cost allowance on the whole $20,000. To be absolutely precise, I would say that the gross benefit would have to be reduced by 20 per cent, that is, $2,000, which would give the company a net benefit of $8,000. Of course, if the firm does not have any federal tax payable it can defer the benefit for up to five years. Similarly, if it has less tax payable than the $10,000, it would be able to take the remainder in a following year.
Business people may well ask how this special investment tax credit will relate to my department's other industrial incentives, such as those under the Regional Development Incentives Act. Firms which establish, expand or modernize operations in the specially designated areas may still apply for these incentives.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, I realize that our colleagues from the New Democratic Party are not interested in this measure which seems to me extremely generous. We must no doubt forgive those high priests of parliamentarianism for showing us tonight they don't have any interest in a totally revolutionary measure that no NDP government has ever dared present in any of the provinces where they were in power.
One of the reasons, Madam Speaker, which motivated the government to propose an investment tax credit of 50 per cent-and as I said before, no government in Canada ever dared go so far in helping disadvantaged areas-is because the subsidy program of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion does exist. The purpose of those subsidies is to help those who want to start new businesses, therefore we had to come up with a system to help those already in business and who, instead of paying taxes, will be able to invest in new businesses in areas of Canada with greatest inequalities, which are far away, and where job opportunities are few.

Most manufacturing and processing industries, as classified under the Regional Development Incentives Act, will be eligible for the 50 per cent tax credit if they establish, expand or modernize in the specially designated areas.
With this special investment tax credit program, I believe we are widening the arsenal of weapons to fight disparities in Canada. This one will prove a very useful tool, one involving a minimum of administrative requirements and one with a special appeal for small local business.


An hon. Member:: A tax write-off.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I notice that once again the hon. member shows the same prejudice he demonstrated yesterday in the House-


An hon. Member:: You are repeating a speech from ten years ago.
[ Translation]


Pierre De Bané: -and I can tell him that I am sorry, I am talking about a new program, a revolutionary program that several provincial ministers of finance in their comments a few weeks ago had to recognize as being extremely generous. An investment tax credit of 50 per cent will allow every Canadian who wants to do so, to invest his savings in the most disadvantaged area and especially those who live in those areas because there is one thing I have learned since I became a member of this House that the development which occurs is due to the contribution of the people who are living in those disadvantaged areas and the government must make sure to provide them with the necessary programs. We are talking here about a very powerful tax measure which will show those people that we are going to be, as well as all the other Canadians, their partners because every one of them, instead of paying tax to the government in Ottawa, will be able to invest in those most disadvantaged areas.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Ethier):: Order, please. The hon. minister's allotted time has expired. Nevertheless, he may continue with the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Mr. Speaker, we have heard many speakers criticizing this budget in the last few days. I think that most Canadians will agree with these criticisms whether they support Crosbie, the stand-up comic or Rae, the rational radical.
Our Liberal friends over there may admire the slick deception of their finance minister's style. However, I must say in plain English that this is a sneaky, dishonest and disgusting budget. Because of its inhumanity, this budget will put enormous hardships on Canadians and their children in future years.
I want to concentrate tonight on the effect this budget will have on the ordinary people; in particular, on what this budget means in relation to housing problems which face millions of Canadians from east to west.
First, I want to deal with unemployment. Unemployment will increase to 8.5 per cent, which means that over one million people will be unemployed, the highest percentage since the depression. Yet, when we hear these statistics, I wonder if
November 6, 1980

anyone in this House feels any remorse right inside his or her gut. I would like to think of the young people whom we know personally. There are many young people who cannot get jobs, perhaps even children of members here. There are many young people who are unable to get experience or training, the things which are essential to making them employable. Young people, therefore, are really being deprived of a future. It means also that many women are affected, women who have been the last hired and the first fired. We must not forget those women who raise children. They, too, will probably have no chance of getting into the labour market in the future. Native people will continue in a lifetime welfare trap, as will many others, again including many women who are raising children on their own. Not only will there be fewer jobs but those who are working will have to pay a higher proportion of unemployment insurance, as will their employers, under the new budget. Perhaps this would not be so bad if they were sure they would be eligible for unemployment insurance if and when they become unemployed.
I must say, God help the poor fishermen in Vancouver East because they were able to work only about 14 weeks this year. They have high payments to meet on vessels and homes and they will simply not be eligible for unemployment insurance, although they have contributed for many years. These are only some examples of how unemployment and hardship will grow because of the recent budget.
Next I want to say something about the cost of living. The minister has forecast that food costs will go up 12 per cent. Many project a higher rate. Every family will pay up to $500 more per year for transportation, home heating and other tax increases. People with the least resources will suffer most. Pensioners will pay over 40 per cent of the increased guaranteed income supplement on the increased cost of their heating fuel. The average real wages of those working will grow only about 1 per cent because of rising inflation. There was nothing in this budget, even though it was supposedly an energy budget, for money-saving transportation methods, for example, a rapid transit system which is so much needed in areas such as the B.C. lower mainland. Incidentally, this was promised in 1974. Nor is there any indication in the budget that there will be a Canadian food policy. Nothing is said about a cost of living credit, a program we have advocated very strongly, to assist families who are most affected by the high cost of living.
It is not only the poor and the unemployed who are being penalized by this budget. Some of my friends to the right have been stressing the point in recent days that the people on an average income are struggling and it needs two people in the family working to survive. They, too, will also feel the pain of this budget.
I want to refer briefly to cuts in social programs. Today, the Canadian Council on Social Development again documented the trend from this budget which they proved will mean a major reduction in social program expenditures. Along with that, they predicted there would be a shift of responsibility
The Budget-Mrs. Mitchell
from the federal government to the provinces. This is a very serious matter. It may well be a worse disaster than medicare, and we know what block funding did to that program. There will be absolutely no guarantee that essential services will be maintained if this responsibility is turned over completely to the provinces.
I now want to deal with the cost of shelter. Most tenants and home owners can expect in the future to pay far in excess of 25 per cent of their incomes for shelter. In fact, before this budget I knew of pensioners who were paying 60 per cent of their incomes for an apartment. Those lucky enough to afford a down payment to buy a home, will face mortgage payments that are phenomenal.
The same applies to rapidly rising rents. The average one bedroom apartment in most cities with low vacancy rates is now well over $300 a month. In my city of Vancouver that means it is exempted from rent controls. There is no mortgage interest assistance down to 9 per cent for low-income families. There is nothing to stabilize interest rates to make homes more affordable.
Before I mention the mysterious MURB myth, I want to refer to a couple of items in the energy proposals with regard to home owners and households. First is the home heating conversion. Some households will benefit from this up to $800 on the cost of converting from oil to other methods of heating. However, I understand that the Enersave program which was introduced in Nova Scotia and Prince Edward Island in 1977 shows that the amount being allocated is most inadequate for low-income households. The Canadian Council on Social Development reports the following:
From the beginning, the home heating conversion experiment has been undercapitalized and the new budget unfortunately follows this same pattern. The federal government estimates that many households will have to incur costs of $1,000 or more to replace oil burning furnaces but the proposed grant will cover only 50 per cent conversion cost up to a maximum of $800.
From this we can see that most families with a low or average income cannot afford to buy a new furnace and pay the difference using the provision in this budget. I hope there will be some reconsideration of the finance pattern.
With regard to home insulation, the budget for home insulation programs is raised from $195 million to $265 million. This allows for very little expansion of this program which needs to be extended to those homes built after 1961. Even more important is the need for the government to protect consumers from fly-by-night insulation outfits which have exploited the home insulation program, often providing inadequate, costly and irresponsible service.


An hon. Member:: They don't care.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: In connection with federal subsidies for home insulation programs, there are really no standards required by the federal government. We even find companies putting in insulation that is a hazard to health. There must be no more $30 specials which use urea formaldehyde, risking the health of home owners.

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mrs. Mitchell
Now on to the mysterious MURB program. MURB tax shelters announced in this budget may tempt a few more developers to build luxury rental apartments. However, they will do nothing to encourage the building of affordable rental accommodation, accommodation for families.


Walter David Baker: Is that MURB?


Margaret Anne Mitchell: That's MURB and, to their credit, the Tories did away with it. There is no increase in the budget for non-profit housing, which the Tories, too, did nothing about; nothing for co-operatives. There is no increase in RRAP, home repairs or native and northern housing. We heard several speakers from the Conservative party describe the desperate housing situation in the maritimes and northern British Columbia. Repeated evidence coming before the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation of the need and demand for social programs of the kind 1 have described has been completely ignored by this budget and by this finance minister.
It is well established that such programs would provide a needed stimulus to the housing and home repair industry and would create many construction jos. MURBs are tax shelters for the greedy which provide no shelter for the needy. Of all the possible alternatives which this budget could have produced to help alleviate the housing crisis in Canada, why did the minister choose the MURB approach? Why did he decide to increase our net deficit by giving away $15 million in tax write-offs to wealthy people to invest in multiple unit residential buildings which will produce only high cost bachelor or one bedroom apartments? The rents will be far higher than most average tenants can afford. We are subsidizing this program with our taxes.
Why did the minister not research the past history of the MURB-ARP program of the seventies? There are some excellent reports available from the Canadian Council on Social Development. He did not consult tenants and housing groups which are authorities on the need from the consumer point of view. When I questioned him recently in the House, the finance minister admitted that MURBs were a response to pressure from the real estate industry. He also admitted it was primarily a tax shelter for investors.
Let me review a few facts about the impact of past MURB-ARP shelters. In the seventies when developers and investors rushed to invest in rental construction to avoid taxes, they did so at the expense of family homes and family neighbourhoods. I would like to give an example in the Grandview neighbourhood of Vancouver, a family neighbourhood for many medium-income and working-class families.
Over 200 homes were torn down, fine homes that had been subdivided to accommodate two and three families. They were demolished to establish MURB-ARP bachelor apartments. Some 600 families who had been living in these homes were displaced. As a result, the population of children under the age of 14 went down by 40 per cent. That proves how little family accommodation there was. One wonders where these families went in Vancouver because we have a minus zero vacancy rate. No new public housing is being built.
Blocks of MURB apartments built by developers were sold under strata title arrangements-no longer rental, they were sold outright-to provide small investors with tax shelters. The investors received assisted rental grants as well as tax writeoffs and wrote off extensive depreciation costs each year. Rents were high and suites often remained vacant. They did not care, because this was another bonanza. From the province of British Columbia they received more credits for losing money because of vacant suites. Within a few years when the depreciation write-off privileges were finished, these buildings were sold outright and profits were reinvested in a rollover kind of operation to avoid capital gains taxes.
You can imagine how much that cost, Mr. Speaker. It was not just the MURB; it was everything else that went with it. This MURB-ARP game is a very well-known Liberal rip-off, and now we are being ripped off again. It produced no social programs and no social benefits. It increased our national debt by over $300 million. That was just for the MURB part of it. Forget about the capital gains and all the other tax writeoffs. During this same period rental housing stock declined. Let me remind the House that this was a program which was to develop rental stock, but rental housing stock actually declined by 41 per cent, proof enough that this rental construction program failed. And it will fail even more now.


Mr. Deans:: They still support it.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: However, this is what they put in their new budget.
Planners, developers and, I understand, even the HUDAC group are very skeptical now that this new MURB program will do anything to help investment in rental housing since it will take much longer for approval than an ordinary mortgage project, and the sunset date for the new MURB tax write-offs is 1981, so it hardly gives time to get started, and perhaps that is just as well.
There are reports which show that the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation was very pessimistic that this plan would work, but our finance minister apparently did not bother to consult the corporation. This history of failure in the past has made small investors wary. Manipulators of large consortia who exploited this program to build, sell and double investments were aided by government grants, tax writeoffs and rollover investments. That is a horror story of the seventies.
I would like to refer to the November 3 statement by the Canadian Council on Social Development which substantiates and enlarges everything I have been saying. The council also said that a program of this kind encourages absentee landlords, something which from a community point of view is a very underminingjievelopment.
1 would like to refer again to Vancouver as an example because it is the city which has the greatest housing crisis in Canada and, as such, forewarns other centres across our land of troubled times to come. In Vancouver one-quarter of the population must put up with inadequate or unaffordable hous-
November 6, 1980

ing. Students are crowded into very inadequate suites or are sleeping in cars. Yet our federal and provincial governments are doing nothing about this. In our downtown area thousands of people are sleeping in terrible rooming houses and hotels. No public housing is being built and very little social housing is being funded. The housing crisis is going to be just as bad in Victoria, Calgary, Toronto and St. John's, Newfoundland. It will get worse, because this government refuses to work positively with the provinces to find joint solutions.
What Canada needs is a comprehensive housing program targeted to the needs of people whose earnings are under $30,000. Perhaps we should enshrine in the constitution the right of every Canadian to decent, affordable accommodation which costs no more than 25 per cent of family income.
The budget should have included an industrial strategy with emphasis on housing investment for the future. It should have included mortgage assistance payments plans. It should have included far more for social housing.
We know this country faces a very serious deficit and that we must invest wisely for the future. Surely an investment which would contribute to adequate housing for our population in the ways I have outlined, one which would strengthen families and communities, should be a high priority for any federal government. What better way to unite east and west and north and south in this great country than to ensure equality for all Canadians?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, in this first budget of the new Liberal government I believe Canadians have been presented with a solid and comprehensive foundation for meeting the central challenges of economic performance.


Ian Deans: How can you say that without choking, you hypocrite?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: What are these challenges? They involve the need to bring about strong increases in the growth of output, increased employment, improved productivity performance and a reduction in the rate of inflation. These are the economic challenges facing us as we enter the 1980s.


Ian Deans: You have never lived up to a promise in your life.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: In addressing them the budget makes a strong beginning toward implementing the government's major themes of industrial development policy which were enunciated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) during the recent election. I speak in particular of the themes of building industrial capacity on our resource base, strengthening Canada's research and technological capacity and encouraging independent Canadian-owned enterprise.
Privilege-Mr. Knowles



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I apologize for interrupting the minister, but I think the House is expecting me to make a ruling and, with the permission of the House, I would like to proceed with it now.
We had this afternoon an interesting debate on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Many hon. members contributed to that debate, and I want to thank them for their contributions.
It appears to me that the issue the House expects me to decide is not whether the privileges of the House have been breached or whether a contempt has been committed but whether a committee, in this case the special joint committee on the constitutional resolution, has the power to authorize the televising of its proceedings. On the one hand, it was argued that I had already ruled on this matter when I replied in August to the chairman of the special committee on the handicapped and the disabled to the effect that only the House could authorize the televising of committee proceedings. On the other hand, it was pointed out that my letter simply expressed an opinion and did not make a definite ruling.
At the conclusion of debate I expressed myself to the effect that I had given an opinion to the chairman on the basis of his specific request which involved, among other things, the taping of committee proceedings for distribution to cable outlets. I do not feel, therefore, that I have actually ruled on the question of the power of the committee to authorize the televising of its proceedings, which seems to me to be the point at issue now.
This matter has been raised in the House on a number of occasions, but until now it has never come before the Chair for a decision. Even now it has come indirectly, but I think the House expects me to rule. I shall do so, but I shall immediately set aside the question of privilege.
The basis of my ruling must be the original resolution of the House respecting the introduction of television, which reads as follows:
That this House approves the radio and television broadcasting of its proceedings and of the proceedings of its committee on the basis of principles similar to those that govern the publication of the printed official reports of debates; and
That a special committee, consisting of Mr. Speaker and seven other members to be named at a later date, be appointed to supervise the implementation of this resolution.
Obviously, the House has approved the televising of proceedings in the House and in committees. Just as obviously, the House has adopted the principle that the implementation of this proposal be supervised by a special committee. A special committee was established and made a number of reports to the House including a report to the following effect, and I quote:

November 6, 1980
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
1.	The concept of an "electronic Hansard", which is central to radio and television coverage of the proceedings of the House, may not be applicable in the same way to standing or special committees.
2.	Consideration of some procedures for coverage of committees has special urgency because of the evident anomaly of present coverage of the House but not of committees. Your committee, therefore, has arranged special meetings to hear representations from members of the press and our own technical advisers.
3.	Since the order of reference of this committee includes coverage of the standing and special committees, it would be contrary to that order of the House for any radio or television coverage to take place in any such committee prior to consideration and authorization by this committee.
4.	While the conditions are different, the same care must be applied to the introduction of radio and television coverage in the committees as was taken in ensuring the highest standards of coverage of the proceedings of the House.
While it is true that this report was not adopted by the House, clearly it reflected the original intention to introduce television only under the supervision of a committee.
Admittedly, there exists a hiatus in these proceedings, since the House has not seen fit to reconstitute a supervisory committee. Nevertheless, I cannot ignore the original intent of the House.
It was on this basis that the chairman of the Standing Committee on Trade and Economic Affairs ruled on October 25, 1979, that his committee did not have the power to authorize the televising of its proceedings. It was on this basis also that I wrote to the chairman of the Special Committee on the Handicapped and Disabled.
After listening very carefully to the debate this afternoon, I have not been persuaded to change my opinion, or to reverse the opinion of my predecessor, and I must hold the view that the televising of proceedings of standing and special committees of the House may be authorized only by the House itself.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, it seems to me that there are two possibilities open to the Special Joint Committee on the constitution in this regard. Either the committee should make a special or interim report requesting such an authorization, or the House itself could give a permissive instruction to the committee, always bearing in mind the proprieties applicable to joint committees.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have no question actually on your ruling but I do have, by way of a point of order, a question for the government House leader. Is he prepared now to consult with respect to the doctrine that will relieve the committee of any obligation it may feel to the contrary with respect to televising? Will he move a motion, and if he will not move a motion tonight, is he prepared to consult tonight so that we can have a motion tomorrow? I undertake that if we can agree, and I am sure we can, such a motion would go through without debate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: All I need to say, Madam Speaker, is the obvious. If such a motion is
made-and we have been asking for it for a long time-as far as we are concerned, it will be passed immediately without debate.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I said this afternoon, we bow to your ruling. As suggested by my hon. colleagues, I shall seek further advice. We should be able to adopt a position on this within the next few days.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the motion of Mr. MacEachen that this House approves in general the budgetary policy of the government.
Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, as I was saying, the budget makes a strong beginning toward implementing the government's major themes of industrial development policy.
Let us take the field of energy, for example. In the words of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen):
To fail to solve our energy dilemmas would be to fail to realize our greatest source of opportunity in this decade.
Putting this in another way, energy and the various issues related to energy, including price, security of supply and the manner and pace of energy source development, can be seen to pose, at one and the same time, both the greatest potential stimulus to growth and prosperity in our economy and, ironically, a most important potential constraint to that same growth and prosperity. Thus, there are enormous opportunities for industrial development arising out of our energy situation. Yet if, for example, the price of energy to Canadian users rises swiftly in line with the international price, the effects would be very disruptive.
With so much at stake, it is essential that we as a nation deal effectively with the problems and opportunities that energy and the energy sector present. This, Mr. Speaker, the Government of Canada has done with the announcement in the budget of an extraordinarily far reaching and coherent national energy program. It is a program which will make energy a major factor in the solution of our broader challenges. It will provide Canadians with energy security, with the opportunity to participate, as owners, workers and business people, in energy development, and with fairness in the manner in which the benefits of our nation's rich resources are shared.
As Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I want to emphasize particularly the substantial and numerous positive
November 6, 1980

industrial development implications of the new national energy program, implications which, in a real and complete sense, make good on one of the primary pledges made by the Prime Minister in the industrial policy statement of last February 12 in Toronto during the election campaign. That commitment was to:
-capitalize on Canada's energy base in order to build a world competitive industrial sector.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Let me take a few minutes to describe some of the ways in which the national energy program will accomplish this objective. First, in rejecting the international cartel price for oil and in implementing a made-in-Canada blended price for oil, we have ensured that Canada's industries, as well as household consumers, will be able to adjust gradually to higher energy prices to the extent they are required to bring about Canadian energy security. We have acted to minimize the inflationary effects of rising energy costs, effects which could prove very disruptive to needed new business investment throughout the economy. Above all, we have guaranteed that businesses in every region of the country will have a permanent competitive edge, in both foreign and domestic markets, based on lower than world level energy costs.
Second, the Canadianization measures which are among the prominent features of the national energy program will not only increase the percentage of Canada's oil and gas industry which is owned by Canadians from 25 per cent to 50 per cent within this decade, it is my belief that they can also have some major secondary benefits for Canada's over-all industrial development. This Canadianization program will retain in our country for Canadian use a larger share of the profits of the oil and gas industry. Additionally, to the extent that our oil and gas sector comes under Canadian control, traditional linkages between multinational petroleum companies and their customary foreign suppliers of machinery, equipment and technology can be altered. In this way, the Canadianization measures, together with other means which we plan to implement to ensure that Canadian suppliers benefit from energy developments, will contribute to eliminating a potential obstacle to this country's industrial development and diversification based on our resource strengths.
Third, with the budget, the Government of Canada has begun to put in place a comprehensive energy development-energy conservation plan which promises multiple industrial benefits throughout Canada. For instance, with incremental expenditures of over $2.5 billion over three years on oil substitution and conservation and renewable energy programs, the federal government's plan will offer opportunities which will mean jobs in every part of Canada, opportunities for new industries to develop and existing industries to expand to supply the many new products and services needed as part of the national effort to reduce oil consumption to 10 per cent of over-all energy use. Also, there are mega-projects planned in non-conventional oil extraction, heavy crude oil upgrading, and energy delivery system, projects made feasible by innovative systems of incentive prices and tax allowances. They will
The Budget-Mr. Gray
open up enormous opportunities for Canadians to supply the equipment and technology and to fill the jobs which will make these projects happen. Finally, the energy independence plan will have yet another positive effect upon the health of our industrial economy for it will ultimately free us from the risks and the costs of unpredictable disruptions of foreign energy supplies.
There is a fourth element of the national energy program to which I want to draw particular attention, for it very clearly signifies the determination of the federal government to ensure that energy and activities related to energy provide the basis for a major, sustained economic upsurge. Specifically, in the new legal framework which will govern oil and gas exploration and development on the Canada lands, the Yukon, the Northwest Territories, the Arctic and offshore, there will be provisions to guarantee that a high level of Canadian goods and services is employed in these activities. Applicants for exploration and production rights will have to demonstrate how their operations will bring industrial and employment benefits to Canadians both in the region of interest and elsewhere in Canada. Right now the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources and the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce are working closely together to put in place the mechanisms for administering these provisions in a way which brings maximum employment and industrial benefits.
Of course there is a precedent for including industrial benefits requirements in energy legislation in the act which created the Northern Pipeline Agency. The success of that regulatory regime, and especially of similar regimes in existence in the United Kingdom and Norway, shows why we believe using the government's authority over the Canada lands for national industrial development purposes will bring substantial benefits to all Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: It is also why the government has currently under serious study ways and means for applying industrial benefits requirements to other areas of resource and non-resource related development, for this is success which is measured in terms of thousands of new jobs, new businesses for existing domestic suppliers and the exploitation by Canadians of new industrial opportunities. Therefore, to quote again from the February 12 speech of the Prime Minister, we are "using Canada's resource base as the fundamental building block of a vigorous industrial sector."
There are a number of additional elements in the energy program introduced in the budget of last week where the thrust is industrial development, development with potential spill-overs or flow-through benefits for all of Canada's regions. I am talking about elements such as a Canadian alternative energy corporation which will work with Canadian businesses in the commercial production and marketing of renewable energy and conservation technology, elements such as new energy research and development initiatives totalling $260

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Gray
million over the next three years. These and other parts of the energy program offer very exciting industrial prospects which I believe all Canadians welcome.
More broadly, the national energy program will involve incremental direct expenditures by the federal government of more than $8 billion over the next three years on new and expanded programs, and that is quite apart from the allocations made to continue existing energy programs. It will involve many millions more in tax expenditures. It should be clear from what I have said about the impact of the elements of the energy program on industrial development that a substantial portion of these amounts will have direct and meaningful effects in strengthening and expanding the industrial base throughout Canada. Particularly in combination with the new government policy measures already announced, as well as those under development in the area of industrial strategy, the new expenditures on energy will go a long way toward ensuring that the benefits of Canada's energy development boom can be shared by Canadians in every region.
I have been talking in some detail about the industrial development implications of the new national energy program, in part because I wanted to deal with any misunderstandings which may have arisen as to the extent of the government's commitment to industrial development as expressed by the budget. That there is such a commitment and that it is a priority commitment is fully demonstrated in my view by the over-all approach of the budget which devotes very significant new resources for industrial development purposes. I have just spoken about the very substantial sums in the energy package which are industrial development and industrial assistance oriented, but in addition the budget presents other details about the expenditure plans of the federal government in regard to helping Canada's industrial sector meet the challenge of heightened international competition as well as our own requirements for strong, regionally-balanced economic growth.
The economic development envelope is increased by 22 per cent, that is, over the next three years there will be new money totalling $6.5 billion available for economic purposes in order to improve existing programs and to launch new initiatives in support of industrial expansion, research and development, and export development. AH these program initiatives will involve not only the manufacturing and processing sectors, but also the primary industries which are so important to Canada's economy. A new western development fund within the economic development envelope is created, from which it is expected that $2 billion will be spent over the next three years. Particular attention in the western development program will be directed to infrastructure development such as grain handling and transportation which is essential to optimizing economic development opportunities throughout western Canada. Also industrial diversification and trade policies are priority targets for the planned western development expenditures. It should be obvious that these expenditures, given the existing regional distribution of industry in the country, should generate significant flow-through benefits to industries in eastern and central Canada.
In addition to the $8 billion in new expenditures in the energy program and the $6.5 billion which represents new money available to foster expanded industrial activity and industrial restructuring to promote productivity improvement, there is another special $350 million fund created to help industries, workers and communities where the effects of industrial adjustments are particularly serious. As well, complementing the direct expenditure program, the budget introduced a new investment tax credit which is established for five years to offer significant encouragement to new manufacturing investment in especially designated areas of the country characterized by high unemployment and low income.
Over all, I believe this list of new and increased allocations of funds by the federal government to industrial development, adjustment and expansion throughout the country is impressive enough to have led the Toronto Star economic editor, Dave Crane, to conclude in a recent article that there are "significant new opportunities for Canadian entrepreneurs over the next few years."
In coming weeks and months, my colleagues and I will be making announcements which will explain in further detail the ways in which the very substantial amounts made available by the government and announced in the budget will be expended in order to strengthen and broaden Canada's industrial base and to create and sustain jobs throughout the country. With these announcements the government will be fulfilling the commitment made by the Prime Minister during the election to the Canadian people to "revitalize Canada's industrial capacity so that our industrial sector is better able to create jobs at home and be competitive abroad".
This is a budget which lays the foundation for carrying out our specific pledges on industrial policy. As well it is a budget which lives up to our other commitments on energy, on government expenditures, on gradual reduction of the deficit, and on helping those first who need help most. Also it is a budget which provides the basis for the renewed growth and vitality of our nation's economy. For all these reasons, I urge the House to support this budget. To do so in the interest of all Canadians and all of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) seeking the floor on a point of order?


Ian Deans: Since the minister did not use his time entirely, I was wondering whether he could accept a question.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: I have no objection, Mr. Speaker.


Ian Deans: In a reasonably friendly way, I would like to ask the minister whether in the preparation of his budget speech he considered two things. One, how much of the $44 million available during this year for assistance to workers will be


November 6, 1980

made available under a TAB program for workers in the auto industry in the Windsor area? Second, does the minister feel that the interest rates which have now reached a fairly substantial level, as of today's announcement, are sufficient to justify that he might fulfil his own promise and resign?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Mr. Speaker, I would like the hon. member to stick around and not run away, as he did from the Ontario legislature after he was rejected by his own party, and listen to our announcements about expenditure to help workers in Windsor and throughout Canada, not of $44 million but of $14 billion. This will do a lot more than will the empty blather of the hon. member on interest rates or any other subject.


Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I enjoyed the commercial as much as you did.
The essential guideline which permeates the budget is a direction to avoid an 18-cent per gallon excise tax increase at all costs. The minister has been faithful to his mandate and the costs have been tremendous. The cost of gasoline will go up about the same as it would under the Crosbie budget but the cost of home heating oil, not taxed by the Crosbie budget, will rise more rapidly under this budget.
In the final analysis, the government will extract $500 million more under this budget than was contemplated under the Crosbie budget. Under this budget the energy price increase will impact more severely on lower and middle-income Canadians because the budget provides no energy tax credits to shelter lower and middle-income people earning under $21,000, as was provided in the Crosbie budget. That budget provided a tax credit of $80 for adults and $30 for children. To illustrate the impact this would have as a tax shelter, consider a car getting 20 miles to a gallon, travelling 12,000 miles a year. It would use approximately 600 gallons of gasoline. At 18-cents per gallon that would cost $108 in one year. For an average family of four, a mother, father and two children, the tax credit would amount to $220. That would go a long way toward defraying the $108. This triple tax on energy constitutes, in my view, a tax regime with a vengeance and without mercy because no shelter for lower-income Canadians who use motor vehicles prudently is provided.
The most serious cost cannot be estimated. There is no way that the fragmentation of this nation may be measured in dollars. It should be said at this time that while western alienation began some time ago the fragmenting process began with the election of the present government and has continued to this day, despite great efforts by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and his government to heal the wounds of the nation, particularly those of the west.
The energy package, which is the cornerstone of this budget, projects a natural gas pipeline to the maritime provinces. I think this is a good measure. It will improve the energy mix in Atlantic Canada and it will provide greater security of supply. The construction of the pipeline will provide employment and will require support industries, which in turn will also stimulate employment by way of spin-off. But it is an intermediate measure for an intermediate term because natural gas is a
The Budget-Mr. Howie
fossil fuel, like oil. It is finite in supply and its end is predictable. Its end is in sight.
The province of New Brunswick has expressed environmental concerns which should be addressed and which, in my opinion, can be resolved. I would like to see the introduction of this new energy form managed so there is no dislocation in the operation of the large oil refinery located in New Brunswick, which directly or indirectly employs more than 1,000 persons. We need those jobs desperately in New Brunswick as well as those to be created. I believe that if we phase in the new energy form we can keep the old and add the new, which would provide a great economic stimulus to our province. Offshore exploration for natural gas and oil should be accelerated along the Atlantic coast. I am hoping that the gas pipeline will be reversible in nature so that in the days to come the people of Atlantic Canada can make their contribution to this nation by seeing that gas from the Atlantic coast flows inland to serve the people who are now serving us.
The Minister of Regional Economic Expansion (Mr. De Bane) explained tonight the 50 per cent tax investment credit, which I think is a major step forward in the battle against regional disparity. It is not as generous as a similar provision in the Crosbie budget, nor is it the 100 per cent recommended by the prestigious New Brunswick Development Institute. But it is a giant stride in the right direction and I am pleased to see that it is going to be in place.
DREE should also direct its attention to the problems of regional disparity and focus upon a development dimension. The only way this can happen, in my view, is for the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) to personally give that direction or to invest the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion with the authority to bring it about.
Shipbuilding has been neglected in this budget. It has not even been mentioned. In the Crosbie budget there was an impetus provided for the construction of new fishing vessels. This would be reflected by more employment in the shipyards of Saint John, New Brunswick, Halifax, Nova Scotia and St. John's Newfoundland. A program to create more employment in those shipyards would be a tremendous bonanza to the dozens of shipyards along the Atlantic coastline. I regret very much that it has been omitted from this budget.
CAST, which is one of the largest international ship companies in the world, is Canadian-owned and a principal owner is Canadian National Railways. This company recently ordered from Yugoslavia two container bulk carriers worth $27 million each. They have also placed a similarly large order with Korea. Canadian shipyards, which are underemployed, find it difficult to compete with subsidized foreign yards. This budget contains no enlightened tax policy to assist them in this competition or provide them with the incentive to put more Canadians to work. I find that a regrettable omission also.
The frigate program which would provide badly needed frigates for the Department of National Defence appears to be bogged down, if it has not completely sunk. Earlier this year changes were announced with regard to the evaluation method which has attracted intense scrutiny by the members in my

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Howie
party. Now there are rumours of more delays. I hope the minister will take the first opportunity to put these rumours to rest and to announce on a specific date that the best tender, based on merit, will be accepted and awarded so that we may have confidence that this program will go forward and that these shipbuilding contracts will provide work for Canada shipyards.
The Department of National Defence has seen the armed forces understaffed, underequipped and, as far as the lower ranks are concerned, underpaid. Their slender pay packages have been eroded by ever-increasing charges imposed by the Department of National Defence for shelter and utilities.
The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) has indicated in this House, in response to questions, that he is not able to take a decision. He does not know whether the government will close the Arctic to all but Canadian-built vessels by 1985-which was the policy of my party-or at all. I suggest that the valuable wealth of the Arctic should be mined by Canadians, transported in Canadian ships and processed in Canada by Canadians. The wealth should be used for the benefit of this nation, not carted offshore to be processed where the good jobs will be performed by people in distant lands.
Also, I would like to see a decision taken soon on moving forward dramatically and constantly with the development of a Canadian merchant marine. I believe this would provide badly-needed jobs for Canadians with a seafaring inclination. It would create a real, dynamic growth in the Canadian economy. Neither of these subjects were mentioned in the budget but I would like to see the government give them the best consideration it possibly can.
The conversion program from heating oil to electric heat has been denied the province of New Brunswick despite the fact that that province now has electric energy generated by hydro dams and by coal-fired thermal plants to the extent of 70 per cent of its capacity. Within one year it will bring on live Atlantic Canada's first nuclear reactor to produce 640 megawatts of electric power. This omission is based on misconception, poor homework and poor judgment exercised by the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. I hope the minister will at the earliest possible moment institute the remedial steps which are desirable if this oversight is to be corrected.
At the same time, I have to tell you, Mr. Speaker, that 1 am not, of my own knowledge, familiar with the economies involved in conversion from oil to electric heat-whether it is desirable now, next year, or when, or even if. But I would like Canadians who live in New Brunswick to have the same right to make that judgment as Canadians who live elsewhere in this country. I also believe, and I am sorry that the budget did not touch on this matter, that alternate energy research should be focused to the extent possible in areas of Canada which suffer from regional disparity. Research, too, should be given a development dimension.
New Brunswick has, on its own, experimented with a solar-heated building presently in operation in Shediac. Prince Edward Island has made rapid advancements in harnessing the wind to produce electric energy. New Brunswick and Nova Scotia have all that is necessary in terms of coal supply to carry out experimentation in the gasification and liquefaction of coal. All the Atlantic provinces have made progress in the use of biomass and wood waste. New Brunswick leads the country in research in the use of thermal peat moss, and has also done some work in the field of geothermal research.
Albert county in New Brunswick has an abundance of oil shale which has not been tapped. The Bay of Fundy has the highest tides in the world. We in the maritime provinces have the technology and the ability to harness them and produce over 4,000 megawatts of power if we operate the Fundy tidal power plants in conjunction or in tandem with the development of Gull Island which has the most spectacular hydro electric potential available to man. And below Gull Island is Muskrat Falls on the Churchill River which also has tremendous potential. If these two giant sources of energy are operated in tandem, Atlantic Canada can become the power house of the nation and displace millions of barrels of imported oil. But we do not have the dollars to do it.
The budget mentioned $25 million, which is a lot of money, but a drop in the bucket when one looks at what is needed for funding. There is an equity of $200 million in Gull Island, and that is a much better step forward but it still leaves a long way to go. I would like to see the government consider developing this tremendous potential.
In my own riding in terms of energy conservation the small town of Oromocto has announced its intention to heat its public buildings with wood and is moving in that direction without any subsidy. Mr. Lester Hull at Millville in my riding has developed a technique of blowing sawdust into a furnace so as to obtain almost 100 per cent combustion, and he uses this method to heat his home. Mr. Bernard Hargrove of Bath in Carleton County, which is represented in this House by one of our most able parliamentarians, the hon. member for Carle-ton-Charlotte (Mr. McCain), has built a hydro dam to harness a stream which flows across his property. From this dam he generates electric energy for about 35 families and sells the surplus to the New Brunswick Electric Power Corporation. In Nackawic in my riding the Ste. Anne Nackawic Pulp and Paper Mill burns waste wood to displace the use of expensive oil for the purposes of generating steam for the plup and paper mill and providing electric energy for its use. Mr. Peter Chalmers, one of my constituents, has built a solar heating unit which supplies part of his domestic needs. All these people have demonstrated ingenuity in the field and advanced the knowledge of this technology. I would like to see them and other Canadians have the opportunity to share their knowledge in this important field.
If I might make a few general comments, the budget itself appears to continue the centralizing process. In many cases it is a sleight-of-hand budget where what you see is not what you get. It projects spending $66 billion. The interest on our
November 6, 1980

national debt is $12.3 billion, which works out to $1,390 per taxpayer. The projected deficit is $13.7 billion, and there appears to be no attempt to deal with it, though 1 detect an attempt to manage the increase. Despite the generation of such huge debts, the government does not seem to be doing as much for the people as was contemplated under the Crosbie budget. The immediate visible results are an increase in the bank rate. We see confusion in the stock market and an undoubted reluctance on the part of Canadian and United States exploration teams to look for further energy sources. This is coupled with a decline in the value of the dollar.
My criticisms and my constructive suggestions are intended to complement the remarks of my colleagues who have participated in this debate. While I have been critical of some areas, I have not been critical of the hon. gentleman who presented the budget, because I have for the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) nothing but respect.
[ Translation]


Mr. Alain Garant (Bellechasse):: Mr. Speaker, I feel quite privileged to have today the pleasure of closing the debate on the first budget introduced in this decade, a budget which, I am quite certain now, will help the Canadian people to make a giant stride towards their security in energy and economic matters. This conviction, Mr. Speaker, has come to me as a result of a serious consideration of the budget and the energy measures introduced last week. It came to me also as a result of a comparison, as unbiased as possible, with the measures introduced in the sadly remembered, the dead and gone, Progressive Conservative budget. It came to me finally as a result of the comments of the Canadian people and in particular those from the beautiful Bellechasse area which I am honoured to represent in this House.
Mr. Speaker, after weighing the pros and cons of a number of possibilities this government has followed the course of reason and common sense, a course which took into account our present limitations while leading us without any doubt on the path of this unlimited potential which fate seems to have bestowed upon us.
Although during the seventies we were faced with many problems which we overcame with less difficulty than the great majority of other industrialized nations, I know that the Canadian people are convinced that the eighties will provide extraordinary opportunities for them as long as their leaders have a better understanding of the depth and complexity of the problems which affect our economy and the world economy, and as long as those leaders suggest solutions in keeping with our Canadian tradition which has always been a tradition of sharing and which so far has allowed us to face the greatest challenges of our history.
I am happy to see that the hon. Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) decided to stay with that Canadian tradition which is to share our rich national heritage. I am also happy to notice that our problems are not just a matter of management
The Budget-Mr. Garant
of the demand but that they require a combination of structural, industrial and original policies with properly oriented monetary and fiscal policies. We are committed to implement those policies with all the determination we can muster, because they agree with that greater and therefore more realistic vision of the problems facing our Canadian economy.
On the other hand they are also in keeping with the best liberal tradition which is to avoid extreme positions and rather to resort to practical solutions which will serve our common interests while preserving our individual freedoms.
I can only approve the economic strategy of this government which is perfectly in line with our commitments to the Canadians at the last election and in the throne speech, commitments which have undoubtedly contributed to the re-election of the government. This economic strategy will, Mr. Speaker, I am sure enable inflation to decrease gradually and also give a gradual impetus to investment and productivity thus encouraging despite a sensible but unavoidable delay, the full employment which we are all anticipating. The history of every country in the world, especially those which are filthy rich, has made us realize that there is no unique and easy solution, but that patience and orderly and conscientious work give the best chance of success. It is the direction which we have courageously decided to follow.
All hon. members probably agree that the reduction of the federal deficit at a more moderate level is advisable if we wish to decrease the present rate of the debt charge. The government must be given again enough margin of operation to take up the challenges of the future and to stop inflation without increasing taxes accordingly. Moved, however, by this realistic attitude which has always been our party's most distinctive attribute and which has been the basis for the Canadian people's nearly uninterrupted support of our party over the past 20 years, we have opted for a reduction of the deficit consistent with the current economic growth. Which means that we will strive for a moderate reduction of the deficit during the forthcoming year, for, in view of the fairly slow economic growth which has been forecast, we would not want to increase the burden carried by Canadian taxpayers.
As soon as the economic situation improves, however-and there are already signs of a quick recovery-there will be changes in our budgetary policies as well as further deficit reductions, which will in turn allow us to meet our commitments in this area. We are not shying away from our commitments, however. We only want to fulfil our promises in an orderly and reasonable fashion, and it is the reason why the government has decided not to increase its expenses more quickly than the economic growth.
This will allow us to reduce the federal deficit to more moderate proportions without having to apportion ourselves a
4538

November 6, 1980
The Budget-Mr. Garant
greater share of the total revenues namely without having to decide a general raise in taxation.
Mr. Speaker, the Canadian people will certainly be grateful one day for the fact that we have been able to avoid resorting to easy solutions, for deciding against a general raise in taxation and for preserving the indexation of the tax base of the individuals. No matter how easy they are these solutions would have presented serious inconvenience given the present economic situation where growth is rather slow. They could have easely stumped the beginning of the economic recovery that we can now clearly perceive ahead.
Mr. Speaker, we shall never stress enough for Canadian taxpayers and above all for all those who are most in need the importance of general indexation of the individual tax basis. Indexation will reduce by some $1.6 billion federal income tax that individuals would otherwise have had to pay next year and this tax reduction benefits Canadians every year without them being asked anything in return. In the United States, this was made a discretionary measure that is always widely publicized. We, the taxpayers of the province of Quebec, recognize the value of indexing the tax rate for individuals. If our fiscal burden is 23 per cent higher than the average tax burden of Canadians, it is precisely because the Quebec government, which raises its own provincial income tax, has neglected to index in a general way the individual tax system. They only did so on an incomplete basis in the last two years. Hence, we realize in a more conscious way the priceless value of the federal indexation program in terms of tax savings.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, I will say a word about our continuing and renewed support of the Bank of Canada's efforts to limit the expansion of the money supply. We have given top priority to economic development by providing sufficient funds to finance such strategic activities as industrial development, research and development, the promotion of exports, the improvement of the transportation system and the retraining of manpower. We have always concerned ourselves with encouraging a healthy competition and decreasing the burden of public regulation; we have been committed to increasing the aid to developing countries, as we are conscious of the interdependence of all economic performances. Finally, it has always been our firm intention to support social and economic relief measures aimed at the disadvantaged, as we promised during the last election campaign and in the Throne speech. This package of budgetary and economic measures, all equally important, should, through their combined effect, help curb inflation, encourage investment, increase productivity, get closer to full employment and also ensure, in the meantime, a minimum protection against the two evils of inflation and unemployment.
Mr. Speaker, I would now like to speak about the energy issue. Some people were surprised that the national energy program should occupy such an important part of this budget.
Some went so far as to say that this was not a budgetary policy statement, but rather a statement on energy policy. I fail to understand such a reaction because it denotes a serious lack of understanding of the Canadian economic problem as well as of the world economic problem. Indeed, the double problem of inflation and unemployment which has confronted western economies originated with the oil crisis of 1973 and its many after effects.
Mr. Speaker, now that the worst of the effects on our economy of the drastic price increases dictated by OPEC seem to be over, now that Canada is a net exporter of energy and is therefore in a position of strength, now that, with the latest and forthcoming increases in domestic prices, the energy tax base is getting increasingly larger, now that our partial dependency on imported oil becomes increasingly more costly for the federal state in its efforts to ensure identical treatment of all Canadians, whether from the east or from the west, it is quite reasonable for the federal government to feel that it has to put some order in the Canadian energy sector and to have decided to do so through budgetary measures in view of the colossal revenues involved in the Canadian energy industry and the nature of the problem, which is essentially a question of sharing these colossal revenues amongst the various groups concerned, namely the producers, who are entitled to a just return on their investment that can stimulate them to re-invest in the development of our incomparable energy potential, the consumers, who are entitled to a made-in-Canada price which takes into account the development conditions in Canada and which protect them against the disastrous effects of the drastic and unforeseeable price increases dictated by OPEC and conditioned by a most unstable international policy, and finally, the various government levels, which are entitled to the budgetary resources which they need to meet their respective energy commitments, which are certainly interrelated, but also essentially different.
Mr. Speaker, the national energy program announced in the budget is undoubtedly the most complete and ambitious energy program to have been developed throughout Canadian history.
I am quite sure that the basic principles which underlie this program, that is security, ownership and fairness, meet the aspirations of all the Canadian people; those people who surely want the security of supplies and gradual independency as regards the world oil market; those people who also wish that all Canadians wherever they come from, have the opportunity, to take part in the energy industry and benefit from its expansion and, finally, those people who wish a fair revenue sharing which allows for the most genuine Canadian tradition, namely the pooling of our national wealth.
Mr. Speaker, the new energy policy, for economical and fairness reasons, limits the increase in oil and gas prices for
November 6, 1980

Canadian consumers and thus goes on alleviating the adverse effect of sudden and unpredictable increases in OPEC prices. I cannot understand the theoretical or practical justification of those who would like to impose world oil and gas prices upon Canadian consumers. How can a totally artificially established price by an international trust be desirable from an economic point of view when applied to the domestic consumption of a domestically produced good?
Should the economic value of a good produced and consumed in the country not be more in line with domestic production costs rather than with the ups and downs of international politics? This is precisely what the national energy program tries to take into account through a blended price for oil consumed in Canada which will represent an average of offshore and domestic oil prices, and by establishing the price of natural gas based on domestic development costs. This policy, Mr. Speaker, results in an increase in oil prices in Canada which will be phased in and predictable, in shifting the burden of subsidizing costly oil imports, from taxpayers to consumers, which should promote our economy and finally, in the Canadian industry maintaining a substantial competitive advantage.
This competitive advantage of Canadian industry as regards oil prices is essential to offset the disadvantages that our hard climate and long distances might represent for our economy as regards energy costs. That is why, Mr. Speaker, the people of a rural area like Bellechasse, far from domestic markets, are really anxious that the Canadian industry should keep its competitive advantage as regards oil prices. All the more so, Mr. Speaker, since no country which produces 75 per cent of the petroleum products it needs, such as Canada, has so far found justification for selling to its own people at international prices.
As I said before, Mr. Speaker, the issue of petroleum and gas prices is of course linked to the question of sharing revenues. To the same extent as a ceiling on prices, sharing the petroleum tax dollars is an equitable measure which fully reflects Canadian tradition. Those who object to the new energy program and its sharing provisions never fail to argue that the federal government is trying to take over provincial natural resources through budgetary measures.
And yet, Mr. Speaker, the federal perspective contains nothing about property rights but only income sharing. The arguments of those who are against the new energy program do not hold before the extraordinary powers which some of them claim to discredit the program. And to do that they must certainly enjoy mighty powerful property rights which have not been whittled down. But, Mr. Speaker, we in the federal government are convinced that no matter how powerful they may be property rights do not immunize against the obligation to share which is inherent in federalism. We are convinced that all Canadians without exception, wherever they live in Canada, are entitled to their share of Canada's rich energy
The Budget
inheritance regardless of where the natural resources are located. We are convinced that it is a national inheritance from which each and every one must benefit in keeping with the sharing principle so essential to federalism. We are convinced that all Canadians, not only those who reside in the producing provinces, have worked as a team to develop their oil industry. Capital, technology and manpower have flowed from all parts of Canada toward the producing provinces.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being 9:45 p.m., it is my duty pursuant to order made Tuesday, October 28, 1980, to interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith the question on the motion now before the House.
The question is on the motion of the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion please say yea.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: All those opposed to the motion please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay!


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.
It being 10.15 the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m., pursuant to the provisions of Standing Order 2( 1).
At 10.17 p.m. the House adjourned, pursuant to Standing Order.

Friday, November 7, 1980