1981-03-31

THE PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, yesterday we all experienced a similar feeling of amazement and concern when we heard the news about the attempt made against President Ronald Reagan's life. I believe that all hon. members in this House today express a similar wish for a prompt recovery of the President and the three men who were injured at his side. Some people look upon that lunatic attempt as fresh evidence that unfortunately violence can break out at any moment in our civilized societies. I for one would rather admire the courageous behaviour of the President in this ordeal and equate it with a new proof of the nobility and greatness of the human spirit in the face of adversity.

His eagerness to reassure and comfort others, his concern for those who were wounded with him and his constant sense of humour, even when the extent of his own injury was still unknown, all demonstrate qualities of character which are in the finest traditions of American leadership.
Throughout Canada today among all our people there is profound relief that the attempt on the President's life did not succeed. There is, as well, an outpouring of good wishes for his quick recovery. I am sure all of us would want to express today, to a man who so recently came to this chamber to assert his friendship and respect for Canada, our gratitude that he is well and our hopes that he will soon be fully recovered.
Our thoughts and prayers are with him and Mrs. Reagan today, and with Mr. James Brady, Mr. Timothy McCarthy, Officer Thomas Delahunty and their families. May this awful event unite people throughout the world in a renewed determination to abhor and reject violence in the affairs of mankind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, I rise to associate myself and my party with the words expressed by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and on my own behalf and that of my party I want to express our shock and sorrow over the attempted assassination of the President of the United States. We deplore this act
of outrage which offends the high standards of civilization and freedom which the American people have established.
As neighbours and as friends, our prayers are with Mrs. Reagan and the families of the other victims. We wish them all a speedy recovery.
I am sure all in this House will recall that on March 11 the President himself remarked in this House on the ability of the American people to unite in adversity. He said at that time, and I quote: "I have found there is a wellspring of spirit and faith in my country which will drive us forward to gain control of our lives."
All of us in the House wish the American people and the American President strength and perseverance in this latest crisis in a nation which has long triumphed over crisis, and long excelled in adversity.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my leader, the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), and on behalf of all my colleagues, I am happy to join with the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) in expressing the sentiments they have already conveyed to the House.
Like all Canadians, we were shocked at the news which came to us from Washington yesterday. We deplore violence in our society, and we deeply regret the suffering of the President and of the other three who were wounded yesterday.
We join in expressing our sympathy to all of the families, and we wish the victims an early and speedy recovery.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Hon. John C. Crosbie (St. John's West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. On March 31, 1949, 32 years ago today, the dominion of Newfoundland joined the Canadian federation as the tenth province. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):

March 31, 1981
That this House notes with pride and affirms the concepts and principles of confederation and of the nature of the federal system upheld so firmly and clearly in Newfoundland today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Does the House give unanimous consent to this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, today is the thirty-second anniversary of the dominion of Newfoundland becoming a province of Canada. It is not without coincidence that the Appeal Division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland at twelve o'clock today brought down a unanimous ruling upholding the position of six provinces on the government's joint constitutional resolution now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I quote very briefly from a part of the unanimous judgment of the court.
The framers of the British North America Act decided in their wisdom that Canada should not be in a unitary state, but a federal one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The quotation goes on:
Canada, however, could in effect be converted into a unitary state if that act could be amended simply at the request of the Canadian Parliament without the concurrence of the provinces.
I therefore move, with the unanimous consent of the House, seconded by the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie):
That in view of the decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court upholding the position of the provinces, that the government withdraw forthwith the joint constitutional resolution now before the House, until the Supreme Court of Canada brings down its decision.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED DELAY IN CONSIDERATION OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, I rise, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of today's unanimous decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court against the federal process and proposals relating to the constitutional resolution now before the House, and in view of recent remarks on the television program Question Period by the Hon. Robert Stanfield, one of Canada's most serious and highly respected political statesmen, when he said the Trudeau package is a "constitutional coup d'etat", I move, seconded by the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett):
That the government forthwith delay any further consideration of the constitutional resolution until the Supreme Court of Canada, which is now seized of the matter, has had an opportunity to decide whether the rule of law or the Prime Minister's rule shall prevail in this country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion dealing with a most important matter.
Since it is urgent to settle the conflict which has been crippling for too long the French and English news services of the CBC and considering the importance of the election campaign now under way in Quebec, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the House condemn the uncompromising attitude of the CBC authorities and that the Ministers of Communications and Labour intervene as soon as possible and ask the president of the CBC to resume negotiations and find quickly a solution to that conflict which is depriving Quebecers and other Canadians of essential information.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 31, 1981


THE MINISTRY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, due to the fact that the minister appointed by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to be responsible for New Brunswick, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc), in response to a question asked by me yesterday indicated that he did not want to be responsible for that province, I move, seconded by the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie):
That the Prime Minister appoint a new minister to be responsible for New Brunswick and direct the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to tell the House what he does want to be responsible for, if anything.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to move the following motion. Whereas the strike between the CBC and its TV journalists has gone on so long that independent observers increasingly believe there has been a political decision to prolong the strike, a strike which I am glad to see the NDP has finally discovered-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John William Bosley: -therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That this House instruct the Minister of Labour to convene an industrial inquiry under Section 196, et alia, of Part V of the Labour Code, as it was requested to do on Friday, in order to determine whether the CBC has been acting in good faith and the extent of the Liberal party's involvement in its continuation of the strike.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for his motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to ask the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity.
In view of the fact that many farmers living on expropriated land at Mirabel International Airport are only tenants of the Crown, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That the House blame the government for its absurd expropriation policy at Mirabel and propose that the government hand over management of the land in the airport peripheral zone to the expropriated owners.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CHARITABLE FOUNDATIONS
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In light of the fact that recent newspaper advertisements taken out by a hate organization known as Renaissance Canada have clearly violated the rules with respect to political activity of charitable organizations, to say nothing of the rules of good taste, and that this organization launched hate campaigns against a number of Canadian politicians over the past six months, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broad-view-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That the Minister of National Revenue be instructed to review the propriety of Renaissance Canada having charitable status under the Income Tax Act.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

March 31, 1981


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Jim Peterson (Willowdale):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the unabashed, premeditated and systematic obstruction of the work of the House by the Conservative Party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: The evidence is before us, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Scott (Jim) Peterson: Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Guelph (Mr. Schroder):
That this House reiterates the sentiment expressed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when he stated last June, "Parliament speaks for 23 million Canadians. If the first ministers of the federation cannot make marked progress toward changes which fit the Canada of the 1980s, then the Parliament of the federation may have to assert a stronger role".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: They are making marked progress.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


An hon. Member:: Joe said "No".


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: I said "No". Of course there is no unanimous consent.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


AIRPORTS
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, many of Canada's international airports do not have adequate facilities for burning or sterilizing garbage from international flights. This deplorable situation unnecessarily exposes the Canadian livestock industry to risks from exotic and dangerous diseases. In fact the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) recently warned of precautions against the spread of the dreaded hoof and mouth disease to Canada. Therefore I move, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 and seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the government be condemned for allowing this situation to linger and, further, that the government move immediately to construct disposal facilities for proper sterilization of all garbage left in Canada from international flights.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


METRIC CONVERSION
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The Canadian government notified the people of Canada through The Canada Gazette of February 28, 1981, that shortly only metric measurements will be permitted in retail food stores throughout Canada and that persons daring to use imperial after the said date will be liable for fines in the amount of $5,000 and/or imprisonment of up to two years. The Government of Canada is doing this, not by an act of Parliament but by an order in council. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker):
That this House orders the government to rescind immediately the said order in council, to fire the chairman and to retire the balance of the metric board.
We are not in a unilateral country.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PARLIAMENT
Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the historical tradition in British parliamentary democracy that Parliament, as the highest court in the land, is supreme, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough West (Mr. Weatherhead):
That this House reaffirms its right to discuss any matter it so chooses and that it reaffirms the principle that the courts of the land can only adjudicate those laws duly passed by this Parliament.


Walter David Baker: It is out of order.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this motion?
March 31, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister, who will know that the Newfoundland Supreme Court today ruled unanimously that the federal government-and I wish to quote from the ruling-"has... no authority to request an amendment that would directly alter provisions of the British North America Act affecting federal-provincial relations or the powers, rights or privileges secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces without first obtaining provincial consent." Those are words from the unanimous ruling of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland this morning. So the Newfoundland Supreme Court has declared the Prime Minister's constitutional resolution illegal.
Does the Prime Minister intend to continue to force through this Parliament of Canada a resolution which the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has declared illegal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, naturally, we are somewhat disappointed by the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, but it is certainly a very important one. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition suggests we should not act because the court decided we were acting illegally. I remind the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition that he did not reach the contrary decision when the Manitoba Court of Appeal decided we were acting legally. He did not then agree to pass the resolution which is before the House.
These two decisions which are in conflict, and the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada has now decided that it would hear the appeal from Manitoba, and presumably any other appeals which are brought before it on this subject, before the end of April, leads me to remind the House of what some of the judges in the Manitoba case said, including the Chief Justice. They said that as long as the resolution was not out of the House the first question put to the court was hypothetical, indicating that it would prefer to judge not on a hypothetical bill but on a real bill. As a result of that, I wonder if we could not agree to pass the resolution and make sure the Supreme Court of Canada is acting, not on a hypothetical case, but on a real case, and agree to respect the decision of the Supreme Court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Oral Questions


REQUEST FOR DECISION BY SUPREME COURT BEFORE RESOLUTION SENT TO BRITAIN
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister will recall that the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal was three to two. The decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court was a unanimous decision against the federal government. The Prime Minister will also recall his own Kirby memorandum in which there was cited a judicial opinion by the Department of Justice to the effect that a law passed by the U.K. Parliament to patriate the Constitution with an amending formula and other changes could not be successfully attacked in the Canadian courts. In other words, the legal opinion that the Government of Canada has, which it will not make available to Parliament, is that if it can get this question out of Canada, then the Supreme Court of Canada cannot act on any decision that the British Parliament might take. That is why he is trying to get this question out of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would like to ask the Prime Minister if the Government of Canada intends to appeal this unanimous decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court. If so, will the Government of Canada await the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada on its own appeal before it forces this resolution through Canada and tries to export this question, this Canadian question, from our country to another parliament?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I just indicated that we have had one appeal court render in favour of the resolution. There is still a decision to be rendered by the Appeal Court of Quebec. That is why I am taking this matter very seriously.
1 repeat the suggestion to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and to other hon. members of this House, keeping in mind the statement of the Chief Justice of Manitoba and other justices' statements that they did not want to rule on a hypothetical case, that we give to them-


An hon. Member:: Yeah, refer it to the Supreme Court.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -a resolution which will obviously be taken into account by the Supreme Court of Canada, not as a hypothetical thing but as a real thing.
The Leader of the Opposition suggests that this party is trying to hasten the resolution over to Britain so that the Supreme Court of Canada will not have a chance to judge on it.


An hon. Member:: That's right.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, hon. members over there say, "that's right", and so on. I am prepared to suggest that if we can

March 31, 1981
Oral Questions
agree on some form of time allocation which would not only get the resolution improved, with the amendment dealing with women's rights-which I believe has been pressed from various sides of the House-and an amendment which has been discussed on aboriginal rights-


Some hon. Members:: Property!


An hon. Member:: Too much of this is tongue in cheek!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. members opposite do not want to improve the resolution another way, my offer will still stand; that we get a resolution to the Supreme Court of Canada in return for which the government would certainly undertake not to press the United Kingdom to pass the resolution until it has seen the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, and if the-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member says that I have come a long way. Indeed, we were quite certain that the courts would render in our favour, as indeed-


An hon. Member:: Can we believe it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -one of the appeal courts has done. I am taking cognizance of this new situation, and I am making a very serious offer to the various hon. members of this House that, if the House leaders of three parties can agree on some way in which we can get this resolution out of the House- improved, if possible-get it before the Supreme Court of Canada before Easter, or any time before the Supreme Court of Canada is going to look at the factums, then we will undertake not to press its passage in the United Kingdom until after the Supreme Court of Canada has judged.
If the Supreme Court renders in favour of the resolution, I take it that would settle the matter and we could put an end to this debate which has been going on for several months. Of course, if it renders against us, the government would have to admit that it cannot proceed in the United Kingdom with the resolution in this form.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DIRECT REFERRAL TO SUPREME COURT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, that is a very interesting proposal put forward by the Prime Minister, which we would be prepared to consider. I assume that that would mean the withdrawal of the notice of motion that stands now in the name of the President of the Privy Council. I would like that confirmed.
However, my question to the Prime Minister is: since the Prime Minister is now concerned about the legality of the position which he is putting forward, would he consider applying precisely the same standard to this situation which he applied to the situation in respect of the Senate, in the former Bill C-60, when a proposal he made was considered to be
unconstitutional, and he then undertook a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine the constitutionality of that position before this Parliament acted? We would like to know that what we are doing is legal before we do it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If the Prime Minister was prepared to do that with respect to the Senate provisions of Bill C-60, will he apply his own standard in this case so that Parliament can be assured, before we act, that what we are doing in this House of Commons and in the other place is legal?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. Leader of the Opposition asks for the assurance that the notice of motion before the House would be withdrawn. Of course we can withdraw that motion, providing the House leaders can agree on some other form of time allocation or agreement to pass the resolution so that it gets to the Supreme Court in time. It does not have to be the motion standing in the name of the House leader of the government, but there would have to be some agreement between members of this House that debate progress and come to a conclusion.
The reason I repeat that, and the reason why I think I should point out to the Leader of the Opposition that it is not the situation with Bill C-60 where debate had not progressed, is that-we are now in the situation where debate has been going on for six months, where the resolution has already in its present form been referred to two courts of appeal, one rendering in favour and one against, and where we have the opinion of the Chief Justice of Manitoba and other judges to the effect that they cannot judge a hypothetical situation. If that is the case-this is not a referral, I would remind hon. members of the House, not a referral by the federal government-it is a case taken by six provinces.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I understand that hon. members do not want to let their leader study this proposition, but I know him to be interested in it. I ask that he do study it, that we look at the possibility of getting the bill out since we have invested more than six months in it, that we get the bill out, that it pass both Houses of Parliament in good time for the Supreme Court to consider it.
I repeat, if the Supreme Court should judge against it, we will, of course, not press the United Kingdom to pass it in all stages. The point which has been so laboriously fought for by the Leader of the Opposition will have been proven to be legally right and founded. But if the contrary happens and the Supreme Court, which we all want to see adjudicate on this, decides in favour of the bill, then we will not have to begin this debate ad nauseam again but will merely ask the United Kingdom to continue its passage.
March 31, 1981


GOVERNMENT'S INTENTION TO PROCEED WITH CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In view of the statements he has made today in question period, and in view of the statement that was made by the Minister of Justice today, namely, "That the federal government intends to push ahead with its constitutional package despite a Newfoundland court of appeal decision backing the provinces that oppose it", is the Prime Minister saying now that that position that was put forward by the chief spokesman of the government on the Constitution, namely, that the decision did not change anything in terms of the government's action, has now been repudiated and that the Prime Minister is looking at a new manner in which to proceed?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not at all, Madam Speaker, I think the Minister of Justice was speaking much as I did when I answered the Leader of the Opposition. When we had an appeal court decide in our favour, that did not mean that the opposition threw up its hands and said, "Ail is finished; we will pass the resolution." They said, "We will continue blocking it." Now that an appeal court has decided against us, we are taking the same attitude as the opposition. We are pursuing our course, except that I just made a serious offer, to the Progressive Conservative Party and the New Democratic Party, to ensure that we can end this debate and then have what hon. members opposite have been asking for, for so long-we can have an adjudication by the Supreme Court of this land. Then we will be able to know whether or not our actions are legal and whether or not it is justified to present this precise measure, not some hypothetical measure as the Manitoba court said, but this precise measure, in the United Kingdom.


EFFECT OF RULING BY SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Minister of Justice. Up to this point in time there has been an argument and debate in this House and across the country on whether the proposition before Parliament had a moral basis. An argument has been made about its legitimacy, whether or not it was legitimate. Now the position has been taken by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland that in fact the proposition, the joint address, is illegal. Therefore I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, not only as the Minister of Justice but also as the Attorney General of Canada, the chief law officer of the Crown, why he persists in his actions to want to move ahead, in view of the fact that an appeal court has now decided that it is illegal? Why does he not fulfil his responsibilities and maintain the rule of law?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister replied to that question and I gave that answer yesterday. It is a very clear one. We said that the Parliament of Canada and this House are called upon to pass legislation.
Oral Questions
When legislation is passed it is up to the court to adjudicate and, of course, Parliament and the different Houses in the provinces accept the rule of law. If we are to take the view that, every time there is a problem that is debated in the courts, we cannot operate our legislatures, we are running the risk of mixing the legislature and the judiciary. The proposition of the Prime Minister is a very simple one: let us finish our work here in which we have invested six months of effort and after that there will be a decision of the Supreme Court.
Of course, the Prime Minister said, and it is the position of the government, that we respect the decision of the courts. But we will finish our duty as Members of Parliament to finish the work that we started in the fall and, of course, we will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court before deciding to press the matter in England-yes or no.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HONOURABLE DAVID SCOTT THOMSON, MINISTER FOR SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY, AUSTRALIA
Madam Speaker:: I should like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in the gallery of the Hon. David Scott Thomson, Minister for Science and Technology, of Australia.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


THE CONSTITUTION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, in view of the concession that the Prime Minister has made in making the statement that the resolution would not be pressed upon the Parliament of the United Kingdom until there has been a ruling of the Supreme Court, can he indicate by what date a factum would have to be presented to the Supreme Court on behalf of the Government of Canada? Also, can he say whether an early meeting of House leaders might be arranged to see if we could come to some agreement on time, bearing in mind the question I have already put to him?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the second part of the question I can assure the hon. member that our House leader would be prepared to meet from three o'clock onwards with the opposite House leaders to try to solve this question of timing.
I cannot say when the Supreme Court would require the factums and the resolution in its final form. Just looking at the calendar I realize that Easter is less than three weeks away and that it is at the end of Easter week that the Supreme Court, the Monday after Easter week, that the Supreme Court will be hearing the pleadings. I would suppose that the latest we could effectively get this measure out of the House would

March 31, 1981
Oral Questions
be on Holy Monday, or Tuesday, at the very latest, that is to say, less than two weeks from now.


TRANSMISSION OF RESOLUTION TO UNITED KINGDOM PARLIAMENT
Stanley Howard Knowles: I wonder if the Prime Minister could be a little more precise about what he means when he says that this matter would not be pressed on the parliament of the United Kingdom. Does that mean it would be sent over there but put on the backburner, or that it would not be sent until the Supreme Court had made its ruling?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I would be happy to empower our House leader to negotiate such things. What I had in mind would be that we would send it over in a very informal and low-key way-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Not likely.


An hon. Member:: By bicycle.


An hon. Member:: By mail.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -or send it over with fanfare, if this would please leaders of the opposition. Whether they gave it first reading or not seems rather secondary. What I am saying on behalf of the government is that we would not press for its passage. Whatever way the combined opposition wants to interpret these words, I will accept that interpretation.


Charles Joseph Clark: Would you resist its passage?


SUBJECT MATTERS FOR DISCUSSION BY HOUSE LEADERS
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, my further supplementary question has to do with what we can discuss at a House leaders' meeting. I wonder if it could be understood that we could discuss the point which the Prime Minister has just now made concerning when the resolution is sent to Britain, whether it is sent over and left aside or whether it is kept here until after a Supreme Court ruling has been made.
Will we also be able to discuss at a House leaders' meeting arrangements for a further debate that will include the guaranteed right of further amendments, such as amendments entrenching aboriginal rights and improving the position with respect to women?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, as far as our party is concerned, I could give an unequivocal answer yes to both of those questions. The first question is that it could be decided at what state, if any, the resolution would be reaching Britain.
The second would be that we would see it as very important to improve that resolution, at least with those amendments upon which all parties seem to be agreed, namely, the one concerning equality of men and women, and the other providing for an improvement, perhaps, on the amending formula with regard to aboriginal rights. I am not sure whether there is agreement on that. I think there is on a text between the New Democratic Party and our party. I am not sure where the Conservative Party stands on that.
My answer is yes, for a very simple reason, that all parties in this House believe we should have our Constitution, that it should have an amending formula, and all parties believe that our Constitution should have a charter of rights. The hon. member for Provencher has made that quite clear on behalf of his party. The leader of the New Democratic Party has said that he thought it was the best charter in the world. But we want this content. We did not know, we did not agree, if we could proceed legally the way we are. What I am proposing is that we obtain a judgment from the highest court in the land as to whether we are or whether we are not proceeding legally. If we are, then I suggest that settles the matter and the United Kingdom will act expeditiously.
That is the proposal I am making to the Leader of the Opposition and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
| ||


REQUEST FOR WITHDRAWAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION AND REFERRAL TO SUPREME COURT
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a supplementary question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In so doing, I cannot help but make the comment how sad it is to see the Dean of the House, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, having to stand up on behalf of his party and swallow himself whole.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Charles Joseph Clark: Cosgrove is awake.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: If there is any shame, it is on that side of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In view of the fact that the Prime Minister cites part of the judgment of the Chief Justice of Manitoba in stating that he had only a hypothetical question in front of him, and the Prime Minister takes that as an enjoinder to us to get on and pass the resolution so it can get to the court-but I say to the Prime Minister, surely if he wants to eliminate the hypothesis-


Mr. Lalonde:: Ask the question.
March 31, 1981


James Aloysius McGrath: -from this question, why does the Right Hon. Prime Minister not do the honourable thing and withdraw the resolution from the House and refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: For the very simple reason, Madam Speaker, that I am trying to get before the Supreme Court of Canada a resolution which would be improved in the way that the House leader of the New Democratic Party has suggested; that I believe the lady from Kingston-


Charles Joseph Clark: The hon. member from Kingston.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -has suggested, and that we have suggested, namely, that we put these things in the resolution. Then we will have before the Supreme Court of Canada the kind of charter which everybody says is a very good one. All that will have to be determined then is the legality of it. As the Minister of Justice has said many times, this is the way the House always proceeds.


Charles Joseph Clark: Except on Bill C-60.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It adopts bills. The hon. member constantly refers to Bill C-60. There was a disagreement on Bill C-60.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Members of the opposition did not agree with the substance of Bill C-60. But they have told us repeatedly-


Miss MacDonald:: The committee report on C-60 was unanimous.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and I wonder whether they were giving us the truth or not-that the people of Canada wanted a charter, that the people of Canada wanted their Constitution.


Charles Joseph Clark: What about the amending formula?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That was not the position on Bill C-60. They never took that position that I can remember. That is why we are saying-


An hon. Member:: What about the referendum?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member is talking about the referendum. I am beginning to wonder if they think the courts should impose an amending formula on us or not.


Walter David Baker: They could not do it anyway.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is not their position, Madam Speaker, surely all they are asking the courts to do is to do what the court of Manitoba and the court of Newfoundland have done, and that is decide whether this particular resolution is intra vires or ultra vires. That is what has to be decided.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I can understand that some hon. members do not like this kind of a suggestion. They have been arguing for days and weeks that the Supreme Court should decide. I am putting a proposal before them that will permit the Supreme Court to decide. If the Supreme Court decides against us, then obviously the resolution will not be sent to Great Britain. Isn't that what the Leader of the Opposition has been looking for?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister seems to be changing his position with each answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Consequently, we will have to examine very carefully what in fact he has said.
I want to remind the Prime Minister, in putting this supplementary question to him, that when the government took its responsibility and referred Bill C-60 to the Supreme Court of Canada, the Supreme Court stated that the process was ultra vires, that the federal government could not unilaterally change the Senate.
Now the Supreme Court of Newfoundland is saying the same thing, that the process involved in the resolution before the House is illegal and ultra vires because it changes the federation-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: By refusing to refer it to the courts, the Prime Minister is asking me and the members of this House to be-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has the floor only to ask a question.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Prime Minister whether he will reconsider what he has said because he is asking the House, in the face of the unanimous decision by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, to pass something which is, in fact, illegal. That is the point.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: Therefore, I ask the Prime Minister if he will do on this-


An hon. Member:: Who are you?


An hon. Member:: The Supreme Court of Newfoundland said it.


An hon. Member:: Oh, oh!


James Aloysius McGrath: -I am not saying it, it is the Supreme Court-

March 31, 1981
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member does not go directly to his question, I will have to recognize another questioner.


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I merely want to ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister why does he have this double standard. Why does he not do on this resolution what he did on Bill C-60, namely, withdraw the resolution from Parliament and refer it to the Supreme Court of Canada? That is simply what he has to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the opposition seems to have only one fallback position, and it is Bill C-60. I remind the hon. member that Bill C-60 was referred to the Supreme Court, not to know whether the federal government was acting against some constitution or convention; the case was were we acting within the authority of Section 91(1) of the British North America Act.


An hon. Member:: That is the Constitution.


James Aloysius McGrath: It is the same process.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We have a section of our present Constitution-


James Aloysius McGrath: You have gone outside Section 91 on this.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Does the hon. member want an answer?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We were asking the courts whether, within our present Constitution, Section 91(1), the federal government could do certain things. Now there is no section of the Constitution, as hon. members know, and no written document, which says how the Constitution of Canada can be amended. It is a different situation from that in respect of Bill C-60. The hon. member keeps repeating that what we are doing is illegal. I repeat to him: why did he not conclude it was legal when Manitoba rendered in our favour, and what will he do if Quebec renders in our favour? Will it suddenly become legal, or will it still remain illegal because-


An hon. Member:: Send it to the Supreme Court.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is precisely the offer we are putting before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says we should withdraw and send it to the court. I ask hon. members whether they are interested in determining the legality of this action, or in delay? If they want more delay, then they are certainly taking the right course. If they want a decision on legality, then the course I am suggesting is the only one for sure.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DEVELOPMENT OF ROBERTS BANK, B.C., SUPERPORT- ENVIRONMENTAL OBJECTIONS
Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, while the Prime Minister thinks a little more deeply about the pickle he is in, I should like to direct a question to the Minister of the Environment.
In March, 1979, the Environmental Assessment and Review Panel studying the proposed expansion of the Roberts Bank superport in Delta, British Columbia, reported to the cabinet and recommended against a major expansion of the Roberts Bank superport being proposed by the National Harbours Board, an expansion which would increase the area of that port by some five times. Cabinet opposition was confirmed by the fact that the Minister for the Environment at that time supported the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment and Review Panel for a much smaller scale of development at Roberts Bank.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. First of all the question is rather long and, secondly, may we have a bit of silence in the House?


Thomas Edward Siddon: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Has the minister chosen to bypass the findings of the EARP in 1979, has he given his formal consent, together with the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans, for the project of expansion at Roberts Bank on a scale approaching that which was originally envisaged and which includes a massive turning basin and at least three additional pads, therefore disregarding the recommendations of EARP?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member's question, as you say, was rather long and rather complicated. I can say to him that we do not have environmental objections to the project proceeding as planned. It has been a little bit of time since I have reviewed this issue and, if the hon. member would like, I would be happy to respond to him at greater length in a letter.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF DREDGING CONTRACT
Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, my question is rather timely and I believe the Minister of Transport will confirm this. Will he confirm that his department will announce Treasury Board approval of a contract for dredging at Roberts Bank to develop this much larger project, a contract in the amount of some $35 million to a foreign-owned dredging company, to use Dutch dredging equipment, and that the contract will be announced within the next three or four days, a contract giving this foreign dredging consortium special concessions regarding duty exemptions? If that is so, so much for the environmental review process. Will the Minister of Transport confirm that such a decision will be announced shortly?
March 31, 1981


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, that is exactly it; such a decision will be announced. I think the decision will come forward on April 4. I cannot see why my hon. friend has already made a conclusion on a decision that has not yet been announced.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Alberni):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
In two weeks the B.C. west coast salmon fishery season will open, and it will open in total confusion unless the minister can elaborate on some of the announcements which have been made in the press regarding the regulations for the 1981 fishing season. When will the minister state definitively what regulations will be in effect for the 1981 fishing season, and will he now state if the regulations announced through press release will actually be proclaimed?
The fishermen want to know now what regulations the fisheries officials will be enforcing during the 1981 fishing season. They want to know now how many girdies they will have to take off their fishing vessels, and what kind of equipment they will have to put on the ends of their lines.


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, the last reference allows me to think the hon. member's question deals mainly with the trailer fleet. In that regard the policy was announced quite a few months ago. There is, this very day, a meeting with Pacific gillnetters along the Fraser area where there is a problem. We are hoping to find some accommodation following the consultation which is going on between my department and the fishermen involved.


REPORTED DELAY IN PROCLAIMING REGULATIONS
Edward Allan Miller: I thank the minister for that answer, Madam Speaker, but some of these regulations were proclaimed by press release only, as far back as October. They have not as yet been put into regulations and the fishermen have not been able to get any information from the minister's department regarding the kind of gear they are going to be able to use and what will happen to the Fraser River gillnet fishery. I would ask the minister whether the delay in proclaiming those regulations, or suggested regulations, may not be connected to some agreement that may be under discussion presently with the United States in respect of the west coast troll fishery and, particularly, does it have any effect on the interception of Canadian chinook bound for the Fraser River at Point Roberts.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it is quite traditional for policy to be announced and, from that, detailed regulations discussed with
Oral Questions
fishermen's groups, and then proclaimed by order in council. I have no information that there is undue delay. I will check into this and give the hon. member the information. As of this morning, when I had a lengthy meeting with Pacific coast senior officials, this did not emerge as an issue.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development.
This morning the minister was delivered a strongly-worded statement by the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development concerning the unacceptable manner in which the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement has been and continues to be implemented. What is generally regarded as a very good agreement has been soured, in part by bureaucratic bungling, lack of funding, and endless haggling over the interpretation of the various sections of this agreement. Will the minister now tell the House whether he will press his colleagues in cabinet, his officials, and also the government of Quebec, to honour this agreement in its spirit, and to cease and desist from the narrow and legalistic approach which has been followed heretofore?
Finally, Madam Speaker, I would like to know whether the minister will agree to arrange a visit to the Cree and Inuit communities in northern Quebec in order that he may learn at first hand just how serious the situation there actually is?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, I did meet this morning with the hon. member, the chairman of the committee, and various opposition Members of Parliament who are members of that committee. As the hon. member knows, I informed him and the committee that I have discussed this matter with the Minister of Justice. We are of the same view that, although the legal advice we have obtained is that the agreement has stood up in the courts, is very valid, and has not been breached in a legal context at all, we would be prepared to review the agreement, as the hon. member puts it, in terms of its spirit and good intent, aside from a strictly legal interpretation. That review by the Minister of Justice and our department is under way.
Second, as the hon. member knows, I have already agreed with the committee, despite the fact that I have been doing a great deal of travelling, that I should see this particular area, and I have agreed to go up there with some of my officials and advisers within the next ten days to two weeks.

March 31, 1981
Oral Questions


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Hon. Allan B. McKinnon (Victoria):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Defence. He is well aware that there has been another resignation of a senior officer, Lieutenant-General Paradis, from the Canadian Armed Forces. Can the minister explain why General Paradis, whose ability, knowledge, forthrightness and dedication to the forces were well known, decided to resign some three years before his normal retirement date?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the retirement of General Paradis prior to his retirement date is just normal. It was the choice of General Paradis to take that step.
I know General Paradis very well. I have talked with him, and his retirement is according to his own choice and nothing
else.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, in the last year we have seen the early and, I submit, the arranged retirements of Lieutenant-General MacKenzie, the commander of Air Command, Major-General St. Aubin, and Admiral Martin, the commander of the Maritime Command, Pacific. The commander of Maritime Command was transferred out of his command in less than a year, and now General Paradis is resigning, having been made an offer he could not possibly accept.
Can the minister explain why he is getting rid of so many of his most capable officers?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member must know, because he is a former defence minister, our Armed Forces have a very elaborate and very good retirement plan. That gives many high-ranking generals the advantage of retiring ahead of time when they feel they have other work to do. I think they have a great advantage. All these retirements ahead of time have been taken as a matter of choice. No one has been forced to retire.
As far as General Paradis is concerned, I regret that he is leaving because he is a very able man.


MCDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my question is addressed to the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, the mandate of the McDonald commission expires today, almost four years after its organization, and after the expenditure of $10 million. Last October when the minister gave the commission its March 31 deadline he told the House, "This is the final date being established now. It is a sufficient
time for the commission to complete matters that should be completed".
Will the minister now confirm that the McDonald commission has asked for yet another extension of its mandate, and will he tell the House how much longer the people of Canada will have to continue funding this commission, which is the longest running judicial road show in Canada's history?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, indeed today is the last day provided in the existing order in council, but a little over a week ago the McDonald commission was in touch with the government indicating that it required a few more weeks to complete its work. An order in council is in the course of preparation today. It will extend the mandate of the McDonald commission, at its request, to Friday, May 15.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, it is interesting to note the order in council has not yet been prepared, so the commission legally dies at the end of today.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question relates to promised legislation with respect to the RCMP. The minister has been promising regularly since last April that he would proceed as a top priority with long overdue revisions to the RCMP Act arising from the Marin report. In May of last year he admitted that the present procedures were unfair to members of the force.
When will the minister stop playing games with members of the RCMP and bring forward this long overdue legislation and, in particular, when will he, as urged by the Association of Seventeen Divisions, grant collective bargaining rights on pay and working conditions to members of the RCMP, the only police force in Canada whose members are denied the freedom of association contained in the government's charter of rights?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, the RCMP do not have the right to collective bargaining, but there is a very effective system in effect for dealing with industrial relations within the force, with which I am quite familiar after a year on the job. I think that system is effective and satisfactory to the overwhelming majority of members of the force.
So far as the death today of the McDonald commission is concerned, I want to comfort the hon. member by reassuring him that an order in council went to cabinet this morning, but it has not yet been signed by His Excellency. I think that during the course of the afternoon it will be signed by or on behalf of the Governor General.
As to the third question which was enclosed in that supplementary question about the RCMP Act, I am glad to be able
March 31, 1981

to inform the House that amendments to the RCMP Act will be brought forward soon.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) raised a point of order on Friday which he continued yesterday. It relates to the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is seized with more or less the same point that the House is discussing as contained in the joint resolution on the Constitution. The matter was very ably argued by all hon. members and by the right hon. member, who took part quite at length in the debate.
There are essentially two matters or two issues which have been raised, the sub judice aspect and whether the Speaker may rule on the constitutionality of the joint resolution.
With regard to the sub judice aspect, at the outset it should be made quite clear that any practice or convention of the House to discontinue or not initiate discussion on a matter for the reason that it was then before the courts would have to be a voluntary or self-imposed practice or convention because the Bill of Rights of 1688, which is part of the law of the Parliament of Canada, provides that:
-freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament may not be questioned ... in any court or place out of Parliament.
Sub judice is such a practice or convention. It is one that the House has imposed on itself to avoid discussing matters which are then under judicial consideration or before the courts.
Sir Robert Peel probably best summed up the essence of the convention when he said in 1844:
-that the right of Parliament as the highest court in this land to discuss what it will cannot be limited, but that good taste and sense of fair play should in some circumstances limit the exercise of that right.
The purpose of the practice is to avoid any discussion in the House which might have a prejudicial effect on an accused or on the parties to a civil action, since it might influence a jury or witness when they read of it in the newspapers or see it on television. It is rightly doubtful that judges are liable to be influenced by anything spoken in the House.
In respect of criminal matters it is clear both here and in the United Kingdom that once a person has been charged in the courts in a criminal matter, it is the correct practice not to permit the matter to be raised in the House.
In respect of civil litigation matters the United Kingdom House in 1963 laid down a rule that once the case is set down for trial, the issues should not be raised in the House.
The position of the Canadian House in this respect appears to provide more latitude. In 1976 the Speaker said, and I quote:
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
-in any event no restriction ought to exist on the right of any member to put questions respecting any matter before the courts, particularly those relating to a civil matter, unless and until that matter is at least at trial.
In 1971 the United Kingdom House resolved to allow references to be made to matters awaiting or under jurisdiction in all civil courts, subject to the discretion of the Chair and provided that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings. This seems to provide even more and wider latitude.
In this context, in the same year, 1971, the Speaker of the Canadian House felt that the traditional position that a member while speaking must not refer to any matters upon which a judicial decision is pending, as set out in Beauchesne:
-should be interpreted as narrowly as possible. I doubt very much if the Chair should be called upon to intervene whenever a member refers to a matter which is before the Courts.
Furthermore, whatever self-imposed practice exists both in the United Kingdom and Canadian chambers in respect of matters that are before the courts, it is settled both here and in the United Kingdom that the practice would not be applied in the case of a bill, that is, while the House is involved in the legislative process-and I insist on that word. In other words, the House will not for any reason stop discussing outside events while embarked on the legislative process. Otherwise, it would mean that the courts could bring parliamentary proceedings to a halt, whereas one of the corporate rights of the House is to manage its internal affairs without their interference.
The proceedings in Parliament relating to the proposed address to the Queen contained in the proposal presently before the House is not only a parliamentary procedure in Canada but is also part of the legislative process in respect of constitutional amendment. The address contains the proposed bill and the process being undergone comes within the exception referred to by Erskine May, in that the practice of sub judice is not applied to the legislative process.
With respect to issues beyond those relating to Criminal Code offences or traditional civil litigation, the present rule in the U.K. House is that subject to the discretion of the Chair, reference may be made in the House to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts in so far as such matters concern issues of national importance, such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life. Of course, if the matter is before the courts by virtue of a resolution of the House of Commons, the sub judice convention would no doubt be invoked, but only then. It is trite to say that the subject matter of the minister's resolution is an issue of national importance.
With respect to the discretion which is left to the Chair, it is interesting to note that both Erskine May and the report of the Special Committee on Rights and Immunities tabled in the House April 29, 1977, more or less suggest or recommend that the Speaker should only exercise the discretion of invoking the convention in exceptional cases where it is clear to the Speaker that to do otherwise could be harmful to specific individuals.

March 31, 1981
Business of the House
Under the circumstances, since the House is embarked on the legislative process, I am not prepared to say that the sub judice doctrine is applicable and therefore I need not exercise the discretion of invoking it.
With respect to the matter of the constitutionality of the joint resolution and the draft bill that it contains, hon. members are reminded that the Speaker is not empowered to rule on the constitutionality of any measure before the House. There are ample authorities in support of this and I will cite but one by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux in 1969. He said:
In other words, this limits the powers and responsibilities of the Speaker in deciding on questions of order, not questions of law.
The status of the House of Commons or Parliament was described by the same Speaker on that same occasion. He said:
The Parliament of Canada is supreme, and if it should pass any act which is ultra vires, the courts would decide the validity of such act. It is not for the Speaker to declare-although he presides over the highest court in the land-as to whether any proposed legislation is ultra vires.
Accordingly I cannot find that this is a valid point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I would like also to rule on the question that I took under advisement in the name of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), which related to certain activities of the Metric Commission. While he referred in his argument to certain passages in an early edition of Erskine May, he did not establish that any breach of his privileges has occurred. His argument was entirely related to the substance of the issue of metric conversion rather than privilege.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, just a few moments ago there was an exchange between the Prime Minister and the Leader of the Opposition during which the Prime Minister first admitted that there is at least possibly an illegality in the process that has been exercising all of us here in the last few days. I think it is also important, since there was what the Prime Minister chose to call an offer for consideration, that we find out now the intentions of the government with respect to its business today.
Is the government intending to proceed now with respect to business in the way it has been proceeding in the last three or four days, to get eventually to the motion that stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council, or is it the intention today to proceed to another piece of business, considering what occurred in the question period today? If so, can he tell us precisely what that business will be?


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, my colleague has heard the offer made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister during the question period. If his party is willing to accept this offer to negotiate the agreement which he describes so well, I shall be available for a meeting of the House leaders immediately or within the next five or ten minutes. If such were the case, the Minister of State responsible for Finance could without any difficulty introduce his motion to allocate two days of debate for the bill to authorize the government to borrow a certain sum of money.
My colleague knows that the motion will require at least two hours of debate followed by a vote and that this will take nearly the rest of the afternoon. While this motion which will help us to move along with the business of Parliament is debated, we could start the negotiations mentioned by the Right Hon. Prime Minister. If the Progressive Conservative party is not interested in the proposal made by the Right Hon. Prime Minister to the effect that such an agreement be negotiated, we still intend to allow the Minister of State responsible for Finance to move his motion so that we may limit the debate on the bill to authorize the government to borrow $13 billion. As my colleague is aware, this bill must be passed urgently. We told him about it yesterday, and we were prevented from moving this motion by the tactics of which he is well aware. I repeat today that it is my intention to move this motion which could require up to two hours of debate.
Afterwards, if this meeting can take place and if we can make serious progress in our negotiations, I shall be happy to reconsider the item on the order paper. However, if the Progressive Conservative Party is not interested in discussing the offer made by the Prime Minister, we shall leave our motion to limit the debate on the Constitution on the order paper.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, as you know, there was a contention put by the official opposition with respect to the way in which we might proceed, and it would be our intention in those negotiations to discuss both arrangements or offers that were made. The government cannot dictate the discussions. The President of the Privy Council will know that there was a very serious proposition put to him about a way of proceeding other than what the Prime Minister has proposed, but in any event I just want to make it very clear to him that those considerations might go beyond that which is set forth by the government leader. Those are the propositions in the general area that we are prepared to discuss.
Having said that, I want to know now-because we are going to have to deal with it in a few minutes-what is the government's intention with respect to business when we reach that point? Is it the unequivocal undertaking of the government House leader to tell the House that we will be moving to the motion which imposes Standing Order 75c on Bill C-59,
March 31, 1981

the report stage of the borrowing authority? If he would tell us that, then I think we could deal with it. I am not playing games with my hon. friend; I want to know what today's business of the House is?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am sorry, perhaps my colleague misunderstood me. I will repeat. The Minister of State for Finance will, if we reach motions, move the motion to allocate time on the borrowing authority bill. I am saying now in English exactly the same thing that I said in French a minute ago.


Walter David Baker: It is the translation.


Yvon Pinard: I am sorry if my colleague did not understand it. That is very clear and unequivocal, and that is what the minister is going to do.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Would the government House leader advise, if we were to complete the discussion on whether closure should be employed under 75c, whether we would continue with the borrowing authority bill tomorrow and Thursday?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, closure cannot be imposed on 75c. That is a motion dealing with the allocation of time. Once it has been decided later on today, then the government knows that two days will have to be allotted to complete the report and third reading stages of the bill.
Will those two days be tomorrow and the following day? All I can say to the hon. member is that it will be very soon, but I would like to look at our plans later today once I know we have a House order that will allot two specific days to conclude debate on that bill. I cannot give the undertaking now that this bill will be discussed tomorrow and the following day, but I can give the undertaking that it will be dealt with in the very near future.


Madam Speaker:: Do I understand, then, that the House wants to continue the normal procedures at this time and perhaps negotiations can take place later on? There is no agreement now to go to anything else but the normal procedures at this time?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, no, we have not discussed that. The question we were discussing, just to be clear, is exactly what business we would deal with if and when we get to orders of the day, or what would normally be motions. I wanted to know the business of the House. In view of the offers and the exchange of offers which have been made in the House, we now know what it is. That is all; there is no question of an agreement. The government House leader has given his unequivocal undertaking on that point.


Madam Speaker:: Very well. However, I want to tell the House that I received notice of eight questions of privilege to be heard at this time. I am prepared to hear them, and I want all hon. members to have a chance to raise their questions of privilege. If all are to be heard today, I would suggest that
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
hon. members try within ten minutes to expose their questions of privilege, so that each and every member who has given notice is able to proceed with his question of privilege.
The first one is in the name of the hon. member for St. John's East. Before recognizing the hon. member for St. John's East, I should like to indicate that since there is some similarity between the question of privilege of the hon. member for St. John's East and the one of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie), I will hear those two questions at the same time. Once I have heard the hon. member for St. John's East, I will ask the hon. member for St. John's West to make quite sure he is not overlapping the first question of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I am very conscious of your ruling today on the point of order raised a few days ago by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I want to impress upon Your Honour at the outset that my question of privilege raises a whole new point. It does not attempt to go over the ground which was so ably put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
It is interesting that in Your Honour's ruling today, if I may refer to it-I am not questioning it; I accept it-you pointed out precedents of your illustrious predecessors in which they stated that the Chair was merely to rule on questions of order, not on questions of law; that it was not for the Chair to decide whether or not a question was constitutional, within the Constitution, or ultra vires of the Constitution; that, in fact, was a question for the courts to decide.
It is interesting that my question of privilege today arises out of just such a situation. It arises out of the unanimous ruling brought down earlier today by the appeal division of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland on questions submitted to it by the six provinces. It is not without interest that the ruling should come down on the thirty-second anniversary of the dominion of Newfoundland becoming the tenth province of Canada.
I intend to lay out what I consider to be a very important question of privilege arising out of the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and the business before the House. The questions on which the court ruled were four in number, three of which were submitted by the six provinces; the fourth question dealing specifically with the terms of union between Newfoundland and Canada was submitted by the province of Newfoundland. It is important for me to read the questions because they are relevant. I think it is important that they should be on the record. Certainly in terms of my argument it is important that they be placed within the context of my question of privilege before Your Honour. They read as follows:

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. McGrath
1.	If the amendments to the Constitution of Canada sought in the "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada", or any of them were enacted, would federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments be affected and, if so, in what respect or respects?
2.	Is it constitutional convention that the House of Commons and Senate of Canada will not request Her Majesty the Queen to lay before the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a measure to amend the Constitution of Canada affecting federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitutions of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments without first obtaining the agreement of the provinces?
3.	Is the agreement of the provinces of Canada constitutionally required for amendment to the Constitution of Canada where such amendment affects federal-provincial relationships or alters the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments?
The fourth question was the one submitted by the government of Newfoundland; it deals specifically with the terms of union. It reads:
4.	If Part V of the proposed resolution referred to in question 1 is enacted and proclaimed into force could
(a)	the Terms of Union, including terms 2 and 17 thereof contained in the Schedule to the British North America Act, 1949 (12-13 George VI, c. 22 (U.K.)), or
(b)	section 3 of the British North America Act, 1871 (34-35 Victoria, c. 28 (U.K.))
be amended directly or indirectly pursuant to Part V without the consent of the government, legislature or a majority of the people of the province of Newfoundland voting in a referendum held pursuant to Part V?
On each question the Court of Appeal of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland unanimously ruled in favour of the provinces. I intend to place before Your Honour arguments indicating that this decision directly affects my privileges as a member of this House. Today I am speaking to a matter of personal privilege. I should like to refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 16, which reads in part as follows:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its Members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
Also in that citation Beauchesne refers to Sir Erskine May's Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament, nineteenth edition, 1976, at page 67.
It bears repetition to note what Beauchesne said, that the House cannot perform its function without the unimpeded use of the services of its members and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. I am being asked, as a member of this House, to do something which the courts have ruled to be illegal. That speaks directly to what Beauchesne had to say. Obviously, it is something that I cannot do. I cannot stand in my place and vote on a resolution that has been declared to be ultra vires and, hence, illegal. To do so would be flying in the face of the trust I have of the people who elected me to represent them here. But, more particularly, I would be flying in the face of the solemn obligation that I have as a member of this House to uphold the rule of law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: In its unanimous decision the Newfoundland Appeal Court stated:
By attempting to secure from the Parliament of Great Britain an amendment that would affect the fundamental rights of the provinces without first obtaining the consent of the provinces, the Canadian Houses of Parliament would be arrogating to themselves an authority they do not possess, an authority that would negate the plenary and exclusive power of the provinces to legislate on matters within their competence and would provide access for Parliament into the provincial domain from which they are constitutionally excluded. They would, in fact, be asserting a jurisdiction that would enable them to obtain indirectly what they cannot legally obtain directly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I might say that is practically word for word the position that the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), and those of us who are associated with him, took when we participated in the deliberations of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution.
Finally, I would like to quote again from the judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal:
The framers of the British North America Act decided in their wisdom that Canada should not be a unitary state, but a federal one. Canada, however, could, in effect, be converted into a unitary state if that act could be amended simply at the request of the Canadian Parliament without the concurrence of the provinces.
As I have indicated, Madam Speaker, you have already ruled on the very important point of order raised by my leader, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I do not think I would be out of order if I were to repeat that the pith and substance of the question of privilege I want to place before Your Honour goes right to the privileges of the members of this House; that is, whether or not we as Members of Parliament should be called upon to vote on a measure which has, in fact, been ruled to be illegal by the unanimous decision of one of the federally-appointed superior courts of this nation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: The fact that the court is the Supreme Court of my own province gives this matter an added dimension in terms of its direct impact on those of us, the seven of us in this House, who represent Newfoundland constituencies. How can I be asked to vote on a measure that the highest court in my own province has unanimously ruled to be illegal? As I said, to do so would be a betrayal of my trust.
There is another point I wish to raise, Madam Speaker. I referred Your Honour today to the exchanges between the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), my colleague the hon. member for Provencher and myself, because they are very germane to the point I want to make at this time. If the federal government decided-and this would be a normal thing for it to do-to appeal the decision of the Newfoundland Supreme Court to the Supreme Court of Canada, then we would have ipso facto a reference by this government of its resolution to the Supreme
March 31, 1981

Court of Canada which, of course, is clearly covered in Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 338(4).
On the other hand, if the government does not exercise its right to appeal the decision, in my view it is logical to draw the conclusion that the government is accepting that what it is now doing is illegal and unconstitutional. I am not a lawyer, but certainly there is no question that it would be illegal in terms of the province of Newfoundland. As well, I believe the impact would be national in scope in terms of the jurisdiction of our courts.
That brings me back to my question of privilege. As a Member of Parliament from Newfoundland, I am being asked to do something which is illegal. It is my respectful submission that Your Honour, as the custodian of our rights and privileges, should protect me from being placed in this position. To add to what I have already said, of the four questions referred by the provinces, the fourth question was exclusively referred to the Supreme Court of Newfoundland by my own province. In its judgment it said:
Referring to a potential unilateral amendment relating to denominational education and boundaries (Terms 2 and 17-
That is the boundary between Newfoundland and Quebec. Term 17 covered Newfoundland's right to its unique denominational system of education. The judgment continues:
-of the Terms of Union and section 8 of the BN A Act, 1871) the court concludes:
Both of these sections can be changed by the amending formulae prescribed in
section 41 and the Terms of Union could then be changed without the consent
of the Newfoundland legislature.
That clearly places me in an impossible position as a Member of Parliament from Newfoundland. I am being asked to betray the interests of my own province. I am being asked to do something illegal. I am asked to vote on a measure, the amending formula, which could unilaterally bypass the legislature of Newfoundland and change the Terms of Union between Newfoundland and Canada. Clearly, I should not have to face this situation.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: I might also say, Madam Speaker, that the other members of Parliament from Newfoundland must face the same dilemma. However, they will have to deal with that in their own way.
In any event, Madam Speaker, if you should rule that I have a prima facie question of privilege, it would be my intention to move, seconded by the hon. member for Provencher:
That the question of the ruling of the Newfoundland Supreme Court on the government's constitutional proposals, now before the House, affects the rights and privilege of members of this House, and therefore should be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Before ruling on this matter I will hear from the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie).
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Madam Speaker, I would like to be heard on this matter as well, if I might.


Madam Speaker:: There are so many questions of privilege today that I must use some of my discretion in order to hear them all today. Since there are eight questions of privilege, I will be rather strict in the allocation of time with respect to the different questions of privilege; otherwise, it would not be just to all of those members who have questions of privilege.


MR. CROSBIE-THE CONSTITUTION-ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF PROCEDURE
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, first, I would like to point out that there are questions of privilege and questions of privilege. Questions of privilege are sometimes raised for frivolous reasons, but there has never been a more serious question of privilege than this to come before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: While I am very pleased that you are hearing me on this question of privilege-of course, I have already given notice of a similar question of privilege-I certainly feel that my colleague, the justice critic of our party, should be allowed to expand on this matter also since this is in no way a sleazy question of privilege.
This is a matter of great constitutional importance for this House of Commons. My submission is that, in addition to infringing and breaching the privileges of individual members of this House, as my hon. colleague for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) has mentioned, if the government proceeded any further with the constitutional resolution it would be breaching the privileges of all members of this House. In fact, it would be what the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broad-bent) described a few days ago-a fantastically "sleazy" practice. He used that word with reference to our House leader; he said that he was behaving in a "sleazy" manner. In view of the judgment given by the Supreme Court of one of our provinces, the tenth province, the Appeal Court, the highest judicial authority in that province, for the government to proceed in the face of such a judgment with a resolution that is already doubtful as to its legality, as now shown beyond doubt by one of the appeal courts of our ten provinces, would be a practice sleazy beyond all belief, one which would have its effect on all members of this House.
I want to refer to several points which have been made by the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. By the way, never have I been prouder to be a Newfoundlander than I am today-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: -when Chief Justice Mifflin, Mr. Justice Morgan and Mr. Justice Gushue have struck a blow to preserve the federal system and structure in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie


John Carnell Crosbie: I would just like to quote one or two sections from page 46 of the judgment, where the learned judges say this:
The division of powers prescribed by the Constitution excludes federal jurisdiction over provincial autonomy within their legislative competence, and thus a proper request to Her Majesty's parliament in Great Britain to change such fundamental aspects of the Constitution can only be made after the provinces have agreed to such change.
Reference is made to a "proper" request, Madam Speaker. That means that the full appeal court of the province of Newfoundland has said that this resolution now before this House is improper. What the government is asking the hon. members of this House to do is to engage in an impropriety. In other words, this is a conspiracy to cause the hon. members of this House to commit an illegal act, an impropriety, and that is the finding of our Supreme Court.
Before we go any further in Parliament with these proceedings, every member of this House should read the judgment of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. Then they will understand what the nature of the objections on this side of the House have been to this whole process and procedure.
Continuing with the judgment handed down today, the judgment quotes the learned Mr. Justice Ivan Rand-and I cannot think of a greater judicial authority in Canada-said as reported at page 26:
Legislatively, a unique situation has been created.
He was discussing the Statute of Westminster.
The British parliament has in effect become a bare legislative trustee for the dominion.
Then our court went on to say this:
We adopt that statement fully with the important addition that the parliament of Great Britain is a 'bare legislative trustee' for both the federal Parliament and the provincial legislatures in relation to the matters within their respective legislative competence. Any amendment enacted by the parliament of Great Britain affecting the legislative competence of either of the parties, without the party's consent, would not only be contrary to the intendment of the Statute of Westminster, but it could defeat the whole scheme of the Canadian federal Constitution.
For the government to proceed with this resolution is to ask the members of this House to join it in a conspiracy which could defeat the whole scheme of the Canadian federal Constitution. What could be more threatening to the privileges of members of this House than to be invited to go ahead and assist this government in an act which has been found ultra vires and without the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada?
We have ample precedent as to what happened in a previous situation where hon. members were not put in the position of having their privileges breached. I refer to Bill C-60. I have in my hands the Senate report on the Constitution, 1978-79. I wish to quote from page 1:6:
Essential parties to any form of wide-ranging constitutional reform are the provincial governments. Their negative reaction to Bill C-60 is well known.
Then it goes on to say where it was expressed:
Following a challenge, by expert witnesses, of the claimed legal right of Parliament-
Who claimed this legal right? Why, the very government that today claims the same legal right, and has done so for the last six months, that has tied up this honourable chamber, claims which are now found to be improper and illegal.
Following a challenge, by expert witnesses, of the claimed legal right of Parliament to proceed unilaterally on the proposals regarding the monarchy and the House of the federation, the Joint Committee of the Senate and House of Commons on the Constitution adopted a resolution recommending that the question be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for decision. Shortly afterwards, the Minister of Justice announced that the question in so far as it concerned the House of the federation would be so referred.
There we have an incident occurring several years ago where the same government, in the same way, on a matter of considerably less importance but still important, attempted to tell this House of Commons and our brethren in the Senate that the proposals were intra vires. Because of a lot of opposition to that position, the matter was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, with the result that the court held that it was ultra vires and outside the powers of this chamber.
My hon. colleague the hon. member for St. John's East quoted a very pertinent part of the judgment, which I will not quote again, about attempting to do indirectly what one cannot legally attain directly. Let me read one further section from page 49 which is of great moment to members of this House:
'The framers of the British North America Act decided in their wisdom that Canada should not be a unitary state, but a federal one. Canada, however, could in effect be converted into a unitary state if that act could be amended simply at the request of the Canadian Parliament without the concurrence of the provinces. The requisites of the Constitution in a federal state by which the legislative authority of the federating parties are defined, and supremacy circumscribed, must be strictly enforced if the rights of minorities are to be adequately protected'.
That is why we have struggled on this side of the House. We want to protect the rights of the minorities and the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has done the same.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: I have been invited by the government opposite to do this, and this is what the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has said:
'Undoubtedly, the Canadian Houses of Parliament have the constitutional authority, of their own accord, to request the parliament of Great Britain to amend the British North America Act in matters of federal concern only, but in our opinion it has no such authority to request an amendment that would directly alter provisions of that act affecting federal-provincial relations or the powers, rights or privileges secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, without First obtaining the consent of the provinces to such amendment.'
Is it any wonder why the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) ran for cover today? He has to get out of this illegal situation in which he has placed this House. But we cannot trust him to do that. We cannot trust him to stop this illegal procedure, to cease breaching our privileges. We have to ask you, Madam Speaker, to force him, by your ruling, to remove this illegality, this illegal conspiracy, from the Order Paper of this House. We must ask you to make sure that the Prime Minister has no option but to withdraw the motion he has put before the House because of its illegality.
I have just one last quotation.
March 31, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has spoken for quite some time and he is arguing that, this motion being illegal, I should be in a position to say so and prevent it from coming before the House. I have to remind the hon. member that I have already ruled that I cannot do that. This is precisely what the Standing Orders enjoin me not to do. Therefore, that argument will lead the hon. member nowhere in proving to me that he does have a question of privilege.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, all I request you to do, in your position as Speaker, is to find that there is a prima facie case. I am not calling on you to find that this procedure is illegal; that has already been done for you by the Newfoundland Court of Appeal. You need worry no more about that. The whole procedure is completely illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: What I am asking Your Honour to do is to find that there is a prima facie case to be considered, and to allow my colleague the hon. member for St. John's East to move his motion.
I have just one final quotation from pages 54 and 55 of a judgment that is going to go down as one of the great judgments of our judicial history. In 114 years there has not been a judgment which overreaches this judgment. It will go into the books with the Magna Carta.
The learned judge said this:
Without getting into specifics, it is clear that a charter of rights and freedoms must infringe upon the powers of the provinces to legislate in respect of property and civil rights, as granted by Section 92 of the act of 1867. Further, amendments to the present Constitution of Canada which would affect provincial rights and powers cannot at present be made without provincial consent. Under the proposed amending formulae, there is no doubt (and this is not denied by the Attorney General of Canada) that the rights of one or some of the provinces could be altered, abridged or in fact displaced without the consent of those provinces.
Finally, it is patently obvious on the face of it that the provisions of Section 52 of the proposed Constitution Act must affect the rights, powers and privileges of the provincial legislatures as its effect is to render void or repugnant legislation passed within a province which is otherwise 'intra vires' the legislature of that province.
It is very clear what the general nature of this legislation is and that all of the judges of the Newfoundland Court of Appeal found against it. Two of the five judges of the Manitoba Court of Appeal found against it. It is very clear that one can say, at the very least, that there is some doubt about the constitutionality of the resolution that this House has been asked to pass.
I should like to refer to Erskine May's Parliamentary Practice, the eighteenth edition. In looking at this edition of May, I was very pleased to realize that one of the historic cases in the history of privilege is dealt with at page 107. It is Crosbie's case-C-r-o-s-b-i-e; it is not even misspelled, Madam Speaker! At page 107 there appears the following:
In 1640, Sir Pierce Crosbie, sworn as a witness in Lord Strafford's cause, being threatened with arrest, was allowed privilege, "to protect him during the time that this House examine him"
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
I call now upon the authority of Sir Pierce Crosbie. I had an uncle called Pierce, by the way, Madam Speaker, who apparently was named after Sir Pierce. Here we are, 341 years later and I am arguing a case of privilege before Your Honour. I hope the verdict will go as well as it did in 1640.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: On page 64 of the eighteenth edition of May, in a discussion of the distinction between function and privilege proper, there appears the following passage:
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members; and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity.
If the government is put in a postion where it can force the members of this House to make a choice on a resolution or an act where there is grave doubt concerning its legality, then surely the services that we can perform in this House are being interfered with. As a matter of fact, as I mentioned earlier, it is in the nature of a conspiracy to deceive. This subject is dealt with at page 137 of May as follows:
Conspiracy to deceive either House or any committees of either House will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
This is, in effect, an act of conspiracy by the government to deceive members of this House. How is that? It was an action taken to deceive the members of this House by a resolution brought before the House that was clearly intra vires and within the legislative jurisdiction of this House, when the government knew or ought to have known that there was a very, very serious legal question as to the whole procedure. The government knew from a matter that went to the Supreme Court of Canada two years ago and was found to be ultra vires despite what the government had said was a proper approach.
Is any evidence of this conspiracy needed, Madam Speaker?
I would quote to you now from the October 6, 1980, edition of the Toronto Globe and Mail. In an article in that newspaper the present Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) said this:
Asked why the federal government does not refer its course of action to the Supreme Court of Canada for a ruling on the constitutionality of the process, Mr. Chretien replied "because the Supreme Court is very unreliable and timing is very important. We have to do it now. The people want us to do it now."
In any case, he said, "1 am opposed to that route."
That is the very route that the Prime Minister is suggesting today that he has been brought kicking and screaming to-a route that his Minister of Justice said on October 5 that he was opposed to. He said: "I am opposed to that route". Well, the Minister of Justice has got the root and he has been brought to the route, and the Prime Minister has now thought better about the route that we are going to be asked to take.
This is why I say this is part of a conspiracy to defeat the proper course of justice in this House. The Minister of Justice himself tried to avoid the Supreme Court, giving as the reason that "the Supreme Court is very unreliable." Yes, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland is a very unreliable one from the point of view of constituted executive authority that wants

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Crosbie
to change the nature of this country without the consent of its people and without the consent of its provinces. It has proven to be extremely unreliable from the point of view of the Minister of Justice but very, very reliable from the point of view of the rights and privileges of the members of this House and the people of Canada.
The Prime Minister this afternoon-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member is really arguing the substance and I have to stop him from doing that because I need him to argue the matter of privilege. Furthermore, the hon. member has now been speaking for nearly 20 minutes. He does not have to comply with my enjoinder to try to restrict himself to a shorter time in order to allow other members of the House to explain their question of privilege, but I am just asking him to try to do it so that I can be fair to other members.


John Carnell Crosbie: Right, Madam Speaker, I agree with your submission. I certainly want to have others give their views on this matter.
I would conclude by saying that the strength of the question of privilege brought by my hon. colleague from St. John's East and presented so well by him in his usual calm and rational approach to problems before this House and the question that I have brought here today has been amply supported by the attitude and remarks of the Prime Minister this afternoon. For the first time he has had to admit that this whole process is an extremely dubious one, and that there are grave constitutional and legal questions about it. He has been shocked by the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.
If Your Honour will take this question of privilege under advisement and look at the transcript of his remarks this afternoon, it will be very clear that what he said, in effect, supports the question of privilege we have put before you. I ask you to find a prima facie case so that this question can go to the proper committee to be looked at in a serious fashion and reported back to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I said I would hear only one speaker. I would only hear a second speaker if I had any doubts about whether the privilege was founded or not.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I want to say to the hon. member for St. John's West that his question of privilege is not quite as good as the other Crosbie's. The other Crosbie's case was about a sworn witness who had been threatened with arrest and therefore the privileges of the House-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.


Mr. Lambert:: A point of order, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Members may not raise points of order while the Chair is addressing the House. I will hear any points later on.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are assuming-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Order, please. Will the hon. member resume his seat.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I insist-


Madam Speaker:: Will the hon. member resume his seat.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I insist that before you make your ruling we be heard.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. I plead with the hon. member, who was a Speaker in this House and understands-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: That is why-


Madam Speaker:: -what I am trying to do.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would never do what you are doing.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member please resume his seat.


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: I would never do what you are doing.


An hon. Member:: What a silly thing to say.


Madam Speaker:: I want to explain to the House that I have so many questions of privilege to deal with that I am applying a discretion which I applied yesterday.


An hon. Member:: It is closure.


Madam Speaker:: It is not closure. It is a discretion that the Speaker has and it is given to a-


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Only to satisfy-


Madam Speaker:: -Speaker for a very good reason, that is, to maintain the flow of debate in the manner in which it should take place in the House. That is the only discretion the Speaker has at this point and that is the one I want to apply. I applied it all day yesterday to the satisfaction of all members.
I repeat, I will hear a second speaker only when I have some doubt about whether or not a case of privilege is founded.
In these two particular cases or privilege, members will have to agree with me that the questions brought up were extremely close to the one on which I have just ruled. It is a different court that has made a decision on a matter which hon. members wanted to discuss, but the purport of it is quite close to the one on which I have just ruled. I feel I can rule having heard those two members.
March 31, 1981


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I was telling the hon. member for St. John's West that his case was not as good as the other Crosbie case to whom privileges of the House were extended. He was not even a member of the House; he was a witness assigned to a particular case. As he was threatened with arrest and would not then be able to testify, the privileges of the House were extended to him. That is not the proper quotation, nor is it an argument that I can take into account in ruling on his question of privilege.
I will have to rule on both questions of privilege separately. I will start with the one raised by the hon. member for St. John's West. Again, the hon. member is referring to the impropriety or to the legality of something or to doubts about its constitutionality. It is quite clear in the Standing Orders that the Speaker cannot rule on the constitutionality of a particular question being discussed in the House. That is not for the Speaker to determine; it is for other authorities in other arenas to have that discussion, certainly not for the Speaker.
The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) also argued questions of legality and questions of constitutionality on which I feel very strongly that I cannot make a pronouncement. I cannot determine these.
Of course, there might be a political argument that the minister should not proceed at this time, but that political argument would be more properly made if and when the motion comes before the House. Both members feel that they are being asked by this House to do something which is illegal and which reflects on their function as a Member of Parliament.


An hon. Member:: The court has decided.


Madam Speaker:: They know all too well that even if the House were asking them to do something which they feel is illegal or improper, they have the means to deal with it. They will be called upon to vote on such matters.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: I cannot determine that a question is proper or improper. Hon. members are not impeded, nor will they be impeded, from expressing their opinions if and when that motion comes before the House. If they were, I would consider that to be a privilege on which to vote when the proper time comes to do so. Therefore, I cannot find in these two cases a prima facie case of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I want to choose my words very
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
carefully because I do not want to reflect on the position of the Speaker of this House. It is one which is regarded by members of Parliament with the greatest degree of care. However, I want to underline that the issues we are now discussing, in terms of the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath), are matters on which there should be no question to Madam Speaker or to the people of Canada. They are points on which our party is determined to deal with the greatest of resolve as we see appropriate on behalf of our constituents.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, before you rose to pass judgment on this matter, I sought the floor on a point of order to request the opportunity to address myself to the specific points of privilege raised by my colleagues.
Madam Speaker, we all know what the rules are. It is so terribly important for you to listen to points of order and requests from the floor with a degree of flexibility, because we recognize there is no appeal from your decision.


James Aloysius McGrath: We have made you infallible.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As a result, if this House is to function, you should err on the side of listening to points of privilege and the supporting arguments in favour of points of privilege to assure that it cannot be said of you, as Speaker, that somehow you rule arbitrarily after hearing one or maybe two members. Members on the government side take this lightly and laugh and jeer, but I can tell them that the people of my constituency and across Canada are not laughing at the government now.


Yvon Pinard: Order.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: My contribution may not have swayed your decision, but I felt I had germane comments to bring forward. If we are to have order in this House, I simply ask and I plead with you to let me know what the rules are going to be. If I feel I have some contribution to make to the debate, am I going to be deprived from making it because I am not the first person to rise? Must I come forward with a new question of privilege every time I want to speak in this House? What will the rules be? I would like to know and I think the rest of the members want to know.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I think I can enlighten the hon. member on what the rules are going to be. The rules are quite clear. In listening to questions of privilege, the Speaker may determine at what time she feels she is sufficiently informed. I explained a while ago, before the hon. member rose on his point of order, why I felt I could rule at that time, namely, that I had already heard one similar question on which I had ruled, and these two questions of privilege were very similar to that on which I had ruled. Therefore, having listened to both arguments, I decided I could make a ruling.

March 31, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
That is the Speaker's discretion. If the hon. member is raising a point of order, he would have to point out that I have been in contravention of one of our rules. I do not feel that I have. I am exercising a discretion. I think hon. members have noticed that I have been exercising that discretion a little more strictly for the past few days. As we go along, members will realize that this is a most unusual situation. We have not been able to reach orders of the day for four days. I think we are on the fifth day now.


James Aloysius McGrath: That has nothing to do with it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: That is unprecedented.
I have two duties. One is to listen to speakers who have the floor and the other is to listen to those who want to have the floor. I have to exercise a balance between these two things and I am trying to be fair.
Yesterday I heard several questions of privilege and restricted the procedure when I felt that I was sufficiently informed, to one speaker. If the first speaker does not convince me that he has a question of privilege and I am sure that another speaker not personally affected or close to that privilege will be able to convince me further, I will hear him. In order to hear all members and to protect all hon. members' freedom of speech, I feel that I have to apply my discretion a little more strictly so I can get to all of the questions of privilege that are before me today.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order and I will be very brief. I listened to your ruling and also to the arguments of my friends and colleagues from St. John's East and St. John's West.
I have full appreciation of the delicate situation and the difficulty facing the Chair, especially at this time. Situations like this do occur from time to time in the life of a parliament. I am not talking about all members of the House but about the two members from Newfoundland, confronted with the decision brought down by the highest court of their province which indicated that a certain resolution on the floor of the House has been rendered ultra vires or illegal. We all know what the privilege is-that members are not to be restricted from the performance of their duties.
I ask this for clarification, Madam Speaker. By ruling against the point of order, do I understand that, in effect, we thereby put those two hon. members in the untenable position of condoning an illegal act? Those two members representing Newfoundland constituencies have to follow the precedents and deliberations of their highest court, and by not ruling that there is a privilege in this respect are we, in effect, condoning an illegal act?


Madam Speaker:: No. The decision of the Speaker as to whether there is a prima facie case of privilege was simply that the particular question raised does not represent privilege and
does not supersede other deliberations in the House. The reason I listened to the question of privilege was that the House might be prevented from functioning if the question of privilege were not dealt with. Therefore, what I have just said is simply that there was not a prima facie case of privilege. The debate can continue under other circumstances and at other times, but if the matter is raised now as a question of privilege, I can only say that there is not a prima facie question of privilege. That is all I have said. The implications and the conclusions the hon. member has drawn from my decision are a bit excessive in respect of what is the limit of my decision and my authority.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on the point of order raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), in my capacity as an officer of the House of Commons who shares your concern for the conduct of this House and for the respect we all want to have extended to the Chair.
We have been in unusual circumstances for the last few days, as you have indicated to the House, as a result of measures introduced by the government and as a result of the active interest that has been taken by a number of members on this side of the House by way of questions of privilege and other questions. There have been several questions raised.
There is no question at all but that the Speaker has discretion regarding the conduct of the affairs of the House of Commons. I think no one would question the existence of that discretion.
You have admitted, Madam Speaker, in response to the point raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West, that you have been very strictly applying your discretion in the unusual circumstances of these last three of four days. I guess the danger I see as someone who respects Parliament, as you do, is that by following and exercising that discretion very strictly in these unusual circumstances you may be establishing a standard which would apply in other circumstances and which would have the effect of limiting, rather than enlarging, the rights of freely elected Members of Parliament to make their cases on questions important to them, to their constituents and to the conduct and the business of this House.
You indicated earlier, I believe, in a comment today that you had been exercising the strictness yesterday as well and there had been no disagreement with or challenge to it. I think it fair to say there were several people who were concerned about the strictness being followed, but there is a long established practice in this House of challenging a Speaker or expressing reservations only with the utmost care. Consequently, it would probably be an error for Your Honour to assume there was agreement simply because there was silence in response to the strictness in which you exercised your discretion yesterday.


An hon. Member:: There doesn't have to be agreement.


Charles Joseph Clark: Someone across the floor says it does not require agreement. That is exactly correct. You do not require agree-
March 31, 1981

ment, you have discretion. You gain, exercise and maintain that discretion by earning respect in all parts of the House of Commons. It is precisely to address that question of being sure this House is able to function effectively that I rise now. I would not want to see imported into the practices of this House precedents regarding the number of people who are to be heard on a question of order or a question of privilege; precedents which are narrower than those that have been customary, formed in a period of unusual debate; precedents which in the future might not be confined to periods of unusual debate but might become part of the regular practice of this House, to the detriment of individual members of Parliament whose protection you and I have a particular responsibility to assure.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I hope you will not let the member for Yellow head (Mr. Clark) intimidate you with this type of argument. What he is attempting to do is to challenge your right to use discretion as you have. Under the Standing Orders you have every right to decide how many members you will recognize on any question of privilege or any point of order. You know that perfectly well and you have acted appropriately.
Madam Speaker, the member for Yellowhead is trying to make us believe that we ought not to establish new practices in the House whereby the Chair, using discretion, would limit the number of speakers on points of order or questions of privilege. However, Madam Speaker, let me say that he is about to establish a new practice which is altogether shameful and unacceptable. Indeed for five days now he has been doing his utmost to prevent the government from proceeding with regular House business. This is the fifth day, Madam Speaker, in which the member for Yellowhead has gone out of his way to frustrate the parliamentary process and prevent us from reaching orders of the day. That practice deserves to be denounced. I find it shameful, unacceptable and hypocritical to the nth degree to see him rise in the House today-


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. minister already has the floor on a point of order. I cannot entertain another point of order while this one is being debated. I will recognize him later.


Some hon. Members:: Make him obey the rules.


Yvon Pinard: Well, Madam Speaker, as you have so aptly put it, I am already on a point of order and I cannot be interrupted even by the member for Yellowhead. What I am trying to explain, Madam Speaker, is that in the exercise of your-


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I stand to be corrected, but it seems to me I cannot hear two points of order at the same time.
Point of Order-Mr. Hnalyshyn


Charles Joseph Clark: This is a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Privilege in the middle of a point of order?


An hon. Member:: You cannot have two points of order.


Madam Speaker:: All right. If it is a question of privilege the point of order may be interrupted for that purpose.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the question of privilege can be resolved very quickly if the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) withdraws his accusation that I am a hypocrite, that being unparliamentary language but language he just used.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I never said that the Leader of the Official Opposition was a hypocrite. I said that his behaviour was hypocritical. That is different, it is not condemned by the authors and it is perfectly parliamentary. So, if I may-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. As a matter of fact, I do not know whether the President of the Privy Council was in the House yesterday when that question was raised, but it had to do with an expression roughly similar to the word just used by the minister and which was not recorded in Hansard but which an hon. member claimed he had heard from another member. The expression did appear on the official record, but not the name of the hon. member, and the hon. member would have wanted me to call to order the other member involved.
First of all, before calling him to order I had to establish whether the word was parliamentary or not. In Beauchesne it appears in both the list of parliamentary expressions and the list of unparliamentary expressions. So I said I thought that expression was not quite appropriate for the House of Commons Debates and I would ask the hon. minister to use it as little as possible. I know he did not address it directly to-


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Madam Speaker:: -he did not address it directly to the right hon. Leader of the Opposition. Still I think he would make things easier for the House if he were to withdraw that word and replace it by another one more acceptable.


Yvon Pinard: Very well, Madam Speaker, if 1 can use this as an example to show my colleagues opposite that I respect your authority in this House. I shall be happy to withdraw the word "hypocritical" which I used even though it expresses my feelings quite correctly. I shall withdraw it unequivocally. All I can say is that the behaviour of the Leader of the Opposition in intervening at this stage, after five consecutive days during which, as admitted by his House leader, his party has systematically wasted the time of the House, is totally unaccept-

March 31, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn able, especially since what he was trying to do was to question your judgment. He complained about the fact or expressed the fear that a practice would develop in this House whereby the Speaker using discretion would limit the number of members who could speak on certain matters. Yet, not only the spirit, but also the letter of our rules states clearly, Madam Speaker, that it is your duty when you are convinced that there is no privilege involve to stop the interventions so that this Parliament can operate in an orderly fashion.
What the right hon. member is now advocating today, in a manner which is far from open, is quite simply to maintain disorder in the House. In his intervention, Madam Speaker, he seems to advocate disorder, and I find this unacceptable. I want to say, Madam Speaker, that we, on this side of the House, wish to proceed with the business of the House and get on with our work in Parliament, and it is a shame that the Leader of the Opposition would lead a team which has been trying to demolish the Canadian Parliament for the last five days.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. What the Leader of the Government is doing-in a way that displays the heat that indicates the pressure under which he has found himself in the last little while-is almost coming to the point where he is defending an illegality which was admitted today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in the offer he was making. Unfortunately for the government House leader, he is using language and phraseology with respect to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) which Your Honour yourself has said is not conducive to the appropriateness of debate in the House. When he withdrew one, he used another one which is not appropriate to debate in the House of Commons.
What the Leader of the Opposition was trying to do-and if the Leader of the Opposition was out of order, Your Honour would have called him to order-was to bring to the attention of the Chair a concern he has as a leader in the House of Commons. As an officer of the House, 1 thank Your Honour for listening to him and for recognizing his intervention for what it was, a real attempt to be helpful to the Chair.
As Your Honour has said publicly, it has been our objective not to do anything that is other than helpful to the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I have to say that I am not very interested in being helpful to the government, but I am interested in being helpful to the Chair. All of us are.


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I do not pretend to be a procedural expert, nor have I heard too many in recent weeks, but I am fascinated, perhaps because I am not a member of the legal profession, to listen.
I am impressed by the standard which Your Honour has set in the last week or ten days. I think the Right Hon. Leader of
the Opposition (Mr. Clark) referred briefly to the standard of excellence which has characterized Your Honour's performance in the Chair.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: When I first came here-and this is very relevant-I was overwhelmed by the number of expert references on this subject: Bourinot, May, Beauchesne; I could go on and on. I think it was the minister of transport of the time, Mr. Pickersgill, who said that the best rule of thumb in parliamentary procedure is common sense.
I was induced to participate in this point of order when I saw the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) refusing to take his seat when requested to do so by Your Honour. This would be unpardonable enough if it was a member such as myself or my good friend from down east, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), but the hon. member for Edmonton West is a former Speaker of the House of Commons and he more than anyone else should know that, when requested by the Speaker to take his seat, he should take his seat and set an example for all of us. I am appalled. When I arrived here in 1962, the hon. member for Edmonton West was the Speaker of the House of Commons, and he should set an example for this debate.
What have we had for eight or ten days? There have been questions of privilege. I am not particularly appalled at what is occurring in the House. The rules are there to be used. Rules are there to make debate equal. What I am a little concerned about-but that is not what I am discussing at the moment- is the abuse of those rules.
It worries me when members stand and say that Your Honour has spent too much time or not enough time in determining whether a prima facie case of privilege exists. Surely it is inherent in the rules that Your Honour and only Your Honour can determine whether you want more argument, whether the contributions being made are becoming repetitive or whether, because of the fact that you are hearing questions of privilege or apparent questions of privilege day in and day out and month in and month out, you can come rapidly to the conclusion that certain questions are not questions of privilege.
If this House is to function, we must appreciate that Your Honour and only Your Honour can make such decisions. We are-unintentionally, perhaps, and none of us is without sin- undermining-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: This is funny to some hon. members opposite who have not been around here long enough, and may not be around here long enough, to get an appreciation for the dignity of the House of Commons, on which I do not presume to have any monopoly. I know some hon. members opposite care as deeply as I do about the House of Commons, but I know one thing, and that is that this place cannot function if we unintentionally-or intentionally, worse still-undermine
March 31, 1981

the dignity and the apparent impartiality, in the opinion of some people, of the Speaker. That is the most important function in the House of Commons.
As was said the other day, the Speaker of this House of Commons is more important in the House of Commons than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Leader of the Opposition or any particular member. I must say on this point of order that it is important to the point that Your Honour has conducted herself with impartiality, with integrity, with wisdom and with patience over the last ten days.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Flattery will get you nowhere.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Hon. members opposite do not agree. I am sorry they do not. I do not question their right to disagree, but I happen to believe that we are blessed with a great Speaker and that the last ten days has proved that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member continues, he will embarrass me. He will be making a serious reflection on a member of this House.
Contributions to points of order should be kept extremely brief, and I ask that of the hon. member because others also want to speak.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, I do not want to embarrass you with the truth, and I will not embarrass you as the hon. member for Edmonton West did by refusing to accept your instruction to sit down when you were on your feet.
If we are going to operate over the next week, two weeks or one month along this vein-it is quite conceivable we might- then surely to goodness all of us can understand the importance to the whole procedure of the role of the Speaker. We are lucky enough to have a good one. Let us not destroy her.


Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: rise on that point of order, Madam Speaker. Just to be sure, you were addressing yourself to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) at a point when the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn) and the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) were rising to speak on that question of privilege and you ruled that you had already heard enough on that question. With respect, I submit that the only way you could make that judgment is if in fact those two hon. members were speaking and adding nothing new, and with that in mind I respectfully request that you hear them to see whether they were simply being repetitive.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I cannot comply with the hon. member's request because I have already ruled on the matter. I guess it is implicit in my decision that I thought I was sufficiently informed and that some of the same arguments were surfacing, namely the constitutionality, legality and pro-
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
priety of a certain thing. However, I thank him for his suggestion.


Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: I rise on the same point of order, Madam Speaker. If I heard the government House leader correctly, he said that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was advocating disorder in this House. That statement goes beyond normal political debate, because if there is anyone staying within the rules, it is members on this side of the House. That is quite clear. The only side of this House which is attempting to rewrite the rules and proceed with a matter which could be illegal is the government side. It is obvious, if you look at the motion, that at least in four instances the Standing Orders are to be either disregarded or rewritten. I do not think that it falls properly on the Leader of the Government to suggest that this side is being disorderly when the government is trying to rewrite the Standing Orders.
In light of a provincial supreme court's ruling that what we are doing here is beyond the competence of Parliament, and with two justices of another provincial Supreme Court having come to the same conclusion, there is at least the argument that what we are doing is of questionable legality.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is now arguing the substance of the question on which I just ruled. We are now on a point of order and I ask the hon. member to refer to that and not to the ruling.


Donald W. Munro: The point of order was that on more than one occasion you have said that you are not called upon to rule on the legality or constitutionality of, or to give a legal opinion on, a matter under discussion; you backed away on those grounds and I think that is quite right. However, no one on this side asked you to give a legal opinion or make a ruling on constitutionality. You were merely asked to have a matter brought to the floor for a vote so that the issue could be referred to a committee for decision. With all respect, Madam Speaker, you are not being asked to make a legal ruling or one on a matter's constitutionality; no one would ever presume to do that.


Madam Speaker:: It goes without saying that I dissociate myself from this debate, but I think I have to comment on some aspects of it and I wish to read to hon. members from Erskine May. Under the heading "Speaker's Discretion in Permitting Matter to be Raised", at page 346 it says:
As a motion taken at the time for matters of privilege is thereby given precedence over the pre-arranged program of public business, the Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify him in giving such precedence (or, as it is sometimes put, that there is a prima facie case that a breach of privilege has been committed): and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity. If he is not so satisfied when the circumstances are first brought to his attention privately-
That is, when the hon. members give me written notice of their question of privilege. On occasion the Table officers have contacted hon. members to point out that they did not have a question of privilege and to indicate how they might otherwise seek redress, and some members have then decided to with-

March 31, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Hnatyshyn
draw their question of privilege. However, that refers to the practice where:
If he is not so satisfied when the circumstances are first brought to his attention privately, he may inform the member that he is not entitled to raise the matter as a question of privilege-
Which we in this House never do.
In the United Kingdom the practice is quite different and goes to the point where the Speaker rules on the question of privilege on the basis of the written statement and does not hear members in the House. Or he may allow a member to make a statement with a view to ascertaining whether or not a prima facie case can be made out. That is where the discretion of the Speaker can be exercised.
As to the comment made by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, I do not think I said I was applying this discretion strictly but that I was progressively applying it more strictly. That did not mean that I would cut off debate inevitably after one speaker; rather, I will cut it off when I feel I am sufficiently informed, and that is the latitude that the Speaker has. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition fears that I am going into precedents and that this practice might be applied to other circumstances. Well, no. The discretion of the House has been used in different ways, listening to several speakers or just one. So the precedents are on both sides and I am not departing from any custom of this House in doing what I have been doing today and on previous days.
I am not inventing a new rule, it is already there; the practice is established and I am applying it in my discretion. Of course, I do not deny that and I think hon. members would recognize that I have that discretion. I want to assure them that I apply that discretion only when I feel, from the written statement to begin with and then from the statement made in the House, that I am sufficiently informed and ready to rule. I want to give hon. members the absolute assurance that I am as careful as possible not to deprive them of the ability to bring up or better explain a question of privilege if I have the least doubt about it.
Furthermore, I want to say that no one in the House is violating the rules. If any members were, it would be my duty to prevent them, to call them to order, to reprimand them or to impose the sanctions I can impose on hon. members when they are violating the rules. At the present time, none of them is violating the rules; that is the statement with which I must associate myself.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I was elected by the people of my constituency to help keep Canada together. I object to the name-calling of the hon. minister when he discribed myself and other members on this side of the House as a demolition gang.
We are not a demolition gang. We are helping to build Canada. If Canada is being destroyed, it is members on the government side who are doing it; their policies are doing it.
Certainly the minister will not help things in Canada by calling names, particularly untrue ones. I am not part of a demolition gang; I am part of a building gang trying to save Canada from the Liberals.


An hon. Member:: Name-calling.


Mr. Andre:: What a terrible thing to say.


Madam Speaker:: If I may speak to this point of order, the expression is not unparliamentary. The hon. minister expressed his opinion in his way, and the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) expressed his opinion. I must leave it at that. The particular expression was not unparliamentary.


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, I just wanted to intervene very briefly on the point of order of the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor).


An hon. Member:: He did not have a point of order.


Erik Nielsen: Then I will raise my own. If the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) gets snarly, as he is, then I will raise my own point of order.
When we were in office from October 9, 1979, until December 14, 1979, the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) was basking in the chairman's chair of Air Canada. During that time, without counting the allotted days, there were 49 sitting days. During that time, 231 of those government members who are trying to tar this party with the brush of obstructionism raised a combined total of 130 questions of privilege and points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: When they speak of demolition gangs, let them examine their own record. Before they start throwing stones, let them examine their own record.
We were prevented, during those few short sitting days, from doing anything in Parliament. It was a deliberate effort made by hon. members opposite, when they were sitting in opposition, to prevent us from doing everything we wanted to do. We were not talking about the Constitution, something so basically and fundamentally important to our land; we were talking about economic measures to assist Canadians. But let them not cast the first stone, in view of their own dank, dark, bleak record.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRIVILEGE
[Stage Direction]
MR. CORBETT-DESIGNATION OF MR. LeBLANC AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR NEW BRUNSWICK
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises out of the question period yesterday when I put a question to the minister the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has designated as the minister responsible for New
March 31, 1981

Brunswick. I wish to state my question of privilege at the outset so that Your Honour will have knowledge of what I wish to bring to your attention and of the manner in which I feel my privileges as a member of the House have been brought into question.
The Prime Minister stated in the House that members of cabinet have responsibilities pertaining to certain regions of the country and, in some cases, each province. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) was named by the Prime Minister as being the minister responsible for New Brunswick. The same minister said that he does not think he has those responsibilities for the province. I feel my privileges as a member of the House of Commons are being infringed upon if I cannot rely upon the word of the Prime Minister in matters which are obviously critical, or if the minister in question is not prepared to accept the responsibilities conferred upon him by the Prime Minister without prior reference to the House, which he has had ample time to do.
Later in my remarks on this question of privilege, I should like to refer Madam Speaker to Beauchesne's Citation 361 on page 133, which I feel certain you will bring into question. I draw your attention to the fact that I am cognizant of the particular citation, but before getting to that I should like to refer to a publication entitled "The Canadian House of Commons" which was written by Mr. John B. Stewart, a well-known and recognized Canadian who is well-versed in matters of procedure in the House of Commons.
To substantiate Mr. Stewart's qualifications, I should like to indicate that he was elected to the House of Commons in 1962 as a Liberal. He gained a great deal of knowledge as parliamentary secretary to the Hon. G. J. Mcllraith. Also he was vice-chairman of the special committee on procedure and organization. I feel this is quite pertinent to the points I should like to make in my question of privilege. Also Mr. Stewart served for a year as legislative adviser to the Hon. D. S. Macdonald, who was the government House leader between 1968 and 1969, during which time a number of procedural reforms were made.
In his publication, Mr. Stewart indicated many things concerning the role of the House of Commons, but one item to which I should like to draw Your Honour's attention is in the second paragraph of page X of the "Preface" of that particular publication. Mr. Stewart states:
However, the House, like the provincial legislatures before it, has found it desirable to make certain "Standing Orders".
The following is the critical part:
Indeed, it is mainly by changing old Standing Orders and by making new ones that the House changes its rules.
I feel those quotations are particularly pertinent to the question of privilege I am attempting to make.
On page 56 of his publication, Mr. Stewart writes:
The basic requirement for an oral question is that it be sufficiently urgent and important to warrant the use of the time of the House. When the Speaker thinks that a question does not meet those qualifications-urgency and importance-he may refuse to allow the minister to answer.
Privilege-Mr. Corbett
In view of the words of Mr. Stewart, Madam Speaker, I can only assume that you consider the question that I put to the minister designated by the Prime Minister to be responsible for the province of New Brunswick to be of sufficient importance to take up the time of the House. Indeed, because of your non-interference, or at least because of the fact that you did not rule the question out of order, I trust that the question was in order as it was put.
To refresh Your Honour's memory as to how the question was put, I stated:
Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is responsible for New Brunswick, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans.
I want to make it perfectly clear that in no way am 1 questioning or arguing with the response I received from the minister; that is not the thrust of my question of privilege. There is no argument with the response I received from the minister who is responsible for the province of New Brunswick. I accepted totally the response that he gave me.
I feel I should now refer to the point I alluded to earlier, which is contained in Beauchesne's fifth edition on page 133, Citation 361, which states:
A question may not be asked of a Minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
That was based on a ruling by the Speaker of the House of Commons on October 16, 1968 and is referred to in the House of Commons Journals on pages 132 to 134. The ruling was made as a result of a question which was raised by the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond (Mr. Dingwall), which dealt with the attendance in the House of ministers of the Crown during Question Period. The ruling of the Speaker at that time is quite lengthy and I do not want to take up the time of the House by reading the entire decision. To that end, I will not read the entire decision unless it is the desire of Madam Speaker or members opposite that I should do so.
On page 133 of Mr. Speaker's decision, in the third paragraph, he refers to page 3756 of Hansard for June 1, 1966, the page to which the hon. member for Cape Breton-East Richmond had alluded. Apparently, the hon. member had filed a question seeking information from the then minister of national health and welfare, presumably in his capacity as minister responsible for Nova Scotia. Page 133 of Journals for October 16, 1968, reads in part as follows:
A ruling was then made to the effect that a question must be addressed to a minister in relation to his administrative responsibilities.
Madam Speaker, I would like you to take under consideration the fact that I believe there has been a precedent set in the House during the past few weeks, particularly during the month of February. In that month a question of privilege was raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), who took exception to the fact that the hon. member for York Centre (Mr. Kaplan) was taking over responsibilities which were, in the opinion of the member for Broadview-Greenwood, hiw own. At that point he asked the hon. member

March 31, 1981
Adjournment Motion
for York Centre to clarify his position. The hon. member for York Centre stated, as reported at page 7426 of Hansard for February 18, 1981:
-because the ridings for which the Prime Minister asked me to assume this responsibility do not only include ridings held by members of the opposition, but as well a number of ridings which are represented by Liberal members.
I believe this statement by the hon. member for York Centre began the precedents which are being set in this House of Commons which indicate that ministers were given the responsibility by the Prime Minister to answer directly questions put to them by members of the opposition, which would be, if not acceptable, contrary to Citation 361 of Beauchesne which reads:
A question may not be asked of a minister in another capacity-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member is on a point of order and not a question of privilege. He is referring to matters of order and not to privilege at all. I will allow him to pursue this matter briefly, but I ask him to relate his arguments to the question of privilege and not to a point of order.
Before five o'clock, I must read the following:



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

['Presenting reports from standing and special committees.\nThe hon. member for Pontiac.\nCommittee Report']
Madam Speaker:: Order, please! It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: The hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay)-McDonald royal commission-Inquiry respecting operation directed at Chinese embassy in Ottawa; the hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman)-External aid-Concept of tripartite aid; the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong)- Canadian Armed Forces-Testing of chemical defoliants- Monitoring of effects.



[Stage Direction]
MR. CORBETT-DESIGNATION OF MR. LeBLANC AS MINISTER RESPONSIBLE FOR NEW BRUNSWICK
The House resumed consideration of the question of privilege of Mr. Corbett.
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I appreciate your direction. I can assure you from the knowledge I have of the matter that it is extremely important, from my point of view, that Madam Speaker have the advantage of all material and all issues which have been raised in this House
pertaining to the responsibility that the Prime Minister has conferred upon members of the cabinet who, after all, must answer in this House of Commons. I feel quite strongly about this and, indeed, I hope Madam Speaker will agree that what I have said is the case.
I would like to refer you, Madam Speaker, to this very point, which was substantiated by the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) as reported in Hansard on February 19, 1981, when, in response to a question by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, he again stated:
What I would like to tell the hon. member is that ministers for various regions of the country have special responsibilities within the cabinet for representing the interests of those regions.
He goes on to state:
For example, for almost 17 years now I have had a special responsibility within the cabinet for representing the interests of my region, namely, the province of Nova Scotia.
Madam Speaker, I want you to realize that I am not questioning the responsibilities which the Prime Minister has given these ministers. In that regard, I do not believe that I am more apt to have a point of order than a point of privilege. I am simply pointing out that this is, in fact, a responsibility which these ministers have accepted as members of cabinet and as ministers of the Crown.
The Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance went on to say, again from the same page of Hansard:
-but I think it is essential, in our system of government, that ministers be given responsibilities for representing in a special way the interests of their regions in the cabinet and around the cabinet table.
I believe that the words of the Deputy Prime Minister, in his recognition of the special areas of responsibility, are significant enough to contravene the particular section of Beauchesne to which I have referred. However, following that the Prime Minister of the country was drawn into the question. On February 25, 1981, at page 7673 of Hansard, he stated:
Madam Speaker, I want to enter into this debate on the question of privilege because I must confess or admit that I have been responsible for the setting up of this system of traditional regional representations in so far as my party is concerned.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has now been speaking for over 15 minutes, and 1 cannot see that he will be able to tell me more in the rest of his time than he has already. I already understand what that question of privilege is-and it is really not a question of privilege. I do have to ask the hon. member to conclude. The hon. member is discussing a matter on which I have ruled. Ministers have been given regional responsibilities by the Right Hon. the Prime Minister which are of a political nature. I have ruled that as far as this House is concerned, the mere fact that the Prime Minister has tabled a list of regional responsibilities for ministers does not change the rules of this House. Ministers still answer questions related to their administrative responsibilities. They are en-
March 31, 1981

titled to answer those questions. The article from Beauchesne which the hon. member quoted is a direction to a member who is asking a question. A question may not be asked of a minister acting in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province. So that is quite clear. The rules have not been changed.
Political responsibilities or other types of responsibilities might have been assigned outside of this House; but in this House ministers may only answer questions related to their ministerial responsibilities. That has been made quite clear. If that is the question of privilege which the hon. member has raised and which I understand is his question of privilege, he does not have one because that question has already been decided.


Robert Alfred Corbett: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, I am obviously not making the point which I intended to make. I was hopeful that my reference to the publication "The Canadian House of Commons", by the well known Canadian author, John B. Stewart, in which he said that indeed it is mainly by changing old Standing Orders and by making new ones that the House changes its rules, would make my point. Surely we cannot find this House to be so inflexible that it must forever and for eternity stand behind rules which have been laid out for years now that we have a precedent being set in the House which would indicate that those rules should be changed.
Madam Speaker, I will not take up very much more time, but I believe the words of the Prime Minister did not indicate, to any substantial extent, that the ministers he appointed as regional representatives, or as ministers responsible for regional or provincial difficulties or problems, were to deal with matters entirely of a political nature. Madam Speaker, if you would refer to his words found in Hansard on February 25, you will see that he makes many references to the fact that "We have made sure that there was at least a voice from the province at the cabinet table". Surely there must be matters more of a substantial nature which are discussed in cabinet than simply matters which are specifically and peculiarly of a political nature. We can only assume that cabinet is working in the interests of the future of this nation.
So, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to recognize that the appendage found on page 7690 of Hansard, for February 25, 1981, gives validity to our argument that ministers who have been given that responsibility by the Prime Minister and are taking decisions from cabinet-surely cabinet is responsible to this House, and these are the words of the Prime Minister

must either accept those responsibilities or refuse them.
Madam Speaker, I would ask that you refer to these particular issues of Hansard, to the words of the Prime Minister, to the edition of Beauchesne, and to Mr. Stewart's publication before you make a definitive ruling on this particular issue. I would plead with you to give the benefit of the doubt to the common members of this House of Commons who do not have the opportunity or the privilege of sitting in cabinet but must take the word of the Prime Minister, who must abide by and work within the framework of the rules of this House of Commons. This would give us an opportunity to serve the
Privilege-Mr. Corbett
interests of our constituents as best we can with the full machinery which is available through the question period and other areas of procedure in this House of Commons.
I would ask you to consider my submissions and to find that I do indeed have a question of privilege, as do the rest of the members of the House of Commons who are outside cabinet, including members opposite. If you feel, after consideration of these various points that I have raised, that I have a prima facie case of privilege, then I am prepared to move that the matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has argued that I should find some validity in the fact that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has tabled a certain document in order to take it upon myself to change the Standing Orders of this House. If hon. members feel that some changes have to be made to the Standing Orders, it is up to the members to follow the procedure which would lead to amending the Standing Orders of the House. Surely the hon. member does not feel that the Speaker may on her own alter the Standing Orders of this House.
During the point of order which was previously raised in the House, members pleaded with me not to depart not only from the Standing Orders but from the usages of this House, and I agreed with that plea. I try never to depart from the rules or practices of this House in the course of conducting the debates in the House of Commons.
The hon. member therefore does not have a question of privilege. If he wants to change the rules of the House he can look up the procedures which would lead to that; but it is certainly not achieved by raising a question of privilege, and certainly not by asking the Speaker to act on her own.


James Aloysius McGrath: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath).


James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, I want respectfully to submit at the outset that I am not challenging and indeed I cannot challenge your ruling. I am just trying to reconcile the ruling which you have made with the precedent that was established yesterday. I refer to page 8734 of Hansard, where you allowed the hon. member for Fundy-Royal (Mr. Corbett) to direct a question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) in his capacity as minister responsible for New Brunswick and you allowed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to respond in that capacity. Then you allowed the hon. member for Fundy-Royal a supplementary question, asking the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to respond to areas that were outside his ministerial competence, and again you allowed the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans to reply.
I took that as a precedent whereby I could direct a question, for example, to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Romp-key) in his capacity as minister for Newfoundland. I am trying

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Corbett
to reconcile that precedent which Your Honour allowed yesterday with your ruling today.


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member said he was asking a question of the minister in his capacity as regional minister-I do not remember what the question was about, whether it was about fisheries or not-it is up to the minister to determine that a certain question is not within the purview of his administrative responsibility. The Speaker cannot direct a minister to answer a question. The minister is free to answer the question and to determine whether it is within the purview of his responsibility. I recall that at the end of the answer pertaining to one part of the question asked by the hon. member, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that that part of the question or that question-I am not sure which- ought to have been directed to the minister responsible for DREE, if my memory serves me correctly. So there is no precedent established there.
At any rate, the rule is quite clear to hon. members. It is the responsibility of the minister to answer or not.
The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) on this point of order?


Donald W. Munro: Yes, on this point of order, Madam Speaker. As a member from the province of British Columbia, there being no minister with responsibilities in that area whom we can question in this House, it is just possible that our ability to function is impaired. Since we cannot direct questions in this House to a minister who claims to have governmental responsibilities in the province of British Columbia, that puts us in the position of being second-class Members of Parliament. Those members who do have ministers claiming responsibility for provinces in this House can address their questions to that minister.
I feel, therefore, that there might even be a question of privilege for me in protesting that my ability to function has been impaired by the fact that there is no member on that side to whom I can speak if there are problems relating to my province.


Madam Speaker:: It seems to me that I have been clear. There is no such thing in this House as a minister responsible for a province. I did say that if that particular responsibility had been assigned by the Prime Minister outside this House as part of the way that the Right Hon. Prime Minister wants to conduct the affairs of his government, then that is no concern of the House. The rule is clear. It has not been changed; it still stands. Members may ask questions of ministers relating to their administrative responsibility. It is very simple; it is very clear.
No question of privilege arises if a member cannot ask a question of a minister supposedly responsible for the province of British Columbia or another province. A member may ask a question relating to the administrative responsibility of a minister; that rule is clear.
The hon. member for Fundy-Royal is rising on the same point of order?


Robert Alfred Corbett: Yes, Madam Speaker. I am in no way challenging your ruling. I just want to make a point.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member may not challenge my ruling and he may not comment. I have ruled on his question and it is quite a clear question. I will not allow comment on a ruling that I have just made. I have accepted a point of order, quite a legitimate one which was brought up by the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath). We have discussed this and we have discussed that, and we have answered it. If the hon. member has another point of order I may entertain it, but I will not allow him to comment on my ruling.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, I was just in the process of saying that I was not going to comment on your ruling. My point of order is that the Prime Minister has designated certain ministers in the House, has tabled the relevant document and has given them administrative responsibility. I believe these ministers with that administrative responsibility should address themselves to the responsibilities that the Prime Minister has given them. That is purely my point of order.


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: With all due respect, the hon. member is still arguing his question of privilege. I see no difference between the argument offered now and some of the arguments he brought forward earlier, and I listened very patiently for nearly half an hour to his question of privilege.
The hon. member has seen fit to comment further. The comments have now been heard in the House, but I feel that he should have accepted my enjoinment not to comment.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, earlier today I asked your co-operation that I might raise this afternoon a question of privilege, one relating to a rather major federal government project to be constructed in my riding. I refer to the expansion of the Roberts Bank superport facility. I seek your co-operation in raising this question because I want-


Madam Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was rising on a point of order. He does have a question of privilege and he has given me notice of it. I have placed them in a certain order, and that is the order in which I received them. I should like to follow that order. There is a certain sense of justice or fair play in that. If the hon. member allows me, I will now listen to the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle), whose question of privilege comes, in my ranking, ahead of his.


MR. OBERLE-ROLE OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I have given you notice of my question of privilege. In the course of what I have to say I hope to demonstrate to you and to the House how a new order has emerged in the House over the last few years, and in particular over the past few months, which has systematically and substantially altered the
March 31, 1981

role of private members in this House. It is one which has changed significantly the role of a private member in the way he represents his constituents. I have numerous examples. I will not cite them all but I hope you will allow me to cite a few to demonstrate how the present government is asserting extraparliamentary jurisdiction and control over public business through its political friends.
What has happened to this institution in the last little while? Are we, as Members of Parliament, still servants of this institution or have we become the masters? Are we still here to adjudicate and advocate the legitimate aspirations and rights of those who have elected us to this House? How presumptuous of us to say that the institution to which we have been elected should be ours to change. It is somewhat akin to joining a football team. As soon as you are chosen to be a quarterback, you change the rules of the game. It is not for the quarterback or for the members of the team to change the rules. The rules, the Constitution and the order of this House, the time-honoured traditions of this House, cannot be changed by the membership here, and I include in that membership members of the government. We are saying that the House of Commons is the highest court in the land, yet you, Madam Speaker, are being told every day that there are some members who stand accused of being in contempt of that high court.
As you recall, I raised a question of privilege a couple of days ago. I clearly made the case where a minister, a senior official of this House of Commons, was guilty of contempt of the laws made in this House. It is a strange high court where one can be contemptuous, yet a person cannot be accused of being in contempt; where a person can stand up and lie and yet cannot be accused of being a liar.
I would like you to reflect seriously upon what has been happening here in the last few days, Madam Speaker. We are being accused of filibustering the debate, call it what you may; but what this government is doing is harvesting the seeds of discord and dissension by the arrogance it has shown over the last ten years, particularly over the last six months.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is debating something which is not even clear to me. The hon. member is certainly debating. Would he please state very clearly his question of privilege?


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, in my notice to you I stated my question of privilege, namely that the government is asserting itself in an extraparliamentary way in that certain ministers of the Crown and certain persons, who have never been Members of Parliament but have become members of a very privileged class in this country, are asserting themselves publicly. This seriously reflects on me as a Member of Parliament and upon every other member of this House.


Madam Speaker:: I interrupt the hon. member to say this much. His question of privilege relates to certain extraparliamentary practices. I want to remind the hon. member that a question of privilege has to be related to proceedings in the
Privilege-Mr. Oberle
House. If he cannot relate, whatever it is he wants to raise to proceedings in the House, it will be very difficult for me to find a question of privilege, but I am open to the hon. member's arguments.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it is certainly my intention to give references to demonstrate that at least one former high-ranking minister of the government has in a serious way offended the conflict of interest guidelines tabled in this House on two occasions, first in 1979 by the government headed by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and then in 1980 by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau).
In order to make my case, I have to preface my remarks so I can be assured that you will be able to adjudicate on my question of privilege. I have said that this country is beginning to be ruled by a very privileged class. To become a member of this privileged class, you have either to be a member, a supporter or a friend of the Liberal Party. Three weeks ago a person who has never been in the House of Commons seriously harmed me by coming between me and my responsibilities in this House of Commons.
I found it necessary to consult with the minister responsible for housing to seek his support in the building of a community college residence in my constituency. This was a matter of the highest priority, not only to the college but to the whole area. I attempted to take this case to the minister. I phoned his office in an attempt to arrange a meeting. After several attempts I was asked by the minister's executive assistant whether the matter had to do with the building of a students' residence at the college of New Caledonia. I told him that it did. I told the assistant it was most important that I see the minister. The reply given to me was that the matter had been brought to the minister's attention by a Monica Becott. The minister had told Mrs. Becott, who brought the matter to Ottawa, that he did not have a mandate to build community college residences in different areas.
Monica Becott is the person who ran against my colleague the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish) in the last election. Mrs. Becott happens to be the only Liberal in Prince George who is a member of this privileged class.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There is no question of privilege that I can see up until now. The hon. member is referring to all sorts of things except matters relating to the privileges of members of this House. If the hon. member wants to make a case against a minister who has not paid sufficient attention to something that was brought to his attention by the hon. member, he can do that, but not under the guise of a question of privilege.
I would ask hon. members to interpret privilege in the sense that I have many times recalled to the House. I do not think I need give members a definition of privilege again; I have given it to the House several times. I am sure the hon. member will want to make certain that he does have a question of privilege in the sense that it is defined according to our rules.

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Oberle


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I respect your concern and I understand your anxiety. Nevertheless, I will have to lay before you some of the groundwork so that you can see what is at stake. In this case a minister of the Crown chose to discuss a certain matter, which was considered by a city and a region of our country to be of the highest priority, only with a person who was a friend of the Liberal Party. The minister's secretary would not allow me or my colleague from Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley to lay the case before him. In fact, I insisted that I see the minister and threatened his secretary with public exposure. I was able to see the minister and I pointed out to him that he does have a mandate to build community college residences. Indeed, he or his department has just recently given approval to the building of a college residence in Vancouver. Surely that is proof of that mandate. I found the minister to be quite co-operative and excited about the project. I am looking ahead in the next week or so to a favourable response from the minister's office.
The minister was denied proper information that could only be given by a Member of Parliament, through restricting himself, or instructing his secretaries and the people around him to keep members of Parliament away, only talking to Liberal friends or twins, or whatever they call them, who are now asserting themselves in a serious way in public business throughout the country.
I wanted to tell you this because I am now coming to the basis of my question of privilege which involves a former president of the treasury board, the Hon. Robert Andras. This matter involves him and other former ministers-and I hope to demonstrate this to you very clearly-in that they have seriously injured, fractured and offended the most basic conflict of interest guidelines this House has the right to have respected and adhered to.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If some ministers or other members have not lived withing the conflict of interest guidelines, that is not a matter of personal privilege which the hon. member should present at this time. If he has any indication of that, he can pursue the matter on other occasions, make a charge, or follow whatever procedure he feels he has at his disposal in order to make that point before the public and before the House.
The hon. member has now been speaking for 12 minutes and he has not spoken at all of anything which is remotely related to a question of privilege. Hon. members want me to abide strictly by the rules, and I am trying to do that. There is an equal responsibility on the part of members also to abide by the rules. The hon. member cannot suggest he does not know the rule. I have several times read before this House what constitutes the basis for a question of privilege and I know he is capable of relating to that definition. I am sure he would not want to bring before me matters which are not related to privilege. I have to tell the hon. member that for the last 12 minutes that is exactly what he has been doing.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, you know me well enough, having been with me in this House for nine years, to know that I do not abuse the rules. I make it a point not to do that. Surely the narrow definition of a question of privilege is that when a member finds he cannot exercise the mandate for which he has been elected, in one way or another, he has some recourse to the Speaker with an opportunity to air a grievance by way of a question of privilege. I have certainly told you that I have not been able to exercise my mandate, having been denied access to a minister for a considerable period of time. I am now about to tell you how a former minister has breached the conflict of interest guidelines, and I relate that again to the way I have been hampered in the discharge of my duties in this House. I will get to that and I will not use any more time than necessary in making this point to you.
It is my belief that the Hon. Robert Andras, the former president of the Board of Economic Development Ministers and president of the Treasury Board, has, since he decided not to seek re-election in the February, 1980, general election, acted in a manner which violates the conflict of interest guidelines established by the two Prime Ministers-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Not only is the hon. member not speaking about a question of privilege, he is speaking on a matter of debate regarding whether some individual has followed guidelines, and he is referring to a former minister to whom these guidelines tabled in this House do not apply because he is no longer a minister of the Crown. I would ask the hon. member to use some of his logic in order to defend his question of privilege.


Frank Oberle: Again with respect, Madam Speaker, I beg to differ with you. These guidelines to which I am about to make reference do apply to former ministers. I will quote from the guidelines which were tabled by the present Prime Minister in May, 1980. These are guidelines which relate to post-employment, and they state in part:
Former ministers are requested not to engage in the activities described in category A for a period of two years after leaving a given position, and to delay for one year any participation in activities described in category B.
These are guidelines which were adopted and tabled in the House of Commons and they apply to former ministers.
I want to go to category A which states that a minister must not:
(a)	accept appointment to a board of directors of a commercial corporation which, as a matter of course, was in a special relationship with the department or agency for which they were responsible on an ongoing basis during the last two years of their participation in the Ministry;-
It also states that ministers must not:
(b)	change sides to act for or on behalf of any person or commercial corporation in connection with any specific proceeding, transaction, case or other matter to which the Government of Canada is a party and in which they had a personal and substantial involvement on behalf of the government during the last two years of their participation in the ministry;-
Without quoting further, I would like now to tell you what happened in the case of the Hon. Robert Andras. He was the economic development superminister and the president of the Treasury Board before he left. As you know, Mr. Andras
March 31, 1981

became president of the Board of Economic Development Ministers in November, 1978. He held that post until the Liberal government's defeat in the 1979 election. He continued to serve as a Member of Parliament until the Clark government's defeat in December, 1979, at which time he announced he would not seek re-election.
On February 18, 1980, the date of the most recent election, by sheer coincidence, this particular ad appeared in the Financial Times of Canada'.
The Rt. Hon. Roland Michener, chairman of the board announces the appointment of the Hon. Robert Andras, PC as Senior Vice President of Teck Corporation. Mr. Andras left a successful business career to devote the last 14 years to public service and held a number of Ministries in the Federal Government during a period of 11 years ending in May, 1979, the most recent being president of the Board of Economic Development Ministers and president of the Treasury Board. Mr. Andras will also be a director and member of the executive committee of Teck Corporation and a key member of the management team responsible for continued growth of the economy.
Having regard to his appointment, Mr. Andras was quoted in the Vancouver Sun on July 12, 1980, as saying:
The fact that I had been a senior minister and, therefore, one might consider well connected with the power structure I'm sure was not a negative thing.
By accepting this position with Teck Corporation less than eight months after he ceased to be the super minister of the Board of Economic Development Ministers, I believe Mr. Andras seriously violated the principle of both the August, 1979 and May, 1980, guidelines for the conduct of former ministers.
Let me just briefly, and without taking up too much more time, illustrate what happens when the skids get greased and the right person is appointed to the board of directors of such a corporation. On August 6, 1980-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I will concede one point to the hon. member. Those guidelines apply for two years, but I believe the election was held in May of 1979, and Parliament must have been dissolved six or eight weeks before that, so we are very close to the two years, but I will concede to the hon. member that the two years might not be up.
However, that being said, the fact that a former minister, or even a present minister, would have violated the guidelines of conflict of interest does not constitute a question of privilege.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it does violate my privilege to act effectively in my responsibility to represent a very important area of Canada. I will come to that by illustrating now what happens when a person as well connected with the central power structure as Mr. Andras considered himself to be joins such a corporation and becomes active in greasing the skids.
On August 6, 1980, Senator Olson dispatched a cable which was recently tabled by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) in the House. The cable was in connection with Teck Corporation's activities in beginning a megaproject in British Columbia-in my constituency, in fact-in connection with the export of coal from northeastern British Columbia. I will not quote the whole document, but I
Privilege-Mr. Oberle
would like just to put on the record two salient sentences in the document. In fact, Senator Olson used this document to convey to the province of British Columbia that the federal government was no longer interested in making available public funds to enhance the economic viability of the project. This is what Senator Olson said:
The current proposal from British Columbia, however, provides no indication that either government could directly recover its investment.
"Either government" being the government of British Columbia or the Government of Canada. Another sentence
says:
-we wouldn't want to be in the situation where southeast and northeast producers were being played off one against the other, or worse, Canadian interests being played off against other international competitors.
In other words, the coal producers in the province of British Columbia had asked the federal government for a very significant subsidy on freight rates to get the coal to tidewaters and also for very significant subsidies to build a port in Prince Rupert and to help through other departments and agencies with the procurement of infrastructure.
Something happened between October 6 and February 9 because after consultation with people who were formerly well connected with the power structure, such as the Hon. Ron Basford, who is now the coal czar of British Columbia, being engaged at a daily rate of $600, and other well connected Liberals who are involved in this particular scheme in British Columbia and after they were asked to act and grease the skids and remove the blockage that had obviously occurred in Ottawa, this happened on February 9, 1981: the same minister sent another communique to Victoria. This time he said that the federal government was prepared not only to assist with a fixed throughput charge to the port of Prince Rupert and to help on a 50-50 basis to put in place the facilities at the port, but also to assure between now and 1989 that the coal would be dipatched at a fixed rate of $3 per tonne, which is called a throughput charge. The federal government also committed itself through the CNR to an expenditure of $225 million for the upgrading of facilities.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Really, I do have to interrupt the hon. member. Will the hon. member not co-operate with me and conclude immediately, or will I just have to determine the matter right now, after having listened to the hon. member since 5.20? He has not yet discussed the matter of privilege which he wants to bring before this House. Nothing in what he has said has related to privilege. I do not want to read the riot act and give him the definition of privilege, but he knows in his heart of hearts that he has said nothing which relates to privilege. He is actually using this occasion to air a number of facts about which he is aggrieved. This is not the time to raise these things, but he is in fact doing so. I must consider that to be unfair to other hon. members who might have questions of privilege to raise this afternoon but who will not be able to do so.
So in the interest of the House the hon. member should come to the point. This would be in the hon. member's interest as well because I think there is a certain credibility attached to

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Oberle
the way an hon. member discusses his question of privilege. I think I will not hear the hon. member for more than five minutes more.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, it may be true that I have been speaking for 20 minutes, but it is also true that you have interrupted me four times in that period. Every time you do, Madam Speaker, I get to the point where I find it very difficult to restrain my temper.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, if you want to know how my privilege is affected, there is a scheme afoot between this government and the government of British Columbia to build in my constituency, no more than 30 miles away from my home, a new town to house 10,000 people, and I am not being told what it is all about. I have a difficult time getting any information from this government in order to make any contribution to this debate. The minister has tabled in this House a document which shows that there have been 42 studies in connection with this project. I suppose I can get hold of any one of those studies and look at them, but of the 42 studies not one deals with the socioeconomic effects of this whole megaproject. There is not one that deals with native people who will be affected by this project. There is no information about that. There is reference to one study which deals with public information. It is yet incomplete. It is to be a public information brochure. There are 42 other studies which deal with archeological projects, fish and wildlife, but nothing about people. That is my question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frank Oberle: Does anybody in this House care about people any more? That is my question of privilege. I demand the right to access to information, not just because I am a member of Parliament in this House, but because I am a citizen of an area of Canada where the future lies and on which all of Canada depends. I do not demand access to that kind of information just because I am a member of the House or because I am a member of this privileged class of which I have given Your Honour some examples-and I could give some more. I want to know all about this project because I am chosen by the people of that crucial area to represent them and to represent them adequately in this House, and my people are being denied a voice in this House by these people opposite who act as if they were in this world alone and as if everything which has gone on before should no longer be. They act as if they had better ideas. They think we should change the Constitution and entrench rights. They think they know best what everyone's rights are. That is my question of privilege. I admit that had it not been for this arrogance-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Frank Oberle: The sheep on the other side are baaing. If 1 pause for a moment, Your Honour can hear it through the microphones. They are trained sheep on the other side, and they are baaing.
We are into a very serious debate in this House. We are shaking the very foundation of this institution because Members of Parliament are no longer fulfilling the role they were elected to fulfil. As indeed the Prime Minister once said, Members of Parliament are nobodies when they leave this institution and when they are gone. But as long as we are here, in the confines of these four walls, I have the right to speak. I do not care what this demagogue tells me when I leave this House, because the people of Canada will judge him sooner or later. But as long as I am here, I will speak for my constituents. I will demand information about what these people are doing to my constituents and to my country. And, Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is that you have a responsibility to ensure that, so long as I am between these four walls, these people will listen. I have the right to speak, and if they do not want to listen, they can go out behind the curtain and carry on with their parties and phone their privileged friends all over the country and do whatever they want, but I want the right to speak and I do not want to be interrupted 15 times just because it takes me a little longer than the next guy to make a point.
Now, I hope I have made my point. If you find that I have a question of privilege, I want you to allow me to take my case before the appropriate committee of this House. I do not want you, Madam Speaker-and you would not want the burden- to rule on whether or not I have a case, that is why we have the committee of privileges and elections, but you cannot forever hold back this anger and frustration; it will boil over. And when it does, we all, the country and this institution, will suffer. So I plead with you, Madam Speaker, to take one of these questions of privilege and let it go to committee and let them decide whether these people are behaving in a manner which is not traditional and which is not consistent with the great history of this country.


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member has an indication of what I am going to say. He certainly has indicated to this House that he is obviously quite concerned about the matter he has raised, and I am sure the House has noted his concern, but the matter he has raised is one for debate, certainly; it is perhaps a very serious one but that is not for me to determine. The hon. member is right, I do not rule on questions of privilege, I must only find whether there is a prima facie case, after which the matter might be sent to a committee for study, but I am unable to find a prima facie case on this particular question.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: primal scream therapy, but it occurs to me as a member of this House that we also have rights here. You mentioned other members have questions of privilege they want to raise and their rights are being affected by the fact that they cannot speak. I seem to remember a time not very long ago when we discussed things other than questions of privilege in this House, and that was not the only other item of business being delayed by these questions of privilege.
I would like to ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider on behalf of all members of the House whether it would not be possible for you, on the basis of the initial arguments being put forward by a member, to determine whether or not there is a prima facie case. I can think of very few forums, courts or institutions in which I have operated, very few caucuses, very few democratic forums, city councils or trade union meetings that I have attended where there is an assumption that each and every member has the right to expound on his own private theories or concerns at whatever length they choose while the rest of the country sits back and waits for the process to end.
It would seem to me in this context the Chair has a certain responsibility at a very early stage of the presentation of an argument to determine whether or not the case is spurious, simply made for the purpose of using up time or making a private point, or whether in fact there is a genuine argument being put forward. I admit that is a difficult task for the Chair, and I certainly admit the Chair has been put in a difficult position over the last few days, but 1 would say to all members of the House that at some point-only time will tell when that point comes-we have to ask ourselves how long we as a chamber can function when, for the fifth day, now we find ourselves unable to contemplate our own business and the only thing we can contemplate is the navel of the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada, and I object to that. I think the Chair has a role in seeing that every question of privilege does not go on for half an hour and then finding that, in a strict procedural sense, there is nothing the Chair can do about it. I think we have an obligation not to use up that time before we come to the end of the road and find nothing there. There is a need for the House to get on with its business, and I would hope that the Chair would bear that in mind.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I cannot let the remarks made by the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae) go by unchallenged. He, of course, is a new member here and is not aware of the history of his own party in raising points of order like this. I see he has made his brief contribution and disappeared from the House. I would point out to him that he raised a question of privilege with respect to the establishment of regional ministers, one of whom was appointed, amongst others, for every constituency in Ontario and Quebec by this Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-a radical departure from practices in the past. And that member, with other contributors, took up some two hours on his question of privilege. Yet he is asking you, Madam Speaker, to judge that while he has the intellectual capacity to raise questions of privilege deserving of serious consideration, no one else here has.
Point of Order-Mr. Rae
This period in which we find ourselves was commenced with a question of privilege raised by myself, which the Chair still has under consideration, concerning the abuse of taxpayers' funds and the illegal use thereof in establishing constituency I offices, impeding my activities as a Member of Parliament. He cannot now stand there and say that these questions of privilege are spurious; he contributed to that very question of privilege. Indeed, Madam Speaker, he cannot complain about you not coming to quick decisions because his contribution was terminated by the Chair on that occasion.
Speaking of navels, Madam Speaker, it seems to me that the parliamentary navel of the NDP is so minute that it would take their combined intellect and they would all still have the room to wear an extra hat inside it.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I am a new member here, not as studied as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen), but the role of the Speaker is clearly defined in Section 84, page 25 of Beauchesne's. It is quite simple and contradicts the implication of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) that you should be able to make a snap decision on these matters. It says:
The Speaker requires to be satisfied, both that privilege appears to be sufficiently involved to justify him in giving such precedence ... and also that the matter is being raised at the earliest opportunity.
To judge whether a question of privilege is involved requires that you yield to that member sufficient time to make his case. That is quite clearly set out in Beauchesne's, and I hope we will not be subjected to further unnecessary interventions from the member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this evening.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. At six o'clock I was about to respond to the point of order raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) wherein he suggested that it should be in the hands of the Speaker to do something about containing-and I do not remember his words-certain questions of privilege.
I just want to say to the hon. member that it is not possible for the Speaker to change any of the rules or to make any suggestion in this respect. I am presiding over the deliberations of the House according to the rules which have been set by the House of Commons. If the House of Commons wants to do anything about this, if it has any suggestions, I am in the hands of the House. I am its servant; I am not its master. So, I must respond to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood in this sense.

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes PRIVILEGE


MR. HAWKES-RINGING OF BELLS BEFORE COMMENCEMENT OF SITTINGS
Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, as near as I can tell, my question of privilege this evening is one which has not been argued before in the House of Commons. I feel it is important because it affects the privileges of all members, whether they happen to be cabinet ministers or backbenchers.
My question of privilege is built on the foundation of five citations. If I may begin, I should like to refer to Citation 16 which is contained in Beauchesne's fifth edition. This citation concerns the definition of "privilege", and it reads as follows:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually,-
I think an emphasis of the word "individually" is important. It continues:
-without which they could not discharge their functions and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus, privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
The distinctive mark of a privilege is its ancillary character. The privileges of Parliament are rights which are "absolutely necessary for the due execution of its powers". They are enjoyed by individual members, because the House cannot perform its functions without unimpeded use of the services of its members;-
I think the following is a crucial statement: "without unimpeded use of the services of its members". It continues:
-and by each House for the protection of its members and the vindication of its own authority and dignity. Sir Erskine May, Treatise on the Law, Privileges, Proceedings and Usage of Parliament (19th ed., 1976), p. 67.
I think Beauchesne felt that part of the thrust of that citation was important enough to be repeated in Citation 104 under the section entitled: "Access to the House of Commons" which reads as follows:
The time-honoured privilege of members to have free and unimpeded access-
Again we find the word "unimpeded". It continues:
-to the Parliament Buildings should be recognized even if there is some question as to the extension of the term "parliamentary precincts", and in particular whether the jurisdiction of the Speaker, exercised on behalf of members, extends beyond the limits of the Parliament Buildings themselves.
I think it is clear that extends to those within the Parliament Buildings.
I should like to refer to how that was interpreted by Erskine May in the nineteenth edition. Turning to Chapter X, "Breaches of Privilege and Contempts", the first paragraph reads as follows:
It would be vain to attempt an enumeration of every act which might be construed into a contempt, the power to punish for contempt being in its nature discretionary. Certain principles may, however, be collected from the Journals which will serve as general declarations of the law of Parliament. It may be stated generally that any act or omission-
I emphasize the word "omission". It continues:
-which obstructs or impedes either House of Parliament-
Again we find the words, "obstructs" and "impedes". It continues:
-in the performance of its functions, or which obstructs or impedes any member or officer of such House in the discharge of his duty, or which has a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce such results-
That is a tendency, directly or indirectly, to produce the result of obstructing or impeding. It continues:
-may be treated as a contempt even though there is no precedent of the offence.
Turning to page 220 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, there is a section entitled: "Access to the Houses of Parliament" which reads as follows:
To facilitate the attendance of members without interruption, both Houses, at the commencement of each session, by order, give directions that the commissioner of the police of the metropolis shall keep, during the session of Parliament, the streets leading to the Houses of Parliament free and open, and that no obstruction shall be permitted to hinder the passage thereto of the lords or members. The police accordingly give every facility to members and officers of the two Houses to cross the streets and approach the Houses of Parliament without interruption and where necessary hold up the traffic for this purpose. The Speaker has informed the House when for some special reason it is expected that the police will have difficulty in complying with the terms of the sessional order.
I have read that fourth citation simply because it brings to light, in a somewhat graphic form, the importance of that part of our traditions which has been attended to over the years in terms of the very important principle that something is wrong when the attendance of members coming to this House is impeded.
Madam Speaker, my question of privilege relates to those principles which I have read out of Beauchesne and Erskine May and which first came to my mind a couple of nights ago. I have spent some time gathering evidence related to the purpose of the bells. I think there are precedents in Erskine May and in the Standing Orders for the use of bells related to divisions, but I have searched our Standing Orders and there is an omission with respect to the use of bells to call members to the sittings of the House. The only reference which I could find which deals with the issue of warning is in the last reference, which I would like to read. It is found in Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 203. It deals with the opening of a sitting of the House. You may note, Madam Speaker, that it does not deal with the commencement after the dinner break, but simply with the opening of the House. I think the first three words of the citation are most critical, although not very precise. The citation reads as follows:
A few minutes before the appointed hour for the opening of a sitting, on the day following his election, and every sitting day thereafter, the Speaker and his suite leave his library for the chamber. They march in the following order: The Chief Constable and two sergeants, the Sergeant-at-Arms bearing the Mace, the Speaker, the Clerk of the House, the Clerks Assistant. A page, walking to the Speaker's right, carries documents to be read by the Speaker. They proceed to the Hall of Honour and the front corridor. At the chamber door, the men who precede the Mace halt and stand at attention whilst the others enter the chamber. Members, who may then be in their seats, rise as the Speaker walks to the chair. The Sergeant-at-Arms stops at the end of the Table, waits until the Speaker has taken the chair, then places the Mace on the Table, bows and goes to his desk. When there is a quorum present the Speaker reads Prayers (alternatively in English and French on successive days) the Clerk saying Amen at the end of each invocation.
The reason I read Citation 203, which is related to the opening of a sitting of the House, is that any reader of that
March 31, 1981

citation can tell that the procedure does take some minutes. A practice has been developed in this House of ringing the bells when the parade commences, thus giving warning to all members of this chamber, no matter where they happen to be, whether in the Confederation Building, the West Block or an office in this building. The ringing of the bells signifies that in a few minutes the proceedings of the House will take place. It gives each of us an opportunity to be present in the House to form part of the initial quorum and to represent our constituents in the manner we were elected to do.
There is no citation in Beauchesne's, or in the orders of the day, that I could find which deals with the issue of the ringing of the bells prior to the evening session. Having sat here in this chamber for the past few days, Madam Speaker, I have noted that the ringing of the bells has varied between something close to two minutes to as little as 21 seconds.
When the House rose at six o'clock this evening I looked at two clocks which are located in the chamber, one at the end of the chamber and one opposite from where I am standing. There was a one-minute difference between those two clocks. It is interesting to note that there is nothing in Beauchesne, Erskine May or in the precedents of this House which deals with the issue of which is the master clock. The Standing Order says that we shall recommence on Tuesday evening at eight o'clock. But how is a member to define eight o'clock? Is he to look at the clock at the end of this chamber, the clock on the side wall or a clock in the Confederation Building?
As you well know, Madam Speaker, the proceedings of the committees are an extension of this House, therefore, vital to our functions here. I have seen clocks at each end of the room where committee meetings are held which are as much as five minutes apart. Are we to commence a meeting scheduled for 3.30 in the afternoon by consulting one clock which reads 3.30 or another which reads 3.25? A member arrives at 3.30, according to one of the clocks in the room, but the proceedings have been under way-


Madam Speaker:: I cannot say what I must say in English.
[ Translation]
If the clocks did not agree and if the hon. member noticed it, he should have got to his feet at that time and brought the matter to the attention of the House. Then the situation could have been remedied. The House having been made aware of the situation, proceedings in the House could have started on the basis of the clock indicating the correct time. Finally, the right time is not a topic on which a question of privilege can be based.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: I know that the clocks in the chamber are self-correcting. I believe you, Madam Speaker, are in charge of all of the facilities in each and every building which constitute Parliament. 1 believe there are many clocks in those buildings which are not self-correcting from a central point-


Madam Speaker:: I must interrupt the hon. member. At some point one must have a bit of fun. I believe there was a
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
time in the middle ages when there was a clock man who went around and set all the clocks. Maybe we should have that service here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: That is a solution which had not occurred to me, and it might be one worth considering. I think it is a point about which it is somewhat easier to see humour in rather than some other points. I would hate it if by the introduction of humour or a smile on my face I were to indicate to you that I do not believe that this is a serious long-term issue.
Drawing from my own experience, there are days when I am in my office in the Confederation Building at 2 p.m. At that time I am often so engrossed in the work that I do on behalf of my constituents that it comes as a shock to me when the bell rings. If it is necessary for one to be in the chamber at the commencement of the sitting day, and if one leaves his office immediately, one still arrives at a time when the business of the House has commenced. Perhaps I see this in somewhat of a different vein than you might expect, Madam Speaker. I see the absence of a warning bell ringing a sufficient length of time to alert me to come from wherever I may happen to be on the Hill as an obstruction. It is an obstruction which perhaps is in the same category as a barrier placed across the street. Those of us who are assigned offices in the Confederation Building by Your Honour sometimes run into traffic which impedes the form of transportation available to all of us. That delays our appearance in the House even further.
I think it is incumbent upon the House to have a set of Standing Orders which are fair to all of its members, no matter where his office is situated. As I look across the chamber I see some hon. members opposite who face the same kind-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think I have the gist of the hon. member's question of privilege. I must tell the hon. member that there is nothing in the Standing Orders which obliges us to ring the bell. We do it as a form of assistance to members, to alert them that the House will begin its deliberations. How long should the bell ring? It has been a standing practice that at eight o'clock the bell rings until such time as the Chair sees a quorum. That seems to be a legitimate time. For instance, how am I to know that the hon. member for Calgary West might come into the House that night, and should I be waiting for him to come into the House? If the bells were ringing for a number of minutes, would it be helpful to the hon. member if, at that particular time, he happened to be shopping in one of the stores of the national capital? The bells would not ring over there. It is absolutely impossible to give that kind of warning. Hon. members are held responsible for coming into the House at the time that they want to come into the House, and they know very well at what time the House starts its proceedings, be it in the afternoon or in the evening. There really is no question of privilege in what the hon. member has been talking about since the beginning of

March 31, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Nielsen
this session, and I must tell him that I see no question of privilege, and I cannot hear him any longer.


POINT OF ORDER
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order having to do with the function of the House. I think it is trite to say that all hon. members should be treated equally.
I know hon. members over there have treated this question of privilege as being frivolous, but it is quite serious. On a question of order, the practice of many years has been that those bells have been rung for two reasons: one, to call a quorum; two, to call division. The bells were established when this place was established. This was the only building in the parliamentary precincts that housed hon. members. We now have the Confederation Building, the South Block, the West Block and the East Block.
All that the hon. member is suggesting to the Chair is that perhaps, since this place must commence its proceedings at predetermined times, those bells should start at a time-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Erik Nielsen: -when all hon. members have equal warning. It may well be that the Chair, the Speaker, who is the only person who sees the clocks in this place, might afford all hon. members equal treatment by commencing those bells at a time which would permit all hon. members to have sufficient warning to get here at the times when this place is obliged to sit by the Standing Orders. It is not a question of-either that, or do away with the bells.


An hon. Member:: Different hours!


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to my friend, the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) who has long service in this House, he has offered, a moment ago, one of the most infantile arguments I have ever heard in my years in the House. I am parliamentary secretary of the government House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Yea!


David Michael Collenette: My office is located in the Confederation Building. Surely hon. members know that the House reconvenes at eight o'clock following the dinner break, and that one makes provision. As parliamentary secretary to the government House leader, I know that I must leave my office perhaps five or ten minutes earlier than that other hon. member to be here at eight o'clock. I am sure that when Hansard is read many years hence, when we see the steps to which the opposition has resorted to delay debate in this House, those people who read Hansard at that particular point in time will be incredulous. I find it equally incredulous that we have spent, 1 suppose, 25 minutes since the bells stopped this evening-


An hon. Member:: You are filibustering.


An hon. Member:: No. 24.


David Michael Collenette: -on the point of order of the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), who should know better, but what disturbs me even more is that we have listened to the interjection of a learned hon. member who has been here for 23 years, the hon. member for Yukon-


Erik Nielsen: Twenty-three and one half.


David Michael Collenette: -who argues that there should be some kind of a preferential bell. The electorate of Canada-


An hon. Member:: What's a preferential bell?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the electorate of Canada sends us here to behave as adults to legislate in the name of all Canadians. If one cannot organize one's time so as to make sure that we are here at eight o'clock-if one's building is located just off the Hill, as it is with the Confederation Building-then we really have no business being here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: I have been here for five days, and I have listened to the delaying and the obstructionist tactics of the hon. members opposite.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The point of order is getting a bit long, and I think the hon. member for Yukon gave me my cue in this particular question of privilege raising a point of order. He did say that the bells have been traditionally used in this House to call a quorum and for division. If the hon. members objected to their ringing, if the Standing Order did not oblige us to ring the bells at eight o'clock, that would be one thing. But the Standing Order is quite clear that at six o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, Mr. Speaker is to leave the chair until eight o'clock. That is sufficient warning to all hon. members to come here at eight o'clock. If they are located a little farther from the House of Commons, it is up to them to allow more time. We can do nothing about it, just as we can do nothing about ensuring that they will not miss their train if they live farther away than somebody else and they leave five minutes too late. There is nothing the Chair can do about that.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon).


Mr. Cossitt:: On the same point of order.


Madam Speaker:: No, I have just-


An hon. Member:: The point of order has been dealt with.


Madam Speaker:: I have disposed of this point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Well, Madam Speaker, I raise-


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) rising on a new point of order?
March 31, 1981


Thomas Charles Cossitt: With respect to this matter of bells, I think there is another-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: Order!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: There is another factor which has not-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Well, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a further-


Madam Speaker:: Order! I said that the point of order has been disposed of. I think it is quite clear to any hon. member who can understand my English that it has been disposed of. The hon. member said he was rising on a new point of order. It was not a new point of order. He spoke again about the bells. I will not hear him.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, it is a further point of order. How do you know, if you have not heard it, Madam Speaker?


An hon. Member:: She did not recognize you.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have a further point of order. How can Your Honour say you cannot hear me unless you-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have recognized the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor). The hon. member said he had a new point of order. It was not new. He was talking about the bells. I will now recognize the hon. member for Bow River.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I was not permitted to elaborate on what my point of order was.


An hon. Member:: That is because she can only take one at a time. Wait your turn.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I will wait my turn. That is right.
i


MR. TAYLOR-INACCURACY IN &quot;HANSARD&quot; IN RECORDED TIME OF SITTING
Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, I want to refer to the point of order in regard to the record in Hansard. In Hansard it is reported that we start at eight o'clock every evening. That is not accurate. Future generations, when they read that, will say, "They are certainly accurate in the House of Commons." However, as a matter of fact, I have been keeping tab on time for several weeks. Last week, on Monday, March 23, we started at six minutes after eight o'clock. On March 24, we started at seven minutes after eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: It is because the Tories were not here!


Gordon Edward Taylor: On March 26, we started at 8 p.m. sharp. The first time and the only time-
Point of Order-Mr. Taylor


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gordon Edward Taylor: Hold your clapping for just a moment. That was the first time and the only time since this session started that we did start at eight o'clock. There have been occasions when I waited for 12 minutes or 13 minutes for the government to get a quorum, yet the next day in Hansard it was recorded that we started at eight o'clock. This is not accurate. The only place where I find time is kept accurately is at the Table, and the Clerk at the Table has these times.
So when we start six minutes, seven minutes or ten minutes after 8 p.m., we encourage hon. members to be late, because one old-time hon. member said to me. when I raised this point, that this has grown through practice because some hon. members are farther away and they must have a reasonable amount of time to arrive here, equal to other hon. members of the House of Commons.
I do not know what the history is; but I know that Hansard is not accurate. I have been keeping time since the beginning of this session, and I know that the only occasion on which we started at eight o'clock was the other night; and that was a fast one that the Liberals tried to pull, and it backfired on them.


Madam Speaker:: Hansard does not say that debate resumed at eight o'clock-"the House resumed at 8 p.m." It does not say debate started at eight o'clock. That is point number one.
The other point is that the bells start ringing but Standing Orders say nothing about ringing the bells. We could resume the House at eight without ringing the bells. If that is what hon. members want, they can let me know and we will stop ringing the bells. I am in the hands of the House. This is the custom. The bell rings at eight o'clock.
We start when there is a quorum but the Standing Orders say nothing of a quorum either. The practice has been that we wait until there is a quorum for the very good reason that any member could get up in his place and call for a quorum, so we may as well wait for it. And we usually get it at 8.03, 8.04 or 8.05 p.m.
At any rate, the hon. member says that the the only time that the House began its sitting at eight o'clock was that other night. I have to tell him that every time I have been sitting in the chair at eight o'clock, I have been here at eight o'clock sharp.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: What point of order?


Gordon Edward Taylor: I did not mention bells at all. I could not care whether they ring or not; that is the least of my worries, but when Hansard next day said we started at eight o'clock when it was six minutes after eight, ten minutes after eight, we are not putting-

March 31, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt


Madam Speaker:: I gave that answer and explanation to the hon. member. "The House resumed at 8 p.m." Hansard does not say that the debate started at eight o'clock.


Gordon Edward Taylor: A point of order. The House did not-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) on a new point of order.


MR. COSSITT-RINGING OF BELLS BEFORE SITTINGS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I will not mention the word "bells" because I now realize that is a dangerous word to use at this point. I feel that the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) made a statement that reflects very severely on the privileges of members of this party or members of the official opposition when he said something to the effect, if I may paraphrase his words, that in future years people would look at Hansard and comment on what a terrible way the opposition behaved. That is the effect of what 1 said. That, 1 suggest, is really debate, but if that is going to be allowed then 1 would make one comment and that is that I suggest that in future years people will look at Hansard and say it is incredible how the government behaved in trying to smother opposition to a dictatorship in this country.
As I said "bells" is a dangerous word so 1 will not mention it, but I agree with the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor) that this House starts at various times. For example, there are occasions when we have constituents here whom we may meet in our offices or they may be our guests in the dining room, as has happened to me on many occasions. They do not know exactly when this House is to meet.


Madam Speaker:: Order, order, please. The hon. member will recognize that I interrupted the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) when he started to debate rather than expose his point of order. I think the hon. member has about reached that point now. I have to interrupt him.
The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon) on a question of privilege.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Thank you Madam Speaker. Earlier today I-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. I do have another point of order from the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes).


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, 1 just seek some clarification. I listened to your ruling and I wonder if there can be one clock within the precincts of Parliament that is the official clock? I wonder if that is set by some other standard which could be made available to us so that we might all have a common sense of time because I think on occasion, in the proceedings of Parliament, an exact sense of time is very important.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would doubt if the hon. member reads my ruling in Hansard tomorrow that he would
not understand. I think it was quite clear. The hon. member for Richmond-South Delta.


PRIVILEGE
Thomas Edward Siddon: Thank you Madam Speaker. This is my third try today and I hope that it will not be my last or I am out!
Earlier today I sought your co-operation on raising a question of privilege at the earliest possible time in relation to the proposed expansion of the Roberts Bank superport located in Delta, British Columbia which, incidentally, lies within my riding.
The proposed expansion of this port facility will have massive consequences for my riding and the surrounding area of British Columbia. The cost of the development is predicted to approach $50 million.
The point I should like to raise this evening concerns the process that has been followed for several years where such major environmental projects are subjected to review by the so-called FEARO office or the Environmental Assessment and Review Process.
Indeed, in the case of the Roberts Bank superport project, that process was followed. A recommendation was offered to the former Liberal government in 1979, and that recommendation of a reduced scale project because of certain environmental risks, was endorsed by the government opposite.
My point concerns the government's apparent decision to broaden the terms of that project in complete contradiction to the recommendations of the Environmental Assessment and Review Process panel.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is discussing substance; he is not discussing a question of privilege. 1 will not hear him another minute if he does not come straight away to what his question of privilege consists of.
The written notice that he has given to me indicates to me quite clearly that he wants to discuss the subject of the dredging contract of the Roberts Bank superport in British Columbia. It is quite clear from the written statement.
The hon. member has been speaking for a while and he is discussing the substance of this particular question. Unless he comes straight away to tell me where he has a question of privilege, I will not be able to hear him.


Thomas Edward Siddon: With all due respect to the Chair, I have only been given about 60 seconds. As I read earlier today, Beau-chesne at page 25 sets out the role of the Speaker. It says that the Chair must be sufficiently convinced of the involved nature of a question of privilege to make a decision whether such motion should be submitted to the appropriate committee.
March 31, 1981

The government has taken a position on the Roberts Bank expansion, as was indicated earlier today by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) and the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), which is at complete variance with the recommendations with the Environmental Assessment and Review Process panel. That makes my life very difficult in being able to explain to my constituents why it is that the government has opted for a much larger plan-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: If we might have a little more respect from those members to my left who are usually concerned about environmental matters-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member might be inconvenienced by whatever the government or the minister has done, but he has to tell me that he has been inconvenienced to the point that he has been harassed, molested or that someone has attempted to stop him from performing in this House. That is privilege. If a minister did not give the proper information or if in some other way he feels that he has a grievance toward a certain minister, he can voice that grievance. 1 encourage him to do it but not under the guise of a question of privilege.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, that is exactly what I am trying to establish. It is a fact that I have not been provided by the government opposite with the factual scientific information to present to my constituents in order to justify a plan of action which is at complete variance with the findings of a properly constituted environmental assessment panel established by this government and whose recommendations were endorsed by the previous minister of the environment of the previous government.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, the recommendations I seek would be in the form of a report which is available to the public, to members of my constituency and to myself as the Member of Parliament, in order to argue on the government's behalf that the conditions under which this project-to which a contract is to be let by April 4, according to the Minister of Transport-is to proceed are at complete variance with the environmental recommendations brought forward in good faith to the public in my riding and of British Columbia.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is repeating what I said did not constitute an argument. If something is at variance with the recommendation of an environmental committee, that does not constitute a question of privilege. I cannot repeat it any more clearly to the hon. member. He has to bring some other argument to prove to me that he has a question of privilege.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, we have a process of environmental review in this country which enables Members of Parliament to gather information, to take that information and
Privilege-Mr. Siddon
help to advocate or oppose the recommendations of the government. What has happened in the present case-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. A point of order, the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson).


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order pursuant to Citations 18, 19 and 84 of Beauchesne. In part, Citation 17 reads:
A question of privilege ought really to come up in Parliament.
A question of privilege is a serious matter. It is not a question of grievance. We are here to represent our constituents and not to waste taxpayers' money.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Svend Johannes Robinson: I draw to your attention paragraphs 1 through 4 of Citation 19. A dispute arising between two members does not constitute a question of privilege. In Section 19 (4), we read:
Many matters, such as the absence of a minister of the Crown from a committee studying his estimates, may constitute a grievance but not a question of privilege.
What is being attempted to be foisted on this House as a question of privilege may be a grievance. In the case of Roberts Bank, it may well be a legitimate grievance. I share the hon. member's concern. But to abuse this House with grievances under the guise of a question of privilege, which is a serious matter, not only is a waste of taxpayers' money but is a waste of the time of this Parliament.
With respect, Madam Speaker, I draw your attention to Citation 84 which concerns the role of the Speaker in a question of privilege. It states that it is essential that the matter be raised at the earliest possible opportunity.
I suggest that it is no mere coincidence that all of these alleged matters of privilege, which, in some cases constitute grievances and in other cases constitute a flagrant violation of privileges of other Members of Parliament in carrying out the responsibilities we have on behalf of our constituents, could have been raised some time ago and pursuant to Citation 84, they should have been raised some time ago.
Under the rules there is a requirement that you be given notice of the proposed question of privilege. I suggest, with respect, when you look at those notices, pursuant to the rules, that you should have in your mind whether or not this is a question being raised and which has been raised at the earliest possible opportunity. Citation 84 states that is your role as Speaker in considering questions of privilege.
I suggest, in the light of that and in the light of Citations 18 and 19, that we get on with the business of the House and deal with questions of privilege, which really are serious questions of privilege, and failing that, get on to the orders of the day.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning the one just raised. We have now listened to two interventions from the left, one raised by the
8822

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Siddon
hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the other raised by the member who has just taken his seat. With his halo around his eyes, he forgets, he does not see now, he does not remember now that his party's very first act when we came here last January, because his party disagreed with something the government said, moved a motion to adjourn the House. Is that not a waste of taxpayers' money? Just because that party had a difference of opinion, that was not a waste of taxpayers' money. Their holier-than-thou attitude does not sit well. His party should examine its own actions and its own attitude before starting to cast stones here.
Mladam Speaker: I do want to respond to that point of order. This is precisely what I was trying to bring to the attention of the hon. member who was speaking on a question of privilege. A question of privilege is a very serious matter which has to be related to the definition of privilege in the House. The hon. member need not read the definition because it has already been read this evening and I have read it before myself.
The hon. member does not leave me much choice. If he continues to discuss substance, I will not be able to hear him. The hon. member for Burnaby is right. As soon as I realize that the matter being raised is not a question of privilege which the member is discussing but something else, I must intervene. I already warned the hon. member that his written statement made me suspect very seriously that there was a basis for a question of privilege. I must also tell him that the arguments he has brought forward up until now have not convinced me either.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, with all due respect, I believe that you would want to feel that this question of privilege which I raise is "sufficiently involved", to quote from Citation 84(1). I would suggest sufficiently involved means that I should be accorded the same courtesy which other members have received in being granted two or three moments to lay out the case about which I am so concerned.
We have a case where ministers of the Crown have not made any public commitment to a project but they have said in private forums that they concur with such projects.


Mr. Stollery:: Order.


Thomas Edward Siddon: This is a very serious matter.


Peter A. Stollery: The Speaker has ruled on the matter twice.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, with your permission, I want to draw a parallel with the Amax project. What we have-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is still discussing the substance. The parallel with Amax will lead him nowhere with regard to a question of privilege. Perhaps it would be useful in a debate, but we are not debating just now.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I am very disappointed that the House and the Chair will not hear me out. The matter which I raise could have permanent implications for the people
of my riding and the people of British Columbia. We are going to be faced with a decision that we will regret at some point in the future because ministers have contravened their responsibilities. In the case of the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) it is covered under Sections 31 and 33 of the Fisheries Act. In the case of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts), he has not complied with his own environmental assessment and review procedures which are clearly set out in his mandate and responsibilities.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member says that I did not hear him out, but he started to speak at 8.35 p.m., and that is a little over 20 minutes ago. I have heard him out.


Erik Nielsen: It is 11 minutes ago.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I cannot hear him out. It is quite obvious that he does not have a question of privilege. He is debating a question. He probably has a grievance.


Thomas Edward Siddon: It is much more serious than that.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is disappointed that a certain number of things are being done in his own constituency which have some implications here. The hon. member knows that this is not the time to raise these kinds of grievances or concerns. There are other occasions in the course of the proceedings of the House when he can do that totally within the rules of the House. But just now I refer him to the intervention, which I might have made myself, by the hon. member for Burnaby who was simply quoting Beauchesne that a question of privilege has to be brought at the earliest possible time. This project is not absolutely new. The hon. member probably had an opportunity to bring that matter to the attention of the House before. The hon. member is discussing substance, and I cannot accept that as a question of privilege.


Thomas Edward Siddon: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. You have not allowed me to address the question of time limits. Every time I have stood up you have intervened before I had finished. Where is the freedom of speech in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have allowed the hon. member to speak. I have tried to assist the hon. member in coming to the right type of argument to use in order to prove to me that he had a question of privilege. I have done all that I could and I ask the hon. member to be mindful of the kinds of arguments he has to entertain. I can only conclude that the hon. member had no other arguments to bring forward.
On the basis of what I heard and on the basis of the written notice, I have to tell the hon. member that he does not have a question of privilege.


MR. KILGOUR-ALLEGED CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN GOVERNMENT HIRING OF DEFEATED LIBERAL CANDIDATE
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I have two questions of privilege. I assume that I may deal
March 31, 1981

with one, which is a matter not so dissimilar from matters raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) and the hon. member for the Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It is a different application of the same principle.
You used the expression "question of an obstacle to a member in the performance of his duties" in response to the hon. member for Yukon the other day. I hope to be able to convince you of an obstacle posed to me and I believe to other Members of Parliament from northern Alberta, an indirect obstacle. I think a discussion of the facts will make it clear why this indirect obstacle was placed in the way of all members from northern Alberta carrying out the duties with which they have been charged.
The facts are important and, with your permission, I will deal with the facts first and then discuss some of the principles I believe are involved. Let me first indicate that only on Friday when I initially provided you with notice did I learn about these facts. I brought them to your attention in a notice which I think you felt was not sufficiently detailed, so you discarded it. That is why I have provided you with another notice today.
The facts which I want to put on the record as I believe them to be were obtained form Mr. Herschel Ezrin who is the acting executive director of the Canadian Unity Information Office. He informed me on Friday that he has hired on a contract basis one Pat O'Hallorhan, whose duties are to include "monitoring media reaction to Canadian government programs" in the Edmonton area. Office space will be found shortly for this young woman by the Department of Public Works. I am not sure whether that space will be in a government building or in the building where I have my constituency office, or somewhere else. I do not know that that point is particularly important.
Let me outline the basis of my privilege. The fact is that if this woman's name were Pat Smith or Pat Leblanc, it would make no difference, but the background particulars in respect of this person are that she is a past president of the federal Liberal party in Alberta and a past president of the Wetaski-win Liberal Association. I would point out to hon. members that there is such a thing as a federal Liberal party in Alberta.


An hon. Member:: All three of them.


David Kilgour: She is a twice defeated Liberal candidate in Wetaskiwin. I think she got her deposits back, but the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) can enlighten you in that regard. She certainly will not get it back the next time. I am informed and believe that until she was appointed to this government position on taxpayers' money she was a full-time employee on the payroll of the federal Liberal party of Alberta. The point is that her very quick move from one position to the other without the two-year delay, which applies to the CBC, represents a violation of the conflict of interest rules. She moved from the position of a full-time worker for one of the federal political parties to the position of a contract employee of the federal government, which in my opinion
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
constitutes an indirect obstacle to those of us who have been elected in the province of Alberta.
This is somewhat like the twinning concept. I would argue that the twinning concept was adopted in order that the people of Alberta think they would be better off to go to the Liberal twin with their problems. I believe I have been twinned with the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson). This concept was adopted to create the impression in the minds of the people of Alberta that they would get better results if they went to see the local MP's twin, in my case the hon. member for Trinity, or to the hon. member for Red Deer (Mr. Towers), the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) or the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona. The same principle-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think the hon. member is now departing from-Would the hon. member resume his seat. I am sorry but I have to insist on that. If I do not insist on decorum, there will not be any. I want to tell the hon. member 1 feel he is departing from the kind of argument that might be useful. What I would like to know is how the appointment of this individual has indirectly impeded the hon. member. I must warn the hon. member that there has to be a direct impediment in order for his question of privilege to qualify as a prima facie question of privilege.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that you have not had to go through the ordeal of attending law school, but there is an important principle in respect of the interpretation of rules. I would respectfully point out that John Willis, who has been a professor to many of us, pointed out that one should take a wide and liberal interpretation when interpreting statutes. I would invite you to take a wide and liberal approach in interpreting the rule in relation to "an indirect obstacle". Let me refer you to Erskine May at page 151, and I quote:
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
Obviously this woman is not creating a fence around Members of Parliament from Alberta, but the perception is being created that people are better off to go to Miss O'Hallorhan with their problems than they are to go to the democratically elected Members of Parliament from Alberta. In my respectful submission that is an indirect obstacle placed in the way of Members of Parliament from Alberta in the performance of their functions.
1 listened carefully when you used the word "obstacle" in response to the hon. member for Yukon, and it seemed to me, with respect, that you were calling for a very narrow interpretation of the word "obstacle". I would invite the Chair to adopt a wider view of the word "obstacle", perhaps one more in line with this ruling referred to at page 151 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May.
You may suggest that no letter has been sent as referred to in the ruling which I believe you have before you. Are we to draw narrow limits around the word "obstacle"? Why in the 1980s can we not take a broader view of that word? Why can we not say there is an obstacle created for the hon. member for

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
Yukon by the minister establishing an office in his riding, or that members from Edmonton face an indirect obstacle as a result of a publicly financed defeated Liberal candidate being installed in office space in northern Alberta, presumably to get between members and their constituents? Why do we have to take this narrow, unimaginative, wooden, you might say small "c" conservative approach to the word "obstacle"? Why can we not take a wider view, a more open view, something more in keeping with the rules of the House than has been the case to date?
Can those people across the floor appoint every one of their defeated candidates to public office? They have appointed most or many of them already to judicial positions and the like. Can they appoint every defeated candidate in every election in order to fill the office space in the buildings where MPs in Alberta have their constituency offices? As it happens there are about ten vacant offices in the building where my office is located. Can those members opposite appoint one defeated Liberal candidate under some phony title, supposedly in the public service, to fill each of those vacant offices in my building and in every building where other elected Alberta members have their offices? You might suggest that is reductio ad absurdum, but where are we to draw the line in respect of this sort of thing? I submit in this case, as in the case of the hon. member for Yukon and the case of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, the Speaker has to say "enough is enough".
Spending power can be abused to the point where members of Parliament might as well not even bother to get elected because the power of the purse could choose people for every empty office in their ridings.
I do not think I can usefully say very much more on this subject. I respectfully submit that a prima facie case of privilege has been shown. Perhaps Your Honour might wish to reserve on this question because, I submit, it is reasonably close to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon on which Your Honour reserved about a week ago.
In due course I would ask leave to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has certainly exposed certain facts which might have been useful in a debate on a question related to the matter he has discussed in his question of privilege. He has asked the Chair to take a broader view of the question of privilege and, despite the fact I have not studied law, he invited me to broaden my interpretation of the rules. He asks why one has to take such a narrow view of what constitutes a question of privilege. I tell him that the reason is that the Standing Orders distinguish between a question of privilege and a point of debate, and that is why the interpretation of a question of privilege has to be narrowed down in order not to include what is normally considered to be debate.
The Standing Orders and the commentaries on the Standing Orders have defined the question of privilege for what it is,
privilege, and it is quite clear that only if a member has been gravely impeded in the discharge of his duties in the House can the Chair rule there is a prima facie case of privilege.
The hon. member invites me to draw the line far beyond where it has been drawn up until now, and he quotes Erskine May at page 151 that the House will treat as breaches of privilege not only acts directly tending to obstruct officers of the House but also any conduct which may tend to deter them. Erskine May gives examples of what he considers indirect breaches such as abusing a committee clerk on account of acts done by him as clerk of a committee. That is indirect obstruction which would constitute a question of privilege. Otherwise, it is defined: molestation, assaulting, insulting, abusing, striking, kicking; in other words, doing something extraordinary to prevent a member from coming into this House physically to discharge his duty as a Member of Parliament.
That is the interpretation which, according to all authors, binds me. The hon. member must know what jurisprudence is, and the task of a Speaker is mostly jurisprudence because one question of privilege does not resemble the other and one point of order does not resemble the other. The rules are more or less a framework. Some are precise, and some are more general. The hon. member is right. Most of what the Speaker does in the House is very much closer to jurisprudence than to anything else. On that basis and with those reminders of what a question of privilege is, I have to tell the hon. member that 1 will not reserve my judgment. I can say right here and now that he does not have a question of privilege.
The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona has a second question of privilege he wants to discuss.


MR. KILGOUR-ALLEGED ILLEGALITIES IN FEDERAL LIBERAL PARTY FUND RAISING
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, this is a far more serious matter, as I think my letter to you has indicated. Perhaps I should read the letter to put it on the record. It is short. It is dated today.
Dear Madam Speaker:
I wish to give notice that I will rise today on a matter of privilege, on the basis that certain fund-raising practices of the federal Liberal party are bringing this House of Commons into disrepute, thus impeding the ability of members of Parliament to carry out their functions, and possibly in violation of the provision of the Criminal Code having to do with secret commissions.
I intend to refer to some recent correspondence with Senator Hastings on the subject.
On March 121 wrote to the Senator as follows;
It has been suggested that shortly after any contract for federal government work is awarded within our province you call the successful party and ask for a donation to the federal Liberal party.
Would you be prepared to reply to this allegation in order that I can perhaps correct the person who informed me of the matter?
I received a letter from the Senator on March 17 which reads as follows:
March 31, 1981

Dear Mr. Kilgour:
Thank you for your letter of March 12, 1981.
If you will let me have the name and address of the person making the allegation, I will be more than happy to respond. You will appreciate that one should not be obliged to answer vague charges made by a person or persons unknown.
Kindest regards.
Yours very sincerely,
I wrote him back on March 26 as follows:
Dear Senator Hastings:
In reply to yours of March 12, you doubtless know that my informant is one of those unhappy souls who, while thoroughly disgusted by your party's conduct in dealing with the public trust you daily abuse, is not prepared for now to jeopardize his prospects for future federal government work.
Knowing that Mr. Trudeau appears to use the Criminal Code as his only guide in matters ethical, permit me to suggest that you look at the sections in it dealing with secret commissions and the like.
Yours truly,
I have personally been informed by members of the legal profession in Alberta that when a CMHC mortgage is issued to a person, within weeks or months that person receives a call from a particular friend of the party asking for a donation based on the amount of the CMHC mortgage received.
In this case I was personally informed by an Edmontonian that he had received a contract to do some federal government work and, as I mentioned before, within 24 hours of the contract being awarded, he received a telephone call from Senator Hastings asking for a donation. Incidentally, the donation requested was 10 per cent of the value of the contract.
I refer Your Honour to Martin's annual Criminal Code section 383 which deals with secret commissions and reads as follows:
Every one commits an offence who
(a) corruptly
(i) gives, offers or agrees to give or offer to an agent-
The next subsection is not relevant.
a reward, advantage or benefit of any kind as consideration for doing or forbearing to do, or for having done or forborne to do, any act-
And so forth.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from the remarks being made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour) for two reasons. First, he has made reference to certain correspondence which originated March 12, I believe, as a result of certain accusations which apparently were made. Those accusations were certainly not confirmed in the reply of March 17. The hon. member has had from March 17 to the present time to raise this question of privilege in the House. Under Beau-chesne's Citation 82, a question of privilege must be brought to the attention of the House at the first possible opportunity. There has been absolutely nothing since March 17 last which has prevented this hon. member from bringing these very serious charges before this House. Furthermore, I would suggest to you that the hon. member in at least imputing criminal
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
conduct to a member of the other place, or perhaps indirectly the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and I do not know whether there has been any suggestion this is the case but the hon. member refers to the Criminal Code, I would point out Beauchesne's Citation 319, the well-known practice of this House that it is completely unparliamentary for a member to impute criminal activity on the part of a member of either House.
On the grounds, Madam Speaker, that this is a matter which could have been but was not raised at the earliest possible opportunity as required under Citations 82 and 84, and because of the unparliamentary suggestion of criminal conduct, that this particular speaker should be cut off and we should get on to the orders of the day.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member who has just spoken is, as usual, wrong again.


An hon. Member:: In your opinion.


Erik Nielsen: Well, the member from Toronto-


Peter A. Stollery: Spadina, but I did not say anything, although the fact you would be wrong does not surprise me.


Erik Nielsen: I would draw your attention, and the hon. young fellow's attention over there, to the time in 1963 when criminal motives were imputed to members of this House which had very dire consequences for the government of the day. And there is nothing out of order in that if the hon. member who imputes motives or makes charges is prepared to stand by them and take the consequences.


An hon. Member:: Then go outside the House and say it.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order as raised earlier by the member of the New Democratic Party. It was my intention to wait until the hon. gentleman had completed his remarks to draw to his attention the seriousness of what he has read into the record. This is an extremely serious accusation, and, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) has pointed out, if there is any substance to this charge or allegation, then Senator Hastings must be prepared to accept the consequences. By the same token, the hon. gentleman who has made the allegation, despite the senator's request for specific information, has taken advantage of his parliamentary immunity to read into the record an extremely serious charge, and I challenge him to have the courage of his convictions and to refer his charge or allegation or accusation to the appropriate committee of the House and be prepared to accept the consequences. If he is not prepared to do so, then I think at the very least he owes the senator an apology, and I fully intend to pursue the matter.
1 am rather appalled that he has taken full advantage of his parliamentary immunity to slander and cast aspersions on the reputation of a member of the other place, who, in response to a request in the letter, wrote back and asked for nothing more than specific information.

March 31, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
As I recall the correspondence read into the record, the so-called aggrieved individual did not have the courage to put his reputation on the line and reveal his name. To say, simply and pathetically: I do not want to reveal the bribery charge in case I lose further orders; that makes me wonder who would be the bigger crook if indeed such bribery took place.
Now, I would suggest in conclusion that the hon. gentleman had better, in the next 48 hours, be prepared to withdraw his allegation or do the honourable thing and refer it to the appropriate committee of the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I was just about to move in on the hon. member to warn him that if he is referring to offences under the Criminal Code, he had better very clearly lay the charges and be very careful not to throw around allegations. He has to stand behind any charges he makes in this respect.


David Kilgour: I assure the hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey) that there is nothing that disgusts me more than this type of practice and that is one of the reasons why I am not a Liberal. You guys have been living with this kind of thing for too many years.
I would point out again, Madam Speaker, as I read the letter, I did not accuse anybody of committing a crime and I guess I have been a Crown attorney for too many years for the hon. member for Lincoln. 1 simply referred him to the provisions of the Criminal Code and invited him to read them because I suspect that he, like many people, was not aware of that section and I am certain the hon. member for Lincoln is not aware of the section.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The hon. members opposite may think it is funny but 1 do not. My point of order is an important one. There are certain customs, traditions and privileges which we are talking about that we want preserved in this House and that is why you rise on a question of privilege. That is why I am not overly concerned about the number of questions of privilege if indeed we want to retain the privileges we are entitled to. One of the privileges we have as members is immunity from lawsuits, and I am not a lawyer but I know that this is an extraordinary immunity that makes it possible for us to speak to the fullest extent in order to make our point. I am not talking about criminal charges, 1 am saying that in order to preserve that freedom, that privilege, it is incumbent upon us not to abuse it, because if we do, we are going to see it removed.
In the 1960s, Madam Speaker, and I do not want to go into history, but I can remember a young member named Lord, a young lawyer attached to Mr. Favreau's office who, despite later exoneration by the appropriate court, had his career ruined by innuendo in this House by members who were just within the legal-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would not like to discuss this point further; it was well made by some hon. members. I again remind the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona that
he must be careful not to make these accusations without being prepared to folow them up with the proper charges. If he is referring to dispositions of the Criminal Code, he might be able to do that, but he would have to be very careful not to accuse anyone of anything he is unable to stand behind. If the hon. member will try to summarize or resume his question of privilege-


David Kilgour: I am finished, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Well, it seems to me that this whole matter of donations to political parties, no matter how they were solicited, is not a question covered by the Standing Orders of this House. It might be improper, it might be all sorts of things that the hon. member might want to expose, but it certainly does not fall under the purview of the question of privilege nor does it relate precisely to the proceedings of this House. There was some delay which I have to take into account as well, but the matter itself does not come under the purview of a question of privilege.
Presenting reports from standing and special committees.


Harvie Andre: Point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre).


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order which is very similar to the one I raised on March 24. At that time I was dealing with the supplementary estimates and items contained therein which, in my view, were out of order-


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I am awfully sorry, but the estimates are not before us. That point of order should have been raised at the time-


Erik Nielsen: Yes, they are.


Madam Speaker:: What is the point of order? It must be related to the proceedings of the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Call orders of the day.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my point of order-


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, my privileges are in question, as I am sure are the privileges of all members of the House. In view of the fact that Your Honour called "Presenting reports from standing or special committees"-
March 31, 1981


Some hon. Members:: No, she has not.


David Michael Collenette: As a result, it is incumbent upon Your Honour to recognize any point of order or question of privilege relating to that aspect of routine proceedings alone. Since Your Honour has decided, in your wisdom, to move to that part of our proceedings, I would submit that the present point of order is completely out of order. My privileges and the privileges of every member in the House are being abrogated, unless we continue with points of order, questions of privilege or some proceeding relating to the presentation of reports from standing or special committees.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I cannot recognize a point of order if it is not related to the proceedings of the day.


Harvie Andre: Then, I rise on another point of order.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Order!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, the subject matter to which I referred has been raised in the House on many, many occasions going back to 1971. It has been raised and adjudicated upon by Speakers from March 10, 1971, to most recently.


Mr. Smith:: Raise it at the appropriate time, which is not now.


Harvie Andre: The most recent occasion was last week. I did not go through the whole list of previous rulings, but I mentioned from 1971 to 1981, or the last ten years. On some of those occasions, especially in the early period, members rose when the appropriation bill, to which objection was being raised, was before the House. On those occasions, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and Mr. Speaker Jerome said that it was too late. They said, "Your point is in order. The items are out of order, but it is too late. Therefore, I have no choice but to leave these out of order items in the appropriation bill because members did not raise their objections at the appropriate time".
Mr. Speaker Jerome appealed to members of the House, when I was a member, to raise such points of order well enough in advance so that the Chair could rule and argument could be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: It is true that point of order was raised, but the hon. member had given notice of the point of order. That is the procedure which has been followed by previous Speakers.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I respectfully submit that there is no Standing Order which requires any member to give the Chair notice of a point of order. My understanding is that the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) is on a point of order. No notice is required, even though the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who purports to know so much about the rules, broke those rules or practices when he smuggled in
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
his notice yesterday, I think it was. There is no requirement for that practice, and it should not be allowed to grow.


Madam Speaker:: It is true that there is no Standing Order to that effect, but there is also no reason why I should hear a point of order which is not related to the business of the House.


Mr. Stevens:: It is.


Harvie Andre: May I explain how it is related?


Madam Speaker:: I did not give the hon. member the floor yet. The hon. member has explained his position, and I told him that I could not entertain that point of order at this time. If it were related to the proceedings of the House, I could entertain it.
Also I answered the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). It is true that the Standing Orders do not indicate anything to that effect, but there is no reason why I should hear a point of order which is not related to the proceedings of the day; I think that is fair.


Harvie Andre: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker-


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect to whether the matter is before the House, the estimates to which the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) referred have been tabled in the House of Commons and are now before the House in committee. This is what the hon. member meant when he stated that these matters are now before the House. This is why I respectfully submit that it would be an appropriate time for the hon. member to be heard. He could have been heard yesterday; he might be heard tomorrow. But it is appropriate that he be heard now.


Harvie Andre: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is here tonight.


Walter David Baker: In addition, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) is here tonight.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am surprised the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) used this argument because, quite clearly, the estimates are now before committee.


Erik Nielsen: That is the House; it is an extension of the House.


David Michael Collenette: A point of order would only be relevant at this particular stage in the proceedings if those estimates or any item had been reported before the House. At the moment we are on the item under routine proceedings which is the presentation of reports from standing or special committees.


Erik Nielsen: No, we are not.


David Michael Collenette: I submit that no point of order or question of privilege is in order at this particular point in time, unless it is related to that particular aspect of routine proceedings.


Harvie Andre: A question of privilege, Madam Speaker-

March 31, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I still must refuse to hear the hon. member on this particular point of order, because the bills to which he referred have left the House, gone to the Senate and have been passed, and they will be up for royal assent tonight-


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, they will not.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!


Madam Speaker:: -and the main estimates are in the committee. Therefore, if a matter is in committee, it cannot be the subject of a point of order in the House.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my privileges as a member of Parliament are affected in this way-


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: What about ours?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Go back to England; they like you in England.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, previous Speakers have said repeatedly, to me among others, that it is too late to raise a point of order in respect of the estimates when the appropriation bill is before the House. Now you add to that the absurd contention that a point of order cannot be raised-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David P. Smith: Apologize!


Walter David Baker: Collenette said that.


Harvie Andre: -when the estimates are before committee.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have a point of order from the hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson). Since we are on a question of privilege, I suppose I can entertain it.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, on a point of order, surely it is out of order for an hon. member, under the guise of a question of privilege, to question the ruling of the Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Svend Johannes Robinson: That is precisely what is being done here. Madam Speaker has made a ruling; orders of the day have been called. Under Beauchesne's-


Some hon. Members:: No, they have not.


Svend Johannes Robinson: Citation 275 of Beauchesne's fifth edition reads in part as follows:
When an order of the day has been read, it must thereupon be proceeded with, appointed for a future day or discharged.
Madam Speaker's ruling has been made. It is unparliamentary to challenge that ruling under the guise of a question of privilege. I suggest we move on to orders of the day as required by Beauchesne's Citation 275.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Privilege, Madam Speaker.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The main estimates will be deemed to come back to the House on May 31, and the hon. member will have all the time in the world to raise a point of order on this particular subject. Therefore, I will not hear his point of order at this point.


Harvie Andre: Privilege, Madam Speaker.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing or special committees.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I can understand that it has been a long day.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Harvie Andre: I can understand the frustration of the troops opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. In the name of decorum and in the spirit of co-operation with the Chair, I would appreciate that hon. members make no reference to the fact that my day has been long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am working quite well, despite the fact that the day has been long.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, I was not referring to Your Honour in my remarks, I was referring to members opposite.
I have been sitting in my place all day long annotating the book. As Madam Speaker has indicated, the votes contained herein are presently before-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Harvie Andre: -a committee. The items contained herein-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Harvie Andre: I am prepared and confident that I can show-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, if I do not have the opportunity to explain, then how can I ever get to my point?


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled that the hon. member could raise his point of order up until May 31, when these questions will be back before the House. He is still

Wi
ill
*********
March 31, 1981

referring to them in his question of privilege and, in a sense, commenting on my ruling. Therefore, I cannot allow that.
Presenting reports.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, a few moments ago the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) said that we could not proceed further with respect to points of order or questions of privilege. I believe he put it something like that. He alleged that you had called something further on the agenda. I would point out that at that particular stage there were three members on this side of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Not true!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -on their feet calling "Point of order".


Some hon. Members:: Not true!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am being called a liar, Madam Speaker. I demand that the hon. member retract his remarks.
There were three members on their feet-


An hon. Member:: Not so.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -one was the member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre), the other was myself, and the third is a member opposite who is sitting next to the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster). I forget his riding. We were all on our feet asking to be recognized on a point of order. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I refuse to yield the floor if I am not permitted to raise my three very important points of order. I have the right to raise them.


Madam Speaker:: There were not three members on their feet when I said "Presenting reports".


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes, there were. I was on my feet, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: No. There were not three members on their feet.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: So was the hon. member for Calgary Centre, as was the hon. gentleman opposite.


Madam Speaker:: I said "Presenting reports from standing and special committees" and then some members got to their feet.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I got up before that.


Madam Speaker:: Presenting reports from standing and special committees.
The hon. member for Pontiac.
Committee Report



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Thomas H. Lefebvre (Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle):: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to present the second report of the Special Committee on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution. If the House gives its consent, I intend to move concurrence in this report.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]


CONCURRENCE IN SECOND REPORT OF SPECIAL COMMITTEE
Thomas Lefebvre: Madam Speaker, there have been discussions among the three parties of this House, including the official opposition, the New Democratic Party and this party, and there is agreement that this report be concurred in without debate. If that is correct, Madam Speaker, I would so move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin).


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on a question of privilege. I must warn the hon. member that his question of privilege must be related to Presenting Reports from Standing and Special Committees.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, you place me in a very difficult position-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -which I am sure members opposite enjoy.
I cannot go against what I have seen in this House and what other members have seen. Surely the hon. member opposite-I cannot remember his riding, but he is sitting next to the hon. member for Algoma-and two others were on our feet. We were ignored by the Chair-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege. My privileges are being breached by not being recognized-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I will not allow the hon. member to repeat that three members were on their feet before I started presenting reports from standing and special committees. Members rose once I had said those words.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Might I raise another point of order, Madam Speaker?

March 31, 1981
Committee Report


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would like to refer to page 8774 of Hansard for yesterday where a serious error occurs. I realize that it was yourself, Madam Speaker, who circulated to all Members of Parliament a document suggesting that where a serious error occurs in Hansard there are various ways of correcting it. I agree with this and I do not for a moment question the Chair-


An hon. Member:: Not much!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: But at the same time I would like to draw attention to the fact that if an error occurs in Hansard and we simply do not raise it in this House-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. At this point I can only entertain a point of order relating to presenting reports from standing and special committees. If the hon. member wants to correct Hansard he can do so later on in the course of the proceedings.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for York-Peel on a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my point of order will be very brief. I was wondering if the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre), the chairman of the Special Committee on Alternate Energy, could be given an opportunity to explain what we are being asked to concur in?


David Michael Collenette: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The report has been read and it is too late for that.
Tabling of documents, statements by ministers, tabling of bills. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth, (Mr. Scott) stand. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), stand. First reading of Senate public bills. Government notices of motions.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, do I take it you have just passed tabling of documents?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, we have passed the tabling of documents.


Mr. Kempling:: You blew it!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Bussieres moved:: That, in relation to Bill C-59, an Act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill; and that at 15 minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
He said: Madam Speaker, all hon. members are fully cognizant of our Standing Orders and even if at times we do forget the exact wording, we know that when we study certain bills we can proceed with dispatch under the provisions of Standing Order 75. For instance, it is possible for the leaders of the various parties in the House to reach agreement and allocate a given period of time to complete the study of a bill. When the parliamentary leaders are unanimous, they so advise the House and we agree on the way to end the debate. We do have another procedure when there can be no agreement on the amount of time to be devoted to debating a bill. When we cannot agree a notice must be given to hon. members in which the government states its intention of setting a time limit to study a bill. That notice was tabled last week and this evening I am indeed proposing that one additional day be devoted to the report stage of the bill to provide supplementary borrowing authority, and one additional day as well for third reading of the same bill.
March 31, 1981

Madam Speaker, many reasons may be invoked to resort to time allocation or set a limit on the debate on this borrowing authority bill. First of all, Madam Speaker, we all know that the government's borrowing authority will expire at midnight this day, March 31, because the borrowing authority already passed by Parliament has a provision under which any remaining borrowing authority of the government would lapse automatically at the end of the financial year, that is, on March 31.
In other words, as of midnight tonight the government no longer has any borrowing authority.
Second, the House has had the opportunity to debate numerous topics and, particularly in recent days, the business of the House has been, to put it mildly, delayed by hon. members who had questions of privilege and points of order to raise and on which the Chair, not I, had to rule.
Madam Speaker, during second reading and in committee we had lots of time to debate the borrowing authority. I would simply like to remind the House that the amounts of money and the provisions in the borrowing authority measure stem directly from the budget proposed to the House by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and that they indicate the financial requirements of the government.
I rest assured, Madam Speaker, that hon. members will appreciate the urgency of adopting the bill providing borrowing authority and that all members will co-operate so as to make the best use of the days of debate we will have at the report stage and on third reading. Hon. members will thus have an opportunity to express their views on the borrowing authority which the government is now seeking.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, this House is being presented with a disgraceful motion. This bill has been before this House on report stage one afternoon only, a Friday afternoon, on March 20. It is disgraceful that the government should bring this motion tonight to terminate this debate on the motion in two hours, and to terminate debate on the bill in two days.


An hon. Member:: You make me cry!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: This is an unrealistic use of Rule 75c, and the government must be condemned for its use.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Not only that, but the government is in no financial need, and the government need not press this matter forward today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald Alex Blenkarn: When this government took office immediately after February 18-indeed, on February 20-the amount in the government's accounts was $2,594 billion.
Business of the House
Last week, on March 25, 1981, this government had more money on deposit than it has had in government accounts for so many years that it is hard to remember. Indeed, the government has $6.4 billion in its accounts. It does not need to closure this bill. It has enough money to operate this month, next month and the month after in accordance with its own budget. It does not need to closure this bill. It does not need to come before this House and say that this is a matter of urgency, that the government will be broke, that it cannot pay its bills, or something of that nature. There is absolutely no reason for this unrealistic use of time allocation on this particular bill. This government must be condemned.
There is no question as to why the government comes before us. It is ashamed of its most inept, incompetent Financial policies and Financial administration of this country. It is no wonder that it wants to terminate debate, because it does not want us to point out its incompetence. The government wants to limit the incompetence.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: It would take forever to show it all.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: If the government would look at the amendment on report stage, it would note that we have asked to reduce the borrowing to $8 billion. That is all it needs. It has $6.4 billion in the till. If it borrows another $8 billion, it would have $14 billion. The government does not need any more than the amendment calls for.
So, why must we have closure? It is because the government wants a blank cheque. We have a blank cheque government with a blank mind.
This is a disgraceful motion. The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) ought to be embarrassed that he has brought it forward tonight. How can he possibly come to this House and say, "We are in desperate shape; our borrowing authority expires on the thirty-First, tonight at midnight, and we cannot borrow any money"? The government has $6.4 billion in the till. Why does it need to borrow money? It has no requirement for money.
You have no requirement for money; you won't have it this month, next month or the month after. So there is no need whatsoever for closure. There is no need for this unrealistic time allocation on this most important economic bill-indeed, the most important economic bill to come before this House so far this year.
It is clear that the government does not want to face the questions concerning inflation; it is clear the government does not want to face the questions of why it has acquired and brought together all of the money there is presently in its account; it is clear that the government wants to cut down the time that members have to talk about the economy of Canada, all this at a time when people are showing what they are

March 31, 1981
Committee Reports
concerned about and what is really bothering them. What has really got them upset is an inflation rate of 12.2 per cent. Their money seems to be disappearing; the purchasing power is no longer there. Yet this government wants to make sure that we on this side are not given an opportunity to voice the opinions of our constituents on what is happening to the value of their money.
When we look around at the real estate market, we see that in the major cities of this country people are bidding up the price of real estate unrealistically. All of that is caused by the kind of monetary policy that has been produced by this government. We are not allowed to bring the concerns of the people before this House of Commons because the government does not want to hear people's opinions about the way they have managed the economy of this country.
This is a disgraceful motion that my friend, the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) before us today. It is a disgraceful one. It is a motion Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


ALTERNATIVE ENERGY AND OIL SUBSTITUTION AND NATIONAL TRADING CORPORATION CONCURRENCE IN REPORTS OF SPECIAL COMMITTEES
Walter David Baker: There have been some discussions amongst us with respect to the two reports, the report of the Special Committee on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution that was tabled by the hon. member for Pontiac-Gatineau-Labelle (Mr. Lefebvre) and also, standing in the name of the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis) of the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation which is now on the Order Paper.
I would hope, Madam Speaker, that when we return from the other place, we could have a few moments to have a motion for concurrence on both those reports, on the understanding that it would be done without debate.


Madam Speaker:: Is that agreed?


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, it is the understanding on the government side that these two reports would be concurred in without debate immediately following our return from the Senate.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That is agreed, Madam Speaker.


Thomas Lefebvre: Do it now.


Walter David Baker: Suggestions have come from some hon. members that we do it now, Madam Speaker, and that we would all be agreeable. It would be a very short proceeding.


Thomas Lefebvre: that the second report of the Standing Committee on Alternative Energy and Oil Substitution presented earlier this day be concurred in.


Mr. Marcel Roy (for Mr. Flis) moved: that the third report of the Special Committee on the National Trading Corporation, presented to the House on Monday, March 23, be concurred in.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent that the two reports mentioned by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) be concurred in?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



THE ROYAL ASSENT

Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform you that a communication has been received, which is as follows:
Ottawa, March 31, 1981
Madam,
I have the honour to inform you that the Honourable Antonio Lamer, Puisne Judge of the Supreme Court of Canada, in his capacity as Deputy Governor General, will proceed to the Senate Chamber today, the 31st day of March, at 9.45 p.m., for the purpose of giving Royal Assent to certain bills.
I have the honour to be,
Madam,
Your obedient servant,
Edmond Joly de Lotbiniere
A message was delivered by the Gentleman Usher of the Black Rod, as follows:
Madam Speaker, the Honourable Deputy to the Governor General desires the immediate attendance of this honourable House in the chamber of the honourable the Senate.
March 31, 1981

Accordingly, Madam Speaker with the House went up to the Senate chamber.
And being returned:


Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that when the House went up to the Senate chamber, the Deputy Governor General had been pleased to give in Her Majesty's name the Royal Assent to the following bills:
Bill S-16, an act respecting the president of the Lethbridge Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints.
Bill C-62, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1981- Chapter No. 51.
Bill C-63, an act for granting to Her Majesty certain sums of money for the Government of Canada for the financial year ending the 31st March, 1982- Chapter No. 52.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

['Madam Speaker, also under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) a document entitled "Accountable Management".']
David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, to beg the indulgence of the House. I have discussed a matter with the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) concerning two reports that should have been tabled earlier. I regret that I did not rise at the appropriate time, but I believe there is agreement in respect of the tabling of these reports at this time.


Walter David Baker: Yes, Madam Speaker. These are documents which I understand would have been tabled at that stage of the proceedings today. The hon. member has indicated to me what they contain, they are in order and I would be pleased to consent.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree that we revert to tabling of documents?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



[Stage Direction]
MANDATORY SUPERVISION: A DISCUSSION PAPER
Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2) I should like to table in both official languages a report entitled "Mandatory Supervision: A Discussion Paper".
Adjournment Debate


ACCOUNTABLE MANAGEMENT
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, also under the provisions of Standing Order 41(2) I would like to table on behalf of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) a document entitled "Accountable Management".



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Mr. Speaker, I am delighted to see my friend, the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan), here in the chamber this evening to deal with this particular matter on the adjournment debate. As the House may recall, this question was asked of the Solicitor General just a few days ago. It was pursuant to a notice I had given him on March 23 that I would ask him a question about a rather interesting operation which was carried out by the security service sometime ago against the People's Republic of China embassy.
The reason I felt after these years that it would be an interesting thing to bring out is that I felt sure the McDonald commission of inquiry and, indeed, the security service itself would probably be interested in seeing what lessons, if any, were learned from this Keystone cops operation, which had as its ultimate absurdity the then secretary of state for external affairs having to call John C. Doyle, who at that time was embroiled in some serious disputes with the Government of Canada, begging him, please, to keep quiet about this particular incident he and his employee discovered.
I am interested to know whether in this particular context the McDonald commission was apprised of this and whether, of course, there were other implications arising from it. Much to my surprise, the Solicitor General indicated that despite my notice, he knew nothing at all about it. I wonder how many files of this particular nature there are.
However, apart from that, I am interested in pursuing another aspect of the hon. minister's answer because in his reply he said to me that it is a matter of public record that the McDonald commission has been given full access to all the records of the security service of the RCMP and the whole of the RCMP.
Your Honour and I both know that there is a big difference between being given access to something and getting the actual

March 31, 1981
Adjournment Debate
information that may be there which ostensibly we can have by simply having access. That is a dodge, and not a very obvious one, to say the least.
The McDonald commission once again has had to have its mandate extended. It has become an annuity, obviously. I cannot understand why I as a member of Parliament cannot get some information about it on my Order Paper questions, which I intend to raise at another time. However, what bothers me is the feeling I have that the McDonald commission and, indeed, the Solicitor General himself, may not be seeking all of the information to which we will say for the sake of argument they have access.
Recent revelations in the United Kingdom indicate that at least over there they have begun to eradicate to some extent the old-boy network going back to the days of Philby, Blake, Burgess, McLean and May and lately Blunt and now there are questions raised about Sir Roger Hollis which, as I understand it, can neither be proved nor disproved.
What I want to ask the Solicitor General tonight is whether it has occurred to him, with the benefit of hindsight, just as it has occurred to the British security service, that apparently it may not have been the best thing to have sent Sir Roger Hollis over to interview or debrief Igor Gouzenko, perhaps it might not have been very smart for the security service-and, indeed, for the benefit of the United Kingdom and the United States security services-to have had Jim Bennett interview John Watkins, who apparently died of an unfortunate heart attack while this process was going on. As a matter of fact, I will take the opportunity to make this comment. In coming back to the question I asked about the particular operation directed against the People's Republic of China-an entirely proper one under the circumstances, which I do not condemn except for the clumsiness and the absurdity of it-I come back to comment-I suppose today the People's Republic of China is probably not nearly as disturbed about the CIA, which assisted in this operation, getting access to information through the good offices of the security service as they are about our security service having it.
I make the hypothesis, based on what is happening in Britain and based on the obvious fact that we have not even touched our old-boy network, that probably the information the CIA is getting at least is sacrosanct, while the information our security service is getting is going directly to the KGB. We do not know that, but I will bet you that the CIA and the Chinese are having their own thoughts about it right now.
Now, I would hope that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) would put some information on the record. We have seen our former solicitor general make an effort to get to the bottom of the Taschereau papers. Surely, within the echelons of the security service there are fascimiles or briefing notes on those papers which the Solicitor General, after his time in office, which is considerably longer than his predecessor, still maintains he knows nothing about. It sounds very strange to me, and there are a few things that it is entirely proper to put on
the record. In the past I have mentioned, naming names, some of the things about mail opening, the improper use of the RCMP security service having agents in place to get income tax data. It is a well-known fact as well, and I do not know that this has been put on the record, that prominent native people here in Ottawa have for years had their phones monitored as a matter of course. I have not heard this mentioned. Another thing that worries me, speaking about the McDonald commission and its alleged eagerness to get information-and this is something I intend to go into at some length-is that Corporal James Wood-who was one of the key figures in the "Obstacle Course" operation which a former secretary of state for external affairs used with great effect to trumpet the expulsion of 11 Soviet diplomats, and there were two others who were not allowed to come back-has been given one of the most rotten shakes I have ever heard of. He ought to be made Companion of the Order for Canada. Instead of that, practically every promise made to him has been broken. It is basically a tragedy. And here in my hand I have a letter that I have received addressed to him from the McDonald commission in effect telling him that they do not want his information, despite the fact he volunteered to give it, and he could give some very interesting information. The reason he was not allowed to testify, Mr. Speaker, is because he wanted his own lawyer, and when a lawyer was obtained for him, all of a sudden, although he was subpoenaed, his testimony was no longer required. I intend to go into this in some detail later on.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I am going to answer some of the matters raised by my hon. friend, the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. MacKay), and I know before I do that he is going to find the answers unsatisfactory. I regret that, but I think he knows perfectly well the reasons why solicitors general cannot be as forthcoming on the matters he raised as he would like them to be. And, in fact, I will be following a very well established tradition which the government of which he was a part followed.
Now, he indicated that my predecessor, the Conservative solicitor general, was in fact more forthcoming or was about to be. That is a matter of speculation. The fact is that he was not, and the answers that he put on the record are very much the sort of answers that I will give. The other reason that I regret having to give less forthcoming answers is that many of the allegations he made are completely false. I think he may believe them to be true, I am not asserting that he is putting forward things that he knows are not true, but I know they are not and I am not able to comment in particular on which are and which are not because, if I were to follow that practice, the operations of the security service would be disclosed in a way that would make them less effective in protecting the national security of Canada. If I confirm that certain individuals are or are not the subject of surveillance, answers like that, given over a long period of time, could give adverse elements, or those who are interested in undermining the effectiveness of the security service, a guideline into the operations of that service, which I am simply not prepared to give them.
March 31, 1981

However, I would like to comment at some greater length, in the rest of the time I have available, on the Taschereau papers. The Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) indicated recently in the House that he was constrained from making the Taschereau papers public because of the convention which existed between an incoming and an outgoing government. I examined the record, and I found that to be quite inconsistent with things he said when he was prime minister.
For example, on December 12, 1979, he said very clearly in the House that he had the authority to make the Taschereau papers public and that he was considering setting up a committee or a review process of some sort which would give him advice about whether he should exercise that authority to make them public. Recently, as Leader of the Opposition, he came up with the excuse that he was constrained from making them public by a convention. He was not constrained, neither are we.
I would assert that this government has the authority to make them public. They are being held in camera, or are not disclosed pursuant to a cabinet directive, which we can change, even though it was a directive of an earlier cabinet. We have asked a retired public servant to examine the Taschereau papers-I have not seen them-and to give advice to the government about what course of action should be taken. When that advice is received it will be reviewed, and a decision will be made about the papers.


EXTERNAL AID-CONCEPT OF TRIPARTITE AID
Mr. Robert Wenman (Fraser Valley West):: Mr. Speaker, multinational organizations hold conventions, summits, and often they seem to plod away in futile and seemingly non-productive efforts. But, sometimes their efforts are rewarded with substantive expressions of moral and philosophical principle; sometimes they come around to giving us some very specific examples of innovative ways to connect the capacity and will to give with the need to receive.
An occasion which gave recognition of both these great principles was the Brandt report that evolved out of the north-south dialogue. Within that report, as well as a series of important philosophic value statements found therein, there were specific ideas. Canada is not a large country. We cannot change the whole world. There is not a lot we can do. But when a specific suggestion such as this is brought forward, there are some specific areas where we can take grasp, run with and show the way. I am referring to the specific recommendation of the Brandt report regarding tripartite aid. The report described tripartite aid as follows:
The emergence of capital-surplus developing countries provide special scope for the establishment of projects on a basis of tripartite arrangements involving developing countries alone or in partnership with industrialized countries. Tripartite countries, including, when appropriate, industrialized countries, should be encouraged by nations with complementary resources such as capital and technology.
Adjournment Debate
To make my point meaningful, I wrote specific examples of need to receive, a technological capacity to give, and administrative capability and technological capability to carry out the projects which are so desired. There could be a multitude of combinations for this new suggested form of aid. This form of aid has advantages in that multinational corporations have become so large and cumbersome that they tend to be slow to act and require many other principles aside from the principle of need.
When one looks at organizations other than multinational organizations such as the United Nations, one takes specific blocs, such as the Commonwealth, OPEC and so forth. Often one cannot organize as freely, efficiently and quickly as one could if one took bilateral aid and extended it to trilateral aid or three-country aid. The specific example I have chosen is only one example. I chose the countries at random, Saudi Arabia being one of them. I chose this country because it has proven to be one of the most generous givers of foreign aid in the world through the recycling of their petro dollars. I chose Somalia because it is the fourth poorest country in the world. I have travelled there and seen the need with my own eyes. I chose Canada as the third country, a country with the capacity for technological exchange and administrative capacity to co-ordinate and deliver the same. This is a specific answer to an immediate problem. Somalia is a part of the African dry belt where there is tremendous drought and where there is malnutrition and starvation. Yet, just below the feet of those people starving and dying of thirst, 35 feet underground, is a plentiful supply of water. The land connot be dug by hand because it is sand and it caves in. Digging could be done if there were some cribbing and a solar pump. The water could be pumped to the surface. This would give the most basic element of life to help those people survive. Second, it could be used to aid in planting the fertile soil which requires just water and a little effort. The need could be met.
Canada has a great organization called CIDA, which has a billion of our dollars to spend. Canada is a country which has the technology and the capacity to deliver it. I find it hard to understand that I can travel to that country, as members opposite have, and see the needs there. It has been the subject of discussion in committee, the minister concurs, it is debated in this House, but still the need in Somalia cannot be met, bilaterally or trilaterally. I would like to see a specific example initiated by Canada.
I would like to conclude by saying that in his response, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) showed that he was concerned and interested in this matter. Prior to our Summit, I would like to see him establish a demonstration project in this area. I hope this area will be specifically addressed.
I thank you for your patience, Mr. Speaker, and I look forward to a positive response from the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs.

March 31, 1981
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, like most other industrialized countries in the western world, Canada tried in the last part of the seventies, both at bilateral meetings and in international assemblies, to encourage oil rich countries to share their new wealth with less fortunate developing countries and to co-operate with other donors and multilateral institutions to meet the priority development needs of these countries.
In 1980, Canada took part in the co-financing of 46 projects with a total value of $4.6 billion, its share coming to about $611 million, or 13 per cent of the total amount. Canada with OPEC Arab donors co-financed 18 projects with an approximate total value of $2 billion, in which the Canadian contribution amounted to about $350 million, or 17 per cent, and that of aid organizations of Arab countries which are members of OPEC, to over $750 million, or 37 per cent. In most cases, those were major projects for which the World Bank or some local development bank acted as the administrative or managing authority and Canada contributed financial assistance to an extent clearly defined as the Canadian participation to the project.
At the present time, Mr. Speaker, Canada is participating in major bilateral aid projects in 34 developing countries, of which 12 or so are currently of interest to donor members of OPEC which are considering the possibility of giving them considerable aid, Canada would like to work more closely with the main aid bodies in the Arab country members of OPEC and the governments of developing countries with a view to broadening the scope and nature of its co-financing for the mutual benefit of all participants.
However, our attempts, so far, to improve the co-operation with the other donors lead us to believe that co-financing of worth-while projects is not easy and requires more time, efforts and administrative resources than usual bilateral projects. Industrialized countries, Arab donors and developing countries have objectives, policies, strategies and procedures in the field of aid that do not always coincide.
It seems that expanding the scope of co-operation in co-financing is hampered mostly by the lack of aid procedures and policies that are common to all participants and allow each one of them to achieve their own objectives at a reasonable cost compared with the benefits of the project. Most aid bodies in the Arab countries that are members of OPEC tend to concentrate their assistance in those countries where close ties already exist between politics, culture, economics and religion.
The hon. member for Fraser Valley West (Mr. Wenman) has suggested on several occasions that we initiate demonstration projects in a special economic area such as energy and agriculture in a specific country, such as Somalia. While demonstration projects are sometimes a valuable tool to test an idea, a process or a product, we are not convinced, on the basis
of available information and our experience in joint financing, that such a demonstration project is necessary or even appropriate in the case of joint financing with oil-rich Arab countries of OPEC.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, if we proceed with our present bilateral discussions concerning programs, plans and problems in countries which are of mutual interest, I feel that in the light of our recent working experience with aid agencies in the Arab countries of OPEC, we will no doubt obtain positive results. Therefore, we intend to make greater efforts in that area.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the parliamentary secretary but the time allotted to him has expired.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES-TESTING OF CHEMICAL DEFOLIANTS-MONITORING OF EFFECTS
Mr. Simon de Jong (Regina East):: Mr. Speaker, tonight I am raising a matter which was raised some month ago, on January 23, 1981, concerning the spraying of agent orange in Gagetown in the province of New Brunswick. At that time I asked the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) if her ministry had been made aware of this particular program, and if her ministry had monitored this program in terms of health effects to the surrounding population and the servicemen who were used for those tests.
I originally asked the question because agent orange has been under great suspicion in the United States as being a cause of various forms of cancer. The United States government has treated this connection with a great amount of seriousness. There are at least three major U.S. government groups studying the herbicide-related issues. Our concern was to find out what the Canadian government was doing and whether the Canadian government had the same concern. The concern about the spraying in the province of New Brunswick is not a new one. In fact, just prior to the release of the information that we had of the spraying of agent orange in New Brunswick, Dr. Cameron McQueen, from the province of Nova Scotia, had released a study which showed that there was an alarmingly high number of birth defects and retardation among children in New Brunswick.
As well, in part, I have in my hand a quote by the Minister of National Health and Welfare concerning the question of her department being informed about the spraying by the American army in Gagetown. She was asked by a reporter whether it bothered her that the federal defence department had never informed her department about the tests of agent orange at the Canadian Armed Forces base in Gagetown in 1966, and she is quoted to have said: "I can be shocked, but it won't help anybody."
There is general concern-and on my part, as well-as to how chemicals are treated in our society, how chemicals are used by governments and government agencies, that they are generally outdated and outmoded, and that the procedures, concerns and regulations must be brought up to date. We have
March 31, 1981

done things in the past out of ignorance which is just not excusable today. More and more, scientific information shows direct correlation between various forms of cancers and illnesses and the widespread use of deadly chemicals.
My concern is whether the Department of National Health and Welfare was informed by the Department of National Defence, and this springs from information that we have obtained and have read about the experience in the United States. I was concerned about whether Canadian servicemen knew what they were handling and whether, five or six years later, they could identify all sorts of symptons, or whether they were contracting cancer. Would they be in a position to seek some restitution from the government because they handled this particular chemical? As long as this situation was not made public and was not known to them, they could never be in a position to make a claim against the government.
At the time the minister indicated, and quite rightly, that she was not aware of the situation and that she would get as much information and details as possible. I will sit down in a few seconds because I want to give the government member ample opportunity to describe to the House exactly what steps the government has taken in the last two months to contact servicemen to perhaps change procedures so that when chemicals like agent orange are used in this country, the minister's department will know about it.
I look forward with interest to hearing what the government's spokesperson on this particular question will have to tell us tonight.


Mrs. Celine Hervieux-Payette (Parliamentary Secretary to Solicitor General):: Mr. Speaker, it has been reported that in 1966 the Department of National Defence undertook spraying tests with chemical agents to test their effectiveness in reduc-
Adjournment Debate
ing the foliage cover over a tract of land belonging to the Gagetown base. At the time when these tests were being carried out, it was not known that 2,4-D and 2,4-5-T formulations could be contaminated with trace quantities of dioxin impurities. During the intervening years, better analytical procedures have permitted scientists to identify these impurities and increased knowledge of toxicology now allows characterization of some of their toxic properties.
The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) met with the minister of health for New Brunswick at the end of January at which time they discussed this issue. It was agreed that federal and provincial officials would co-operate fully in providing and exchanging all information and details concerning the spraying operation.
[Translation\
The minister of health of New Brunswick then gave the Minister of National Health and Welfare all available information on the spraying program on the Gagetown base. Officials of the Department of National Health and Welfare are now examining statistics on spontaneous abortions and miscarriages in the Sunbury riding, in New Brunswick, where the city of Gagetown is situated, for the years 1965, 1966 and 1967. The study will be completed in two or three weeks, and the Minister of National Health and Welfare will inform the minister of health of New Brunswick and the hon. member for Regina East (Mr. de Jong) of the results. If they are positive, the advisability of supplementary research will be considered with the New Brunswick government in order to confirm the effects of some chemicals.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.39 p.m.

Wednesday, April 1, 1981