1981-03-24

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Len Gustafson (Assiniboia):: Madam Speaker, i rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The South Eastern Saskatchewan Service and Supply Association reported in Weyburn, Saskatchewan on Saturday, a 40 per cent to 50 per cent shutdown in the industry; oil rigs and service rigs moving south to the United States; 1,400 oil wells shut in production in southern Saskatchewan; the price of oil in Weyburn, Saskatchewan at $17.75 per barrel, while our government continues to pay for foreign imports $40 per barrel. The action of the government putting people out of work is only Canadianizing North Dakota and Montana in the Wilston oil basin. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources take action immediately to turn around the drastic effects of this energy policy on the service industry, and the lack of supply of oil for Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HOUSING
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, the enormous speculation in residential real estate that has taken place in Vancouver has now spread to almost every major city in Canada as people rush out to buy homes and farmland to protect themselves against the government's induced inflation. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House direct the Minister of Finance to explain to this House why he continues to allow federally-regulated credit institutions, including Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation, to validate the speculation in real estate by
increasing the mortgage lending value of properties subject to speculative activity.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUPPLY AND SERVICES
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, this has regrettably and finally hit Peterborough and it is in Ottawa as well. Many corporate and independent gasoline service stations are now displaying signs "Government Credit Cards Not Accepted". The reason is that it takes the federal government between three and six months to pay its accounts. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis), under Standing Order 43:
That this government hold an inquiry to find out why the Department of Supply and Services cannot issue cheques within 30 days, or at least pay interest of 22 per cent on all their accounts outstanding.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provision of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because of its inability to set clear policy, the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation has put prospective home owners in the position of living in homes for which they cannot obtain mortgages-in one case since May, 1977. Not only do these people have no mortgages on their homes but they are not sure what the final price will be, whether the price on date of occupancy or the price at today's inflated values. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell):

March 24, 1981
That Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation take action to finalize negotiations with the province of Saskatchewan so the mortgages will be finalized, based on the value of the home on date of occupancy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[ Translation]


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Henri Tousignant (Temiscamingue):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43 I seek the unanimous consent of the House to raise an important issue.
Given the significance of the question which is now being debated in the House, and considering also that we all wish that as many Canadians as possible be well informed on the constitutional question, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Missisquoi (Mr. Bachand):
That the House request the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation to make adequate advance publicity and then televise in full the speeches of the leaders of the political parties in this House, namely that of the Leader of the New Democratic Party, that of the Leader of the Opposition, and that of the head of the government.


Madam Speaker:: Such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas events in Poland have, according to all reports, intensified the threat of Soviet intervention in that country, and in view of the refusal of the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) to propose a meeting of NATO foreign ministers to discuss the impact this threat could have on Poland and on the western alliance, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House condemns the Secretary of State for External Affairs for his continuing reluctance to take any positive initiatives, either directly or in concert with our NATO allies, that would indicate to the Soviet Union Canada's strong opposition to any intervention by that country into the domestic affairs of Poland.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
* *
*


POLITICAL PARTIES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Liberal Party of Canada is holding $150 per person meetings with cabinet ministers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Solicitor General, who is supposedly responsible for the constituency of Simcoe South, call such a meeting in my riding to discuss the Constitution, particularly the entrenchment of language rights, with the invited guests, the funds received to go to a local charity instead of going to fill the coffers of my political association, thus working in a true democratic fashion and ensuring the re-election of the present member for Simcoe South.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and I trust that 1 will have the unanimous consent of this House. Today is the first anniversary of the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Trinity (Miss Nicholson), and the hon. member for Waterloo (Mr. McLean):
Thai this House join in an expression of solidarity with the people of El Salvador as they remember some of the last words of their beloved archbishop, "They can kill me, but the clamour for justice among the people they cannot silence."


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 24, 1981


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in replying to questions the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) indicated that he was unsure as to whether we were in NATO or the Warsaw Pact, and also seemed to think the Helsinki Final Act was a roadshow touring Canadian bases in Europe. Under Standing Order 43 I move, seconded by the hon. member for Halton (Mr. Jelinek):
That this House direct the Prime Minister to hold briefing sessions at a primary level so that his ministers can tell the white hats from the black hats in international affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


STATUS OF WOMEN
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, the credibility of the Advisory Council on the Status of Women has once again been called into question by the transferring of responsibility for this weekend's Atlantic Conference on Women and Aging to the New Brunswick Branch of Women for Political Action. The responsibility for this important conference was removed from the Advisory Council following numerous complaints, and threats of boycotts of the conference from women's groups, who do not feel the Advisory Council is capable of acting in an independent and impartial way. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald):
That this House call for a public, external, and independent review of the Advisory Council's operations.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ENVIRONMENT
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas Canadians are very concerned about the pollution caused by acid rain, some of which is
Oral Questions
caused by a high sulphur content in American coals; therefore,
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart):
That this House urges the Government of Canada to promote the use of low sulphur Canadian coals in Ontario which will reduce the acid rain problem and provide employment for Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, because small towns and cities in Canada have an unusually difficult time in recruiting an adequate number of medical doctors, and because our immigration policy is very restrictive in respect of admitting new doctors on the basis that Canada already has an adequate domestic supply, but has not taken into account that there is a surplus of medical doctors in urban areas and a critical shortage in rural districts, I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That this House encourage the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of National Health and Welfare to initiate discussions within their departments and in consultation with the provinces so as to bring about an adequate resolve to Canada's shortage of medical doctors in rural areas.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Oral questions.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, I apologize to the House for my voice this afternoon. My question is for the Prime Minister. Was there a direct reference to Sir Roger Hollis, the then head of the British MI5, in the Gouzenko testimony held in camera before the Taschereau Commission, or was there any reference to a code

March 24, 1981
Oral Questions
name which could only, in retrospect, have fitted Sir Roger at that time?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I am afraid I do not know the answer to that question. I will be happy to take it as notice and try to find out the information about which the hon. member asks.
If my recollection is exact, Mr. Gouzenko in those days referred to a mole inside the British intelligence agency MI5. Not having been present at the time, I have no recollection of whether the mole could be identified. I will be glad to find out.


RELEASE OF GOUZENKO PAPERS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, both within and without the government now for about three or four years as the Prime Minister is aware, there have been members in this House who have been attempting to obtain the release of the Taschereau papers, or the Gouzenko documents.
I am sure that when the Prime Minister took over the high office he did, at some time prior to 1974 he was very comprehensively briefed on the Gouzenko papers. In any event, during 1974 or right after 1974, after the British caused an investigation to be made into the activities of Sir Roger Hollis, was there not at that time a very high level communication from the then British Prime Minister to the Canadian Prime Minister about the revelations and the accusations concerning Sir Roger Hollis? Was this not really the true reason why, to this day, those Gouzenko papers have not been released to the Canadian public, and was this not really the real reason why, four years ago, an extraordinary move was taken by the Prime Minister directly to put those Gouzenko papers on ice for another ten years?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, there are several points raised by the hon. gentleman in his question. The first is that Members of Parliament have been trying for three or four years, as he says, to get release of the Taschereau papers. The hon. member was solicitor general for the Government of Canada for a period between 1979 and 1980. I am sure he has the answer to these questions if he is as interested as he says. Why did he not release the papers? I do not know what the answer is to that. Probably he did not release them either because he did not get around to examining them or because he found other reasons.
In my case, the hon. gentleman suggests, and his words are, that I was comprehensively briefed on this matter before 1974, but I do not know why the hon. member assumes that. I have no recollection of having asked questions or having received any detailed information about the Gouzenko affair. Presumably, since his interest is so great, he did that when he was solicitor general. I am sure that he has the answers to these questions, whereas I do not. Let him give the answers to the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASONS FOR NON-RELEASE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am glad the Prime Minister is attempting to release me from any oath by which I may be bound. He is saying yes. I think, therefore, that the Prime Minister realizes the reason none of us in the Clark administration was able to obtain those papers was because certain aspects were bound by an undertaking given by the then prime minister to him as the ex-prime minister. It was as simple and as stark and as naked in its restriction and cover-up as that.
In any event, apart altogether from the fruitless attempts in, before and since those days to obtain the Gouzenko papers, now that this international story is breaking throughout the world-yesterday, today, and there will be more revelations in the British House of Commons on Thursday-I plead with the Prime Minister, no matter the degree of incompetence in Canadian and British intelligence circles those papers may show, and apart from any internal investigation he is now having, to release those papers today. What national purpose is now served by continually hiding, for almost 40 years, those documents and papers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, even the hon. member astounds me when he makes such representations in this matter. When he alludes to this convention of not looking at papers of previous administrations, he realizes that is a convention that dates back many decades. It is a convention that presided over the transfer of Mr. St. Laurent's papers to Mr. Diefenbaker, over Mr. Diefen-baker's to Mr. Pearson, over Mr. Pearson and my administration, to Mr. Clark's, and then again from Mr. Clark to myself. The Gouzenko papers belong to another administration, not to mine and not to the Leader of the Opposition. I have no more access to them than the hon. member had when he was solicitor general.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You hid them for ten years.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now the hon. member says I hid them for ten years. Why did he hide them for ten months? He had as much access to them as I do.


REQUEST FOR INVESTIGATION OF ALLEGED ACTIVITIES OF JOHN WATKINS
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. In view of the current inquiry in Great Britain into the activities of Sir Roger Hollis, and the growing evidence that the penetration by the U.S.S.R. into western intelligence operations was and is more extensive than previously believed, will the minister reopen an investigation into the alleged espionage activities of former Canadian ambassador to Moscow, John Watkins, in order to ascertain any possible connection with Sir Roger, or any other current connections which may have arisen as a result of those activities?
March 24, 1981

Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External
Affairs): Madam Speaker, I am not personally familiar with that case, but I will certainly look into it.


INVESTIGATION INITIATED BY BRITISH PRIME MINISTER-REQUEST FOR FULL-SCALE INQUIRY
Otto John Jelinek: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is to the Prime Minister. As the Prime Minister knows, this country has had a long history of Soviet espionage activities, beginning with Igor Gouzenko's revelations in the forties, right through to last year when the Soviet ambassador was asked to withdraw three officials from his embassy in Canada for abusing diplomatic status to conduct espionage activities against the United States, from here in Canada.
In view of the apparent cover-up of the Watkins' case, which has been going on for some time, and numerous other questionable "diplomatic" activities in Canada, and in view of the Prime Minister's reluctance to table the Gouzenko papers, is he now prepared to follow Margaret Thatcher's example and initiate forthwith a full-scale investigation, not into this alleged specific cover-up that I am talking about but into over-all spy activities in this country and, more important, report them to this House and make them public?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member, as did his predecessor in question period today, talks about cover-up. "Stark cover-up" I believe was the expression.


Mr. Nielsen:: Naked cover-up.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I repeat the suggestion I made to the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. That side formed the government for a period of nine or ten months. They had access to these papers as much as I had access to these papers.


Mr. Clark:: Not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says it is not true. Let him stand in this House and say that the convention which is operative somehow gives me access to papers of some previous administration to which he did not have access.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Oshawa has the floor.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: My question is for the President of the Treasury Board. On February 24 I asked the
Oral Questions
Minister of Finance if the government was considering a wage control program. The minister, in his quaint way, neither, admitted nor denied it, but said that if he ever had such a document presented to him it would be "swept away mighty fast". Well, I have in my hands a secret document-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -from the cabinet, and I would ask him if he would confirm that not only is there such a document outlining wage control methods but, in addition, there is a document that he himself prepared, file no. TBS 108-DP, and would he tell the House what decisions have been reached by the cabinet on these?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I believe the Minister of Finance has responded very directly to a question raised by the hon. member, or by some other hon. member of this House, with respect to wage and price controls. I am not aware of the content of the Treasury Board document which was cited under that reference number. I do not know what the contents of that document might be.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, that is a little bizarre. I understand the document is over the minister's signature, so it is a little unusual that he would not know what was in it, but maybe that is to be expected under present circumstances.


An hon. Member:: Not so unusual.


John Edward Broadbent: Related to that question, though, would he confirm that the first document, which lays out in some detail a scenario for possible implementation of wage controls, acknowledges that public servants' salaries are well below average but should be singled out for rigorous control so that they would "provide a demonstration effect on private sector trends"?
In short, does not this document, which the cabinet is now considering, point out that wages are not causing inflation on the one hand, but singles out wages to be controlled as a means of curing inflation?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, no such document has been presented to cabinet. Furthermore, the inference that the hon. member wishes us to draw, that the public sector rates of remuneration are substantially below those of the private sector, is a subject which I have addressed on a number of occasions inside and outside this House. I have pointed out to members in committee, and in speeches in public forums, that our policy is not to lead the private sector. We have been consistent in that approach.
If one looks at last year you will find that settlements in the public sector federally were something in the neighbourhood of 10.8 per cent as against, as I recall, 11.2 per cent in the private sector. I believe that is a record of achievement by this government in being fair but firm in its bargaining positions, and I also say that, by and large, the public service unions have been most responsible in their demands as well.

March 24, 1981
Oral Questions


GOVERNMENT ACTION TO COMBAT INFLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 would like to go to the Prime Minister with a final question on this matter.


An hon. Member:: You were there this morning, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: There is for cabinet consideration a document that points out that wages have not been the cause of inflation, but instead singles out such items as interest rates and food and energy prices as being the real and principal causes of inflation, and then recommends that public servants' wages should be singled out for attack as a method of dealing with inflation.
Could the Prime Minister tell the House why the government is not zeroing in on the causes of inflation which, the document acknowledges, are interest charges and energy and food prices, and instead is attacking the victims of inflation, namely, ordinary wage earners?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I know nothing of this so-called secret document, but I will recognize that in answer to a question in this House, I think about a month ago, I mentioned that very point to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. I said that the causes of inflation are mainly energy prices and higher food prices and interest rates. The hon. member will recall that I indicated to him that at least the first two of those elements, and probably the third, are not controlled in Canada. We do not control the price of energy we import and, with respect to Canadian energy, he knows we have a policy which is to keep our prices below the world prices.
In so far as food is concerned, the Leader of the New Democratic Party also knows-and I said this a month ago- that when we have a type of controls that democratic countries introduce, they generally do not hit food. They do not hit food at the farm gate, and this is one of the causes now of a higher cost of living.
The same explanation has been given by the Minister of Finance with respect to interest rates. One of the reasons why they are high is because they are even higher in the United States.
This so-called secret document does not seem to be very secret. It says what I said in this House about a month ago.
As to why we would be enjoining-the hon. member shakes his head no. I will see what his supplementary question is.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke.


GOVERNMENT ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Right Hon. Prime Minister. In 1974 the Government of Canada decided to go ahead with the relocation in the provinces of certain agencies and branches of departments. Two of 23 such projects could not be carried out because the Quebec government refused to substitute the Canada clause for the Quebec clause and thus unilaterally change the agreement between the federal government and the provincial governments under which civil servants moving to any province could have their children educated in the language of their choice. Could the Prime Minister tell the House if acceptance of the constitutional proposals by the House and Mr. Ryan's expressed intention of replacing the Quebec clause by the Canada clause would prompt the federal government to reopen the file on the relocation of mapping in Sherbrooke?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, Madam Speaker, the answer is very clear because one of the obstacles preventing the relocation of the mapping branch in Sherbrooke is precisely the fact that the Quebec government does not want to apply the Canada clause. That clause is contained in the charter which is now before the House and, unless I am mistaken, that clause is endorsed as well by Mr. Ryan, the leader of the Quebec Liberal party, who in turn has gained the support of the Progressive Conservative Party in the House. Consequently, considering the circumstances of which we are aware, we hope that in the near future the mapping branch will be relocated in Sherbrooke.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question to the Prime Minister is supplementary to those posed by my colleagues earlier. The Prime Minister will recall that he froze the release of the Gouzenko documents for another ten years, and by that freezing he made it impossible for my administration to have access to those documents. He will recall that fact.
The Prime Minister will also understand that the normal period for which documents are kept frozen is 30 years. He extended it an extra ten years in the case of the Gouzenko papers. Will the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons why he took the extraordinary step of extending, by another ten years, the freeze on the Gouzenko papers, and will he tell the House of Commons by what legislative authority he took that extraordinary step?
March 24, 1981


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, you will have to allow me to answer this at a bit of length because there is confusion here also, and even in the question by the Leader of the Opposition.
The Gouzenko papers were obtained as a result of a royal commission set up by a previous administration.


An hon. Member:: In 1948.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In 1948. It was not mine. It was not the hon. gentleman's administration. If these are the papers hon. members opposite want to have access to-


An hon. Member:: They are public.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I am told they are public.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If these are the papers they want to have access to, or see tabled in the House, this is a different matter from the convention which linked various governments. These are the papers of a royal commission. They are not classified as papers of a particular administration. They are classified as papers of a royal commission. They were classified at the time because of security reasons, and because the privacy of individuals was involved.
This matter was reviewed in 1978 because that was when the papers normally would have been released. I was not involved in that review. I did not ask that it be done. I did not follow its sequence. The decision was made. If I was informed,
I was merely being informed; I was not consulted.
Since then I did learn that the reason why another ten years were added to the period during which the papers would not be released had not to do with security but had to do with privacy of individuals. Some people were named; it was perhaps not in keeping with our policy to make the papers public for fear of invading their privacy. I repeat that the former solicitor general could, just as easily as I, have asked that this matter be reviewed.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I did.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member says he did. If he did, that is probably the reason the matter is being reviewed now. Another look is being taken at it. Perhaps the Solicitor General could inform us as to dates. Maybe this other review dates from the former solicitor general; maybe not. I could not say. But if that is the case, it is being reviewed now, and we will see once again if the papers can be released without offence to the privacy of certain people who are entitled to that privacy.
Perhaps the Solicitor General can give the information I do not have. Was this review started under our administration, or was it started under the right hon. gentleman's administration? Whichever, the answer is the same. Any administration can review the question of papers which some day are to be made public. This is not a matter of a convention under which he did not have access. This is a matter of knowing if it is in the public interest to release these papers. I am informed that
Oral Questions
there is no question of security involved; it is another aspect of the public interest that is being looked at.


An hon. Member:: Release them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: An hon. member says "release them." Why did he not release them?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PROCEDURE AND AUTHORITY RESPECTING GOVERNMENT ACTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, this is not the place for debate, but the reason they were not released was because the action of this Prime Minister precluded our government from having them released.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: When?


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is twofold. Did I understand the Prime Minister to say, and is it his position, that there is no security implication respecting any of the people whose privacy, presumably, would be protected by the failure to publish the Gouzenko papers now? In other words, has the Prime Minister satisfied himself that the only reason is a matter of privacy and not a matter of security?
Second, can the Prime Minister answer my first question as to the legislative authority which allowed a government acting under his authority, even though he claims it acted without his knowledge, to take the extraordinary step of extending by ten years the period in which this series of papers could not be released to the public of Canada?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the right hon. member asks about legislative authority. I do not know if there is any. I believe there is, but I would have to ascertain that.
My recollection is that when I took office there was an exchange of letters with the previous administration. Then there was another between the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition and myself. Whether this was under legislative authority or a convention, I cannot say, but certainly it is a convention which the right hon. gentleman respected, because he wrote me a letter that he was respecting the papers of previous administrations. I also wrote him a letter to that effect when I took office following him. So I really cannot answer whether it is legislative authority, whether it is just a gentleman's agreement, or what, but certainly I will find the answer.
I recall that when our government, in the late 1960s or early 1970s, reduced the period during which papers should be kept in the Archives incommunicado from 50 to 30 years, it was done at my initiative, and it was done after consultation with the Right Hon. John Diefenbaker and the Right Hon. Lester Pearson. So I imagine it is more of a convention than a law, Madam Speaker.

March 24, 1981
Oral Questions
As to the other part of the question, I only retain that "it was the action of the prime minister which prevented the release" of the documents. I think the answer to that is linked to the first one. When papers are classified, either in the national interest, for security reasons, or in the national interest for other reasons, such as J have said, privacy of individuals, it is done on advice from officials. That was stated quite clearly in a written answer which appeared on the Order Paper-
Answers to questions from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville were given as to who were the officials involved in this matter.
I think the Leader of the Opposition asked if I had satisfied myself that it was a matter of privacy only rather than of security. I was given this information by the Solicitor General, and I did not look beyond it. The Solicitor General is present in the House. If the Leader of the Opposition wants to ask him whether he is satisfied, if the Leader of the Opposition wants that further answer-


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: Who is running the show?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not know what is wrong with the hon. member for Saskatoon West. Has he woken up since yesterday?


QUERY RESPECTING BRIEFING BY BRITISH AUTHORITIES
Charles Joseph Clark: I should like to ask the Prime Minister whether he received any briefing from Britain after the investigation in Britain in the period between 1970 and 1974 into the activities of Sir Roger Hollis, and whether that briefing was delivered to the Prime Minister personally or to any of his officials, with the idea that it would be transmitted to him. I am speaking here of a briefing after an investigation in the period between 1970 and 1974 in Great Britain, into the activities of Sir Roger Hollis. Was there a report on any aspect of that meeting to the Prime Minister, or to officials who could be counted upon to report the contents of that briefing to the Prime Minister?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as briefings of our officials are concerned, I do not know the answer; I will have to inquire. I can say without equivocation that, as far as I am concerned, I have no recollection of briefings in that period. Certainly if it had been a serious briefing on a matter about which I was supposed to know, I would remember it, but I have no recollection of any such briefing. However, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition received briefings during that period from Great Britain or other countries. I do not know about that. If he has briefings that should cause us to worry, I wish he would inform the House, and I wish the former solicitor general would inform the House. They were the government, after all; they have been concerned about the Gouzenko papers for years and they had questions on the Order Paper. I would have thought that, if they had doubts about the whole matter, they would have made it their duty to inquire into it.


METRIC CONVERSION
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and it stems from the fact that in the year 1871 the metric system was recognized as a legal form of measurement here in Canada. I regret to point out to the minister-and I will ask him a question as a result of this-that I learned from The Canada Gazette just a few weeks ago that they have made, by order in council, Canadian units of measurement in Canada illegal as of certain dates in 1982. Is it the government's intention to make Canadian units of measurement illegal? The deadline for appeal to his ministry is April 29. Would the minister at least extend that date so that people in the retail food sector who are opposed to this order would have an opportunity to respond to the order in council making Canadian units of measurement illegal as of 1982?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: The answer is no, Madam Speaker. I believe that those who want to express their views have ample time to do so before 1982.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the same minister. Since, through the same process of order in council, the government has decided that, starting on a certain date, it will impose fines up to $1,000 by order in council on merchants who use any other than metric weighing scales, with or without a conviction, I ask the minister whether, in the interest of democracy, he would agree to remove that fine of $1,000 for the use of imperial weighing scales starting on a date in 1982 and, if he will not do so, would he at least agree to listen to the retail merchants and consumers of Canada and take a look at the test centres, which had the metric system forced on them and which have all reverted back to imperial measurements? Would he or the Minister of State for Small Businesses for once listen to the consumers in the retail food sector in Canada?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: Madam Speaker, I have much more confidence in the public spirit of citizens and tradesmen than the hon. member seems to have. I do not believe that these fines should be removed because I am convinced that the tradesmen will obey the law and there will be no need to fine them.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. I am sure that the
March 24, 1981

minister is aware of the fact that one week from today Amax Limited intends to start dumping toxic waste into Alice Arm in British Columbia. Yesterday 1 received a letter from Dr. Mercier, head of the international program on chemical safety of the World Health Organization in Geneva. Dr. Mercier confirmed to me that the dumping of toxic waste at Alice Arm is subject to OECD controls. Has the minister filed a report or received approval from the OECD?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure I accept the use of the word "toxic" as the hon. member uses it. This might spread a fair amount of fear in a situation where reputable scientists have already made a judgment. But to make sure, I have asked three distinguished scientists from British Columbia to review the matter and give me their advice. As soon as they have given me their preliminary report, I will, of course, try to act on their recommendations.


James Ross Fulton: The minister did not answer my question as to whether or not anything has been filed with OECD. I think the House can safely assume that it has not, and if there is anybody around here who should be afraid of something, it should be the minister.
During the summer and fall of 1978 four federal government scientists, whom the minister knows well, namely, Darcy Goyette with EPS, Mike Nassichuck with Fisheries and Oceans, Pat Nasmyth with the Institute of Ocean Sciences, and Don Trethewey of the Canadian Wildlife Service, looked at the existing information on the proposed dumping of toxic tailings into Alice Arm. My understanding is that they were pretty well unanimously opposed to the project. On just whose scientific advice did the minister and the cabinet put through that special order in council?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am not familiar with the report which the hon. member uses as a basis for his question, if there is a report. The fact is that the scientists from my department, who are responsible for advising me on matters affecting fish, advise me that in their judgment they were willing to let the regulations, which were promulgated by order in council, go ahead. They reviewed their recommendations.
To ensure that my own department does not examine itself, I have recommended that a scientific panel of distinguished outsiders look at the matter and give me their advice. I will await their report.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. A few weeks ago the
Oral Questions
minister stated in the House that he would examine the report of Mr. Anthony Kershaw. Has he had time to examine this report, and if so, is he ready to comment on it?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, when 1 appeared before the committee, I said that we would examine the legality of the situation. Later today, I shall table a paper in the House explaining the position of the Canadian government.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, my question concerns pay increases for the Canadian Armed Forces, notice of which I gave to the Minister of National Defence. In his absence I will direct my question to the acting minister, who is the Secretary of State for External Affairs; or perhaps the President of the Treasury Board can provide information on this matter.
I believe the salaries and allowances payable to members of the Canadian Armed Forces are under review at the present time. The current rates apply only to the end of March, 1981. Can the responsible minister indicate whether there is a salary review under way? If so, when will it be completed, and when can members of the Canadian Armed Forces expect to know about and receive pay increases for the next fiscal year?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, indeed there is such a review, actively under way. I hope the government will be in a position to announce the pay increases within the very near term, hopefully before April 1.


COMPARABILITY WITH PUBLIC SERVICE
Howard Edward Crosby: Madam Speaker, the President of the Treasury Board indicated public service pay increases were in the area of 10.8 per cent. 1 hope that the pay increases for members of the Canadian Armed Forces will at least equal that figure.
There is another complaint concerning members of the Canadian Armed Forces. It is with respect to their pay levels falling below those prevalent in the public service. In fact some tradesmen receive less than their equivalents in the public service. Can the minister indicate whether any steps are being taken to rectify this disparity and provide pay comparability for members of the Armed Forces, which will effectively relate them to the members of the public service, even though they do not expect to receive the same pay levels as those in the private sector?

March 24, 1981
Oral Questions


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, it is the policy to establish such comparability. The pay in the public service is, of course, a matter which will be taken into account.
I would also point out that when I made the reference to 10.8 per cent I was talking about an average. With any particular group the figure might be higher, or it might be lower, depending on where that group finds itself relative to the external market, so that should not be taken as a figure which is to be applied across the board.


EFFECT OF ALBERTA COURT OF APPEAL DECISION RESPECTING NATURAL GAS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Yesterday the minister responded to questions by me with respect to the natural gas reference in the Alberta Court of Appeal, saying that the matter of appeal was under consideration and that he would give a statement to the House in due course. He did not answer my question, though. He attempted to avoid answering the question with respect to the position being taken by the government as to whether it is prepared to adjust, amend, or bring in new taxation measures in discussions with the producing provinces.
Now that the minister has had a day in which to discuss the matter with his mentor, the Minister of Finance, can he now address the question as to whether or not the government, the minister in particular in his discussions with the producing provinces, is prepared to make any kind of changes in terms of the taxation regime and the sources of revenues for the federal government, in order to bring the discussions with the producing provinces to a satisfactory conclusion?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, the judgment of the court of appeal, which I am sure the hon. member has read, states quite specifically that the judgment is on a very narrow point. As a matter of fact the judgment deals with two or three wells which are not producing at the present time and which are not exporting any gas. So, in terms of substantive impact, there is none at the present time. Therefore the question that the hon. member raises does not seem to require the necessity of changes at the present time. Again, this is a matter which the Minister of Finance will have under consideration. 1 am sure he will advise the House if any additional adjustments are required to taxation.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, the decision itself reaffirmed the ownership and the lack of jurisdiction and ability of the federal government to tax property owned by the Crown in right of the province. In view of the fact that this matter has been challenged not only in Alberta but that Saskatchewan will bring an action with respect to the direct taxation imposed
by the federal government at the wellhead, and in view of the desirability of having this matter resolved as quickly as possible by the courts, can the minister say whether or not he is advising the Minister of Justice, or his cabinet colleagues, to bring the issue before the Supreme Court of Canada so that these matters being raised by the provinces can be adjudicated at the highest level? Is the minister considering that option, or will he consider it?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the government considers all options. As to advice which I may give, it is obviously given inside cabinet and it is of a privileged nature.


COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA
Mr. Stan J. Hovdebo (Prince Albert):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Agriculture, who is responsible for the compensation being paid to Canadian wheat producers affected by the grain embargo. Can he tell the House whether the federal government is prepared to pay the $152 million, a figure arrived at in a study released by the New Democratic Party yesterday?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, I saw the amazing figure the hon. member says he obtained through library research. It was arrived at by a different avenue than the one we followed. If he has any new ideas that he has been able to obtain from the Parliamentary Library, I would like to know of them. We do hope a decision will be made very soon with respect to the program.


Stanley J. Hovdebo: Madam Speaker, the minister is quite welcome to disagree with our figures, if he wishes. He is entitled to do so. Could the minister at least indicate to the House his method of calculation of compensation, which I understand has been completed for some time now? After 14 months, will the minister either put up or shut up? So that the farmers will finally get what is due to them in compensation, will the minister at least put before the House those figures so that there can be intelligent public debate with respect to what they should be?


Eugene Whelan: The figures we used were figures presented by all the different people in the different departments concerned with grain marketing, by compiling all the information available in the grain trade and putting it together in a very thorough manner. When a decision is made, these figures will be tabled. The figures will be put up, but it will take more than the hon. member to tell me to shut up.
March 24, 1981


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. It arises out of the decision taken by the regional office in Edmonton which affects payments to band members under the age of 18 years, under the per capita distribution program. These are funds which accrue to the respective bands through royalty revenues from resources. I would like to ask the minister why the department took this decision unilaterally and whether it is, in fact, just an interim decision, or whether it intends to consult further with the Indian bands and the Indian community before it becomes a permanent fixture?


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that there has been consultation with respect to the policy taken by the department leading to this decision. I will check to see if the consultation has been inadequate, but that is certainly my information.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: The fact of the matter is there has not been any consultation. It was a unilateral decision. Surely the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is not suggesting that his departmental officials have a better command of handling these funds, rather than the funds being in the hands of the parents? Surely he is not telling the House that?


John Carr Munro: The president of the Alberta Indian Association spoke to me this morning and indicated that he wished to cover a whole agenda of matters with me. He did not indicate any lack of consultation with respect to what the hon. member is talking about; rather, he wishes to talk about a whole range of other matters which do not include this at all. Therefore I think it is reasonable to assume that perhaps the hon. member is criticizing the policy; but certainly the president of the Alberta Indian Association is not, at this particular time.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table the forty-fourth report of the Clerk of Petitions stating that he has examined the petition presented by the hon. member for Etobicoke Centre (Mr. Wilson) and finds that it meets the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence PRIVILEGE


MR. LAWRENCE-COMMENTS OF MR. TRUDEAU RESPECTING RELEASE OF TASCHEREAU PAPERS
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege relates to certain comments made in the House today by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) regarding the failure of this government to release the Gouzenko papers or the in camera proceedings of the Tas-chereau Commission, and the alleged failure, as indicated by the Prime Minister, by any member of the Clark administration to attempt to obtain those papers. It also relates to the actual means and methods of the previous Trudeau administration in locking up and hiding these papers for a further ten years, with no legislative authority or jurisdiction to take that extraordinary step.
As I understand the whole gist of the Prime Minister's remarks, he said that as the solicitor general and as a minister of the Crown in the Clark administration, I had the full power and authority to obtain the release of those in camera proceedings; that if I was so anxious to obtain those papers, somehow or other I neglected to do so or failed to do so, and the blame for this lay on my shoulders.
I believe that that is an absolutely incorrect interpretation of the events; that interpretation, I believe, is a falsehood. I gather it would be unparliamentary for me to say that that incorrect interpretation is false to the knowledge of the Prime Minister; therefore, I shall not go that far. But I do say to the House, and to you, Madam Speaker, that because this matter has been in the forefront of many questions in this House, both written and otherwise, if the Prime Minister did not know that we were attempting to obtain the release of those papers, then he should have known. It is obvious that we were attempting to obtain the release of those papers.
My point of privilege really gets down to the basic fact that he has misled the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Mr. Andre:: Tell those Liberals to keep quiet!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: He has misled this House today and has tried to leave the impression that no attempt was made to release those papers. First of all, may I go back to the actual-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There are a lot of conversations going on between hon. members and-


An hon. Member:: It is on both sides of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I said there were a lot of conversations going on between hon. members in the House. If they could carry on those conversations behind the curtains, it would be helpful.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, may I just cite some short history, because the history of the matter is relevant to the understanding of the point of privilege.

March 24, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Madam Speaker:: I just want to remind the hon. member that he must be short on the history of the matter, and he must also be extremely short on what constitutes-from what he has said up until now-a divergence of opinion on how a certain matter was conducted. I have to hear the point of privilege, and I would urge the hon. member to come to it very quickly.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I understand that the burden is on me to prove to you, Madam Speaker, that it is not merely a divergence of opinion but an actual misstatement of the facts made today in this Elouse by the Prime Minister. That is the burden which is on me, and that is the burden which I will attempt to discharge.
First of all-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Even that does not constitute a question of privilege. If that is the argument which the hon. member is going to pursue, I would advise him to come more closely to the arguments related to the privilege. If one hon. member states facts which another hon. member does not think exactly reflect the reality of things, this does constitute a divergence of opinion on what they both interpret the facts to be; there is a lot of room for interpretation there. A question of privilege cannot address itself to that kind of argumentation. It must be indicated to me that the privilege of the hon. member has really been breached.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I am always very cognizant of your rulings, obviously because we have to be; but I am also very cognizant of the suggestions and help which you give to us when we are struggling, in a matter that was unforeseen, to come up with arguments. However, as I understand my rights as an hon. member in this House, if another hon. member-whether he is the Prime Minister or the farthest backbencher in the House, it matters not-makes a misstatement of fact which alleges that an hon. member did something, or did not do something which he should have done, then that is a question of privilege. That is the allegation 1 am making here today.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: You are doing that every day. Wake up, you guys!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If I may go back and make a very short summary of facts in this matter, Mr. Gouzenko defected in 1946 from the embassy of the Soviet Union in Ottawa, and made extremely serious allegations to a number of officials of the government and a number of people outside the government. As a result of those allegations, a royal commission was set up. The full report of the royal commission and the proceedings before that commission have never been made public. I do not question the authority of the government of the day in its decision not to make those papers public if it did not so desire. They were sent to the archives on the understanding that they were to be sealed for 30 years. That 30-year period ended in 1978.
I come now to the crux of the matter. In 1978, when all of the security provisions, and I respectfully suggest to you,
Madam Speaker, all of the privacy problems relating to the testimony before the Taschereau commission were long since over and done with, the administration preceding the Clark administration took it upon itself, illegally, with no justification and with no legislative authority whatsoever, to send those documents back to the National Archives and reseal them for another ten years.
Now I come to my question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I must call the hon. member to order. The hon. member is debating the question. He is stating a different set of facts-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And making falsehoods!


Madam Speaker:: -from those stated by another hon. member. That does not constitute a question of privilege. I would like the hon. member to come to those arguments.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: If not for your benefit, Madam Speaker, for the benefit of the House, I was attempting very briefly to summarize the history of this matter, which goes back 35 years. As I have completed it in approximately three and a half minutes, I do not think that is bad.
The Prime Minister now alleges that, as solicitor general, I could have obtained the release of those documents but I made no attempt to do so. That is the nub of my question of privilege. With the full cognizance of the government of the day I attempted to obtain the release of those papers, as the minister of the Clark administration who was primarily in charge of security for this country. I attempted verbally through my own officials and I attempted verbally through Dr. W. I. Smith, the Dominion Archivist, when he informed me that these matters were sealed as the result of a cabinet deliberation of the previous administration.
I then attempted to find out the reason for that and whether the Clark administration could overrule that cabinet directive. I was informed that the reason for it came under the jurisdiction of an undertaking given by the then prime minister, the present Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), to the then leader of the opposition, now the Prime Minister of Canada.
I then insisted that I be given something in writing by Dr. Smith, which I received. I will read it to you, Madam Speaker; it is a letter addressed to me dated November 13, 1979. The only reason that I feel I can now release this letter to the House is that the Prime Minister indicated today that I would not be in breach of any rule of confidentiality or any oath of secrecy by doing so.
In a letter dated November 13, 1979, addressed to me as solicitor general of Canada, he wrote:
Dear Mr. Lawrence: In reply to your letter of 31 October, 1979-
I had asked for either the release or the right to inspect those documents.
March 24, 1981

-I enclose copies of documents relating to control of access to the transcript of the hearings of the Taschereau-Kellock Commission of Inquiry. This transcript is in the custody of the Public Archives-
This letter is from the Dominion Archivist.
-for permanent preservation, but access to it is controlled by the Clerk of the Privy Council. These records were declared "exempted" by the Clerk as allowed for by Section I (v) of the Access Directive (please refer to attachments: P.M. Pitfield to W.l. Smith, 3 February 1978; Access Directive of June 1977).
The Access Directive policies, dating originally from 1969, deal with both the transfer of federal government records to the Archives and access to records. I understand that these policies will be extensively revised in the light of proposed new privacy and freedom of information legislation.
If there is any further information I can provide, please let me know.
He enclosed copies of Mr. Pitfield's letter of 1978 to him and also an access directive from the Privy Council office dated November 14, 1978. All those measures were taken during the regime of the present Prime Minister of Canada who was also the then prime minister. Nowhere is there any legislative authority for those directives; nowhere is there any indication that legislation was passed by the Parliament of Canada enabling Mr. Pitfield or those from whom Mr. Pitfield took orders to do what he did.
When 1 complained about this verbally through my officials to Dr. Smith, the answer that came back to me, undeniably, was that these things were sewn up tight as the result exclusively of cabinet deliberations, and that these cabinet deliberations could not be challenged by me now as a result of the undertaking given by the then prime minister to the previous prime minister.
In the last few months of the Clark administration, and since 1 was not happy with that answer in any shape or form, I then caused an investigation to be started in conjunction with the Department of Justice to find out if there was any legislative authority for an action which I believed the previous government had undertaken that was absolutely illegal and without any authority whatsoever.
My colleague, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) put a number of questions on the Order Paper that 1 wanted to ask after our government fell and we were back in this House. One of them was an inquiry whether there was any legislative authority for these actions. The written answer given to the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville was so evasive, as most of them are, that it is apparent to me today that there is still no legislative authority for this very extraordinary action.
I honestly felt, before becoming solicitor general, during my term in office and since then, because of the gross errors that were made at one time by a previous administration and by others who were our allies, that after 35 years the release of this documentation would certainly show those faults, those errors and that negligence so that this type of activity could be prevented in future by using a little bit of hindsight.
To return to the question of privilege. Madam Speaker, I honestly feel that my rights as a member of this House have been transgressed by the Prime Minister. I hope he will now be big enough to stand up and apologize. He should appreciate now that I made attempts, and that I am still making attempts
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
outside this House, to obtain the release of those papers. 1 ran into a brick wall; 1 was frustrated by bureaucrats and I was also frustrated by the actions of his previous administration. I hope he will be big enough now to stand up and apologize to the House.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I do not think that was a question of privilege, but I will let you rule on that. 1 want you to accept the invitation to stand up and speak on this matter. What I want to do is to try to clarify a little bit the law and the conventions as I see it.
The hon. member keeps saying-


Harvie Andre: Since when do conventions matter to you?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -that illegally we extended the confidentiality provision by ten years because there is no legal provision to that effect. I indicated in answer to an earlier question that I knew not about the law in this matter but I did know about the convention. After the Taschereau papers were closed, I believe the convention was established-long before my time-that papers so classified would be classified and held by the archives for 50 years. Whether that was by law or by convention I cannot say. But I do know that in response to historians in many parts of the country, and representations from public servants, that I thought 50 years was too long. If the original 50 years had remained the rule, the Taschereau papers would be in the archives until some time in the late 1980s.
I intervened, as I explained earlier, after consultation with the Right Hon. Mr. Diefenbaker and the Right Hon. Mr. Pearson. I said, "Look, can we not agree that 50 years is too long? We could shorten it to 30 years." After some discussion and hesitation I got their agreement to shorten the period to 30 years.
The reason I needed their agreement was the reference to papers that had been classified not only under their administration but under the administration previous to theirs, that of Mr. St. Laurent's. Having received the approval of the surviving former prime ministers, then either in cabinet or by an order-I believe it must have been in cabinet since the hon. member is referring to a cabinet decision-we issued a directive that henceforth the 50 years would be reduced to 30.
The point I was making in my earlier answers is that the right hon. gentleman, the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), when he was prime minister could have done what I did: He could have said that 30 years is too long or 30 years plus the additional ten that were given by directives in 1970 is too long and that the period should be reduced to 20 years, say, or ten, or five, or one-I don't care. That is the point I am making to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I am not saying that the former solicitor general could have access to those papers any more than I am saying that my own Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) could have access to those papers.
The point I am making is that it is the government of the day, under law or under convention, that decides how long papers will be classified. I am sure the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition knows that. When the privacy legislation has

March 24, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
been passed and this Parliament has accepted it, we may change the rules again. But it is the government of the day which issues cabinet directives or directives of the Prime Minister saying that we will reduce the 50 years to 30 years, as I did, or increase it by ten on one particular point or reduce it by 20 on some other point. That is all 1 am saying.
If the Clark administration had wanted to reduce the period when these papers were held incommunicado, it had that privilege. They were the government. They could have said: "We declassify everything, except the papers relative to an administration before ours". That is a distinction 1 tried to make in this House. Royal commission papers are not papers of an administration. A royal commission reports to the Prime Minister of the day. It is a royal commission. Papers from a royal commission, as I understand it, are not subject to the convention of transfers of administration. That is why I repeat the point: I was not Prime Minister when the Taschereau papers were given to the then Prime Minister.
Nonetheless, as Prime Minister in 1978, under my authority, and I must say without my recollection of it-I cannot say that because I recollect that at one point we said, "Okay, another ten years, if that is the advice we are getting." But the point I am making is that an administration can take that decision, and we did. Our administration is now looking into the matter to see if we can reverse the decision.
I am saying that the Government of Canada decides the length during which papers will be held in the archives and held incommunicado. That is all. The challenge I put to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is, why did he not release the papers? He could have had a cabinet meeting and said that henceforth they would reduce the incommunicado period from 30 years to 20 or to ten years. I imagine he would have then done what I did, namely, consult the previous surviving prime ministers. He could have checked to see what I would have said. The point is that he did not. My recollection is that he did not because the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was advised, not that he could not release them, but that it was not in the public interest to release them. He shakes his head as if to say no. I do not know, but maybe he did not ask.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Or maybe had he asked, he did not get an answer. I am stating in this House what the laws and the conventions are. I am stating that, just as in 1978, the government of the day prolonged the period of confidentiality for ten years in the same way this government or the preceding government could reduce that period.
I have said that we are having the matter reviewed. If we find this material can be released without contravening the public interest, we will do so. We will not need to look for any obscure law or get permission from anyone. We will just be changing the convention, reducing it from a further ten years to something less than ten years.
That is how the matter stands, Madam Speaker. I repeat, I fail to see how-


Harvie Andre: You sure whomp that straw man! What about the question raised?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Now I am asked by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre)-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Right Hon. Prime Minister has the floor. He should be allowed to finish his intervention.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think the suggestion is that I did not answer the question why we had prolonged the matter for ten years. I answered that during question period. It is also answered in Hansard in reply to a question asked by the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) as to why an extra ten years was given. The extra ten years was given because officials within the government looked at these papers. A study was made of them and a recommendation came forth. I said in the House that a recommendation was made that it was not only the security of the state but the privacy of individuals that would be infringed upon. That is why, as I understand it, the recommendation came to wait another ten years. That is the end of the matter as far as I know it, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 will recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). However, just before I do I want to caution him. When the first speaker does not convince me there is a breach of privilege, I tend not to listen to many other interveners. In order to help the Chair, I would like the hon. member to address himself to the question of privilege. From Beauchesne I read that a question of privilege ought really to come up in the House and that a genuine question of privilege is a most serious matter and should be taken seriously by the House.
I do want to take questions of privilege seriously, but then, if they are to be serious, they must be addressed with the proper arguments and be treated as questions of privilege and not in any other manner. Therefore, I will recognize the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, having cautioned him about this.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will naturally accept that caution knowing full well that you were directing it more pointedly at my predecessor who did not address the question of privilege at all in his remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The question of privilege is very clear. The Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) today in his place, in answer to questions in question period, accused the member of Parliament representing the riding of Durham-Northumber-land (Mr. Lawrence) of having failed to exercise his responsibility as a minister and as a member of the House of Commons-
March 24, 1981


An hon. Member:: It is done every day in the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: -in relation to the pursuit of the publication of a document which had been held secret. That was the accusation made by the Prime Minister of Canada. He said that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland had not made any effort to carry out his responsibility as a minister to have those documents revealed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He said that I had covered up.


Charles Joseph Clark: That, in my submission, Madam Speaker, is a question of privilege that is not only a grievous charge because it accuses a Member of Parliament, in his capacity as a Member of Parliament, of failing to carry out parliamentary responsibilities-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: He accused me of covering up, Joe. Answer that.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was a clear charge-but he also extended that charge to include the activities of the hon. member when he was a minister of the Crown.
The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland has just read into the record proof indicating that in fact he did take those actions which the Prime Minister denied he took, that those actions were not successful, not because of a failure to take them but because of a combination of actions taken by a previous administration headed by the present Prime Minister.
The present Prime Minister in the guise of dealing with the question of privilege, although he did not address it, spoke instead of different conventions that might or might not apply to the length of time during which documents will be held confidential. I agree with you, Madam Speaker, that while that is an interesting subject and one in which I will be pleased to join debate at another time, it is not the matter which is at issue here in the question of privilege raised by my colleague from Durham-Northumberland.
His question was, quite narrowly and specifically, that the Prime Minister of Canada had accused the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland of failing to do his duty as a member and as a minister. That was an accusation which the facts do not bear out. The member for Durham-Northumberland did not suggest-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Erik, he needs your help.


Charles Joseph Clark: There is a great deal of shouting on the other side, Madam Speaker, because they do not much like having their Prime Minister caught out in a situation of this kind.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise at this point because the Prime Minister, in my judgment, has now compounded what may well be a breach of privilege. He has accused the Member of Parliament for Durham-Northumberland of a failure, which accusation is not correct. When he had the opportunity, he refused to take the simple, gentlemanly course, a course which, when it is respected, makes this Parliament a place where business can be done and progress can be made. He declined to do the courteous thing and admit that he was mistaken and that his charge against the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland was wrongly based.
If the Prime Minister would be courteous enough to stand up and say that he was wrong, that the accusation he made was not founded on the facts, the issue could rest there. If not, Madam Speaker, I think you will find there has been a very serious breach of the privileges of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Baloney.


Charles Joseph Clark: -both in his capacity as a private member and as a former minister of the Crown. Because he has been accused of a failure to act in his ministerial capacity when in fact he did everything possible to act, and was frustrated in the success of that attempt by actions taken by the previous Trudeau administration.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, I have been standing for the last 15 minutes trying to get recognized so I can speak to this same question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: In fact, I have been trying for an hour.


Madam Speaker:: I know the hon. member is asking to be recognized on a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: No, Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege we are now dealing with.


Madam Speaker:: I am ready to rule on this question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Surely, Madam Speaker, the hon. member has the right to be heard.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have been ignored for three weeks.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am sorry, Madam Speaker, but I want the opportunity to set the-record straight.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am disposed to rule on this question of privilege. Before ruling, I want to make a

March 24, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
comment which I hope the House will accept in good faith. I did not comment on the kind of argument which the Prime Minister offered in response to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. The reason was that neither of them addressed the matter of privilege, except for one saying that he had a question of privilege and the other one saying there was no question of privilege.
I do not want to unduly charge the hon. member, but I feel that since he did not address the question of privilege in a way that was satisfactory to me but aligned facts in order to expose what kind of divergence existed between the two points of view, the other intervener had no choice but to respond to those facts and align a new series of facts which he thought were related to the particular question.
However, that is not part of the ruling. I just wanted to make that remark since I do not want anyone in the House to feel that I am trying to unduly protect the Right Hon. Prime Minister; 1 do not think any member of the House needs that.
I quote Section 19 of Beauchesne:
A dispute arising between two members.
The kind of debate we have had this afternoon indicates quite clearly that this is a dispute between two members.
-as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
The failure of a minister of the Crown to answer a question does not constitute a question of privilege. Nor does the fact that a former minister did or omitted to do something that he should have done during the course of his mandate constitute a question of privilege.
Charges in respect of that former responsibility can be made and are acceptable as long as they are made in a parliamentary way. We are talking about the responsibility of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland in his capacity as a former minister. References were not made to his present role as a Member of Parliament. That does not constitute a question of privilege. It might be something which the hon. member would want to explain, and I think he did that abundantly today. I listened to him very carefully to see whether there was anything else but those explanations of his actions when he was a minister.
Even evasive answers, a matter which was raised during the course of debate, do not constitute a question of privilege. They are merely an invitation to probe the matter further. There are, of course, many occasions in this House to pursue matters in debate, but not by raising a question of privilege.
Therefore I must rule that in this case it is a matter of a difference of opinion, a dispute between members, but certainly not a question of privilege. 1 find no prima facie case.


MR. COSSITT-ALLEGED DENIAL OF RIGHT TO SPEAK
Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


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


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It is a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, not a point of order. I know that you would probably prohibit me from speaking on a question of privilege on which you have apparently already ruled. I would like to raise this point as my question of privilege, that in effect I am being prohibited from speaking in this House-


Erik Nielsen: "My mind's made up, don't confuse me with the facts."


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -on an issue on which I have as much right to speak as anyone else because I raised the matter of the Taschereau papers at least three years ago and on a continuous basis since that time. I had information available which I could have used if you had recognized me on the previous question of privilege-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Give it to the press.


Charles Joseph Clark: He will.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: -showing that on October 16, 1979, the then solicitor general replied to me by saying that he had ordered an investigation-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. As the hon. member himself stated, it is not possible for me to hear him on this matter since I have already ruled.
I remind the hon. member that it is in the discretion of the Chair whether to continue to hear interveners on a particular question of privilege. It has been my inclination when the first speaker had not convinced me that there was a foundation for a question of privilege that I would not go to any further speaker. If the member who feels that his or her privilege has been breached cannot bring forward arguments to prove that there is a question of privilege, it does not make sense that another person not involved in the privilege would be able to muster arguments in favour of that privilege. It is for the first member who raises the question of privilege to convince me there is a prima facie case. That has been my inclination. That is the way I want to deal with questions of privilege, and it is in the interests of the entire House to do so because every member of this House has things to say. Every member's right to say those things has to be protected within the confines of our rules.


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


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on a point of order?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would like to conclude what I started a moment ago.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry.


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


Madam Speaker:: 1 am sorry.
March 24, 1981


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Well, if it is a point of order, the hon. member was up on a question of privilege before I interrupted him. Now he is up on a point of order. I can accept that. What is the point of order?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If I may paraphrase your words, Madam Speaker, you said something to the effect that it is the right of every member of this House to be heard. I have not seen that right exercised in the last half hour.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have to say that. I am not criticizing the government, 1 am not criticizing the opposition, but I am saying, Madam Speaker, that there is an element of fairness-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: You have known for a long time-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have to object to that expression of the hon. member. We are on pretty slippery ground here. If I prevent one member from speaking at a certain time, it is because I am protecting the rights of other members. Of course, one or two members are frustrated at that particular moment, but freedom of expression is protected in this House by the strict application of the rules to the best of my knowledge.
Is the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) rising on this point of order, because I do have another point of order?


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I will be very brief with it.
There appears to be a question raised by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt). Obviously he and several hon. members on this side are not happy with the manner in which it has been treated. I simply rise now to file notice with the Chair that, after considering the matter, the hon. member may well wish to raise tomorrow the specific matter raised by him today by way of a substantive question of privilege, with the usual motion moved in support of it.
I simply provide the Chair with that notice now, and if the hon. member wishes to pursue it tomorrow, that is the procedure which will be adopted.


Madam Speaker:: That is quite in order. If the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has a new, substantive question of privilege to raise in the House at a later date, it will be examined on its merits. It is perfectly open to him to do that.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Could you clarify for the House why a member who has dealt with any specific subject, whether it is the Taschereau papers or anything else, over a period of many years, and who probably possesses more information on it than anyone else in this House at this time, is denied the floor?
Point of Order-Mr. Andre


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member could have the floor at any time this question is being debated. I do remind hon. members that what happened this afternoon is that one hon. member raised a question of privilege. I heard that question of privilege and a second intervener on that question. It is my discretion to determine when the Chair is sufficiently informed and ready to rule, and I have done just that.
I recognize the hon. member for Central Nova (Mr. Mackay) on a point of order.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, 1 will address the Chair very briefly. Perhaps you will forgive me if I make a suggestion which might involve reverting to motions, but I feel that most hon. members in this chamber would agree that we are seized today with a matter that has a great deal of significance, both in the national and international scene.
The Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) referred in the House to the fact that the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) had some information on this matter. I suggest with great deference to the Chair, Madam Speaker, that the House, which can do anything it wishes with unanimous consent, may be disposed to-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Question period tomorrow.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Question period tomorrow?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, we will be here. Get on with the business.


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: We have just heard from the oracle, so I gather there is not much point in pursuing the question any further with the Chair.


POINT OF ORDER
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, last Thursday I wrote to you indicating my intention to raise a point of order with respect to the Supplementary Estimates (C) and certain items in the supplementary estimates. You will recall it was my intention to raise the matter yesterday but in deference to the Prime Minister's intention to speak I postponed it until today. Therefore, with the permission of the Chair I would like to proceed with the point of order at this time.
As the House knows, Madam Speaker, the estimates lay out government spending plans and in their organization group these according to department and program in the form of votes. After the time allotted by the Standing Orders for committee study of the estimates, called the supply period, an appropriation bill is introduced and passes through all stages without debate. At some time in the past the government began the procedure of using votes on estimates to seek authority to undertake actions quite beyond the mere appro-

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
priation of funds. This may have been reasonable in the distant past when the appropriation bill was subject to full and complete debate with first and second reading, committee and report stages and third reading. However, since the rule changes in 1969 wherein the appropriation bill is passed through all stages with no debate, this procedure is no longer appropriate.
Now, over the last decade numerous members have raised points of order respecting the use of the estimates and the appropriations procedure to seek legislative authority by way of dollar items. Your predecessors, Madam Speaker, have ruled on these points a number of times, including on March 10, 1971, December 10, 1973, and March 6, 1974, by the Hon. Speaker Lamoureux; on June 22, 1976, March 22, 1977 and June 7, 1977 by the Hon. Speaker James Jerome.
On December 7, 1977, Speaker Jerome, referring to the supply procedure, said as reported on page 1642 of Hansard'.
This is a process which has long been adhered to by the House which provides for an examination of the estimates in rather great detail, but does not provide for extensive debate between the various stages of the supply bill. As a result of that, it has long been a tenet of the House that supply ought to be confined strictly to the process for which it was intended, that is to say, for the purpose of putting forward by the government the estimate of money it needs, and then in turn the voting by the House of that money to the government, and not to be extended in any way into the legislative area, because legislation and legislated changes in substance are not intended to be part of supply, but rather ought to be part of the legislative process in the regular way which requires three readings, committee stage, and, in other words, ample opportunity for members to participate in debate and amendment.
Perhaps the most definitive ruling, again by your immediate predecessor is to be found on page 4221 of Hansard, March 22, 1977, wherein he stated:
On the general question, it is my view that the government receives from Parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act. A supply item, in my opinion, ought not, therefore, to be used to obtain authority which is the proper subject of legislation.
The rulings of the Hon. Speaker Jerome are unambiguous and precise, Madam Speaker. In my view, therefore, to show that the items or votes in Supplementary Estimates (C), which 1 will soon identify, are improper and out of order, it is only necessary to show that these are not truly supply items, but rather that they seek to go beyond the simple and limited scope of the supply procedure, which is the appropriation of specific funds for specific purposes and nothing more.
I would like first to bring to your attention Vote 5c under the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources, at page 24 of the Supplementary Estimates (C), 1980-81. 1 will not read this rather long item into the record, but what it does is grant to the governor in council authority to establish what is termed the Canadian ownership account, a non-budgetary trust account, and give the governor in council authority to transfer funds from what will be a Canadian charge, if and when that is approved by this House, into such account. It gives the government authority to spend that money on the shares of Petrofina up to a maximum of, interestingly enough, $1.7 billion. Then, Madam Speaker, the item in the final line concludes with the following words: "and to provide a further sum of $5,382,000." Last Thursday, the Minister of Energy,
Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) attended the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. He outlined in detail what the $5,382,000 was for. It consists of ten different items. The testimony is in the committee records and is available. The items are: $600,000 to implement the Canadian oil and gas substitution program; $81,000 for professional services; $195,000 for studies; $170,000 for capital costs of vehicle conversion; $250,000 for an energy audit; $50,000 for some contracting out; $20,000 for consulting fees; $2,259,000 for scientific equipment; $1,134,000 to supply resources to administer the petroleum incentives program; $623,000 to provide additional managerial authority.
Those ten items which are accounted for in the last seven words of the estimate add up to precisely $5,382,000, so that all of the vote described in the words preceding the last words of this vote do not have even a single dollar attached to them. In other words, if this vote were not seeking authority to set up this fund and to give the governor in council authority to administer it, it could have been taken care of by the simple words "to provide an amount of $5,382,000", the details of which were supplied by the minister.
The entire intent of that vote and that wording is clearly to seek authority for the establishment of this special fund, and it is described as a non-budgetary account. Those words are important in that they indicate that this account and the funds transferred in and out will be beyond the reach of the public accounts procedure, that is, the funds are collected by the Canadian ownership charge and will not go into the Consolidated Revenue Fund, be reported in the public accounts and thereby in fact show up in the blue books of estimates. In fact, they will go into this non-budgetary account, and Parliament will have no opportunity to examine them in the same way as we have the opportunity to examine the gathering and expending of normal taxation funds through the consolidated revenue fund.
Without these checks and balances which are normally provided, I think it falls upon us as a responsible Parliament to give even more consideration to what the government is attempting to do here.
If I may quote again the words of Mr. Speaker Jerome of March 22, 1977, he said:
-the government receives from parliament the authority to act through the passage of legislation and receives the money to finance such authorized action through the passage by Parliament of an appropriation act.
The government in this instance is clearly seeking legislative authority through a parliamentary act to set up this account, but in this instance it has not even sought the nominal one dollar which has been the traditional device used in order to establish an account.
If there is any question in the mind of the Chair with regard to the points I have raised, I would be pleased to elaborate. There are ample precedents in the rulings of Your Honour's immediate predecessors to establish beyond doubt that what the government is attempting to do is something which ought
March 24, 1981

to be done through legislation and not through the appropriations procedure established by Your Honour's predecessors.
I would like to draw attention to three different votes in the supplementary estimates which are similar enough in their intent that I can deal with them all at the same time and in the same argument. I refer first to Vote L18c on page 48 of Supplementary Estimates (C), which is a vote of the Department of Finance. It seeks by way of a one dollar item to authorize the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) to issue non-interest bearing, non-negotiable demand notes, in such form as the minister may determine, in an amount not exceeding $ 11,500,000 in respect of Canada's commitments to replacement of the sixth replenishment of the resources of the International Development Association. In essence, what that item does is place or seek to place in the hands of the International Development Association a debt instrument or instruments which obligate Her Majesty in right of Canada to payment of sums up to $11,500,000.
I would like also to draw attention to Votes 7c and 8c of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce which appear at page 66 of Supplementary Estimates (C). Vote 7c seeks authority for the governor in council to guarantee loans of up to $450 million to de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, a Crown-owned corporation but not a Crown corporation as defined by the Financial Administration Act. Vote 8c seeks authority for the governor in council to guarantee securities of Massey-Fer-guson Limited up to an amount not exceeding $130 million.
The question the Chair must consider is whether these three votes-L18c of the Department of Finance and Votes 7c and 8c of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce-are in fact items for which parliamentary authority should be sought through the usual legislative process. It is my view that they most certainly are items for which authority must be sought through the legislative process.
In support of this position I bring the attention of the Chair to Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, Chapter F-10, Statutes of Canada, which reads, and I quote:
Where a guarantee has been given under the authority of Parliament by or on behalf of Her Majesty for the payment of any debt or obligation, any amount required to be paid by the terms of the guarantee may, subject to the Act authorizing the guarantee, be paid out of the Consolidated Revenue Fund.
Notice that the language is very clear and precise. It refers to a guarantee given by Her Majesty-given by Canada- which requires an act of Parliament. That is what Section 22 says very specifically.
The appropriation of Vote LI8c, which deals with the $11,500,000 debt instrument to be given to the International Development Agency, is clearly an obligation of Her Majesty. It places an obligation on Her Majesty in right of Canada, and it is an obligation which can only be placed there, according to Section 22 of the Financial Administration Act, by an act of Parliament. Legislative authority must be sought to impose that obligation on Her Majesty. It is not the requisition of money at this stage because at a later stage-as I will demonstrate with another section of the FAA-when the IDA seeks funds based on these debt instruments, it will be necessary for
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
the government to seek through the estimates procedure an allocation from the consolidated revenue fund. At this point in time with that dollar item it is not a requisition of funds; it is an attempt to seek legislative authority for a guarantee which, as Section 22 says, can be sought and obtained only through an act of Parliament.
I refer to Section 36 of the Financial Administration Act, Chapter F-10, which says, and I quote:
No money shall be borrowed or security issued by or on behalf of Her Majesty without the authority of Parliament.
That is very clear and specific. The authority of Parliament must be obtained in order to grant a guarantee. The supply procedure and appropriation procedure is to grant funds for programs, not to grant legislative authority. This clearly establishes that Vote LI8c of the Department of Finance is out of order, and the authority being sought by the minister must be sought by way of an act of Parliament and not by the use of this supply item.
With respect to Vote 7c dealing with de Havilland Aircraft and 8c dealing with Massey-Ferguson Limited, I refer the Chair to Section 79 and 80 of the Financial Administration Act. Section 79 provides definitions for that part of the act and defines a Crown debt as follows:
"Crown debt" means any existing or future debt due or becoming due by the Crown, and any other chose in action in respect of which there is a right of recovery enforceable by action against the Crown;
That is the definition of a Crown debt.
Section 80 of the Financial Administration Act, Chapter F-10 of the Statutes of Canada, states:
Except as provided in this act or any other act of the Parliament of Canada,
(a)	a Crown debt is not assignable, and
(b)	no transaction purporting to be an assignment of a Crown debt is effective so as to confer
on any person any rights or remedies in respect of such debt.
Therefore, clearly any government guarantees by that definition are Crown debts as defined by Section 79 of the Financial Administration Act; and Section 80 states that no Crown debt is assignable except where an act of Parliament provides that authority to the government. The government is seeking authority by this procedure to perform something requiring an act of Parliament. It is not seeking funds, which is the sole and exclusive route through which an appropriation bill can be put.
I would not want the House or anyone speaking after me to imply that I had not been thorough. I recognize that Section 83 of the Financial Administration Act does say, respecting Section 80:
This part does not apply
(a)	to any negotiable instrument, or
(b)	to any Crown debt incurred by or in the name of a corporation set out in Schedule C or D.
In other words, incurred by the Crown corporations set out in Schedules C and D. The Financial Administration Act

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
defines "negotiable instrument" as any cheque, draft, travellers' cheque, bill of exchange, postal note, money order, postal remittance and any other similar instrument. In other words, in no way are the guarantees of these instruments described herein negotiable instruments. Most certainly they are not.
I hardly need to point out that Massey-Ferguson is not a Crown corporation under Schedules C and D, at least not yet. While de Havilland Aircraft is a Crown-owned corporation, it is not one of those corporations set out in Schedules C and D as required by the Financial Administration Act. For authority here 1 refer to a document produced by the financial administration branch, office of the Comptroller General of Canada, revised in July of 1979, which lists under "other government corporations", corporations which have not been designated as Crown corporations, de Havilland Aircraft of Canada Limited. So de Havilland is not a Crown corporation, and therefore for the Crown to guarantee its debt instruments according to the Financial Administration Act it is necessary for the government to seek legislative authority.
Finally, I should like to deal with another class of dollar items which I believe are also out of order. These are items whose purpose it is to cancel certain debts to Her Majesty. The votes in question are Vote 5c of the Department of Agriculture in the amount of $29,208.12, Vote 30c of the Department of National Health and Welfare in the amount of $153,207.67, Vote lc of the Department of National Revenue in the amount of $3,630,492.81, Vote 5c of the Department of National Revenue in the amount of $24,770,219.53, Vote 10c of the Department of Public Works in the amount of $206,236.38, Vote 20c of the Department of Public Works in the amount of $185,660.93, Vote lc of the Department of Regional Economic Expansion in the amount of $13,216,170, and Vote 5c of the Department of Supply and Services for $5,254.
As I indicated, all these items deal with the deletion or cancellation of debts owed Her Majesty. Madam Speaker, I would like to refer you to Section 18(1) of the Financial Administration Act, which states:
The governor in council, on recommendation of Treasury Board, may make regulations authorizing deletion from the accounts, in whole or in part, of any obligation or debt due to Her Majesty or any claim by Her Majesty that does not exceed five thousand dollars.
Thus, Section 18(1) of the Financial Administration Act grants legislative authority for the government to cancel debts, provided they are less than $5,000. There is no legislative authority for the government to cancel debts in excess of $5,000. To cancel such debts, legislative authority must be sought from Parliament, which is clearly what the government is attempting to do through the votes I have previously identified.
To seek such legislative authority through the use of an appropriation act is clearly in violation of the ruling established by your predecessors, Madam Speaker, Mr. James Jerome and Mr. Lucien Lamoureux. It would be clearly unreasonable to have a situation whereby for debts of less than $5,000 authority is granted through the Financial Administration Act, an act which has been subjected to the full legislative
process of first and second readings, committee study, report stage and third reading, whereas for the deletion of debts in excess of $5,000, the larger debts, one merely needs to pass a $1 item in an appropriation bill which is passed through Parliament with no debate at any stage. Clearly that would be an unreasonable proposition, and I think, Madam Speaker, that the rulings of your predecessors have established that.
I have covered a few points here, Madam Speaker, and 1 feel that the subject being raised is important. Any fair minded reading of the rulings of your predecessors would establish beyond a doubt the importance of what has occurred. If this procedure is not challenged by the Chair, we will very soon be in a situation where, by virtue of $1 items in an appropriation bill which Parliament cannot debate or amend, the government could seek authority to spend almost any amount.
Clearly the role and responsibility of government when it seeks to do something which it does not have the authority to do is to submit legislation to the House of Commons, and the House of Commons must have the opportunity to debate it, to amend it, and to vote on it through all of its stages. We have a long history of a procedure which has served us well and which I believe we should retain if we are going to fulfil our responsibilities.
Let me say by way of explanation that I can certainly understand the frustration of the public service and the government which want to do all of these things, and really none of them is particularly unreasonable and I do not object to them. I would argue about some of them, but I would not object to them in substance. What is being attempted here is not unreasonable. I raise objection for the reason that, if we do not challenge the government in this regard, it will clearly seek to open that door wider.
As I started to indicate, I can understand the frustration of the minister's senior civil servants wanting to seek some authority to undertake these actions, which are not unreasonable actions. But if we are to protect this institution from the Crown-and surely it is the role of Parliament to protect itself from the Crown and from the intent of the Crown to rule without what must be an annoying interference by the commoners-we must follow proper procedures. I understand their frustration and their attempts to define these easy ways in which to grant legislative authority. The straightforward way is not easy. On the other hand, I think the responsibility of the members in this chamber, and of Your Honour in the chair, is to ensure that proper procedures are followed, and that we do not simply turn a blind eye to what are inappropriate procedures because they are easy and because the items dealt with are not particularly offensive.
I submit that the votes I have just recited to the Chair are, in fact, all out of order, and I respectfully suggest that you so rule, Madam Speaker.
March 24, 1981


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, 1 respect the concern of the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) to ensure that the sanctity of parliamentary procedures is observed. I can assure you, Madam Speaker, and this House, that there is nothing in Supplementary Estimates (C), which has been tabled by the government, which in any way departs from well-established precedent with respect to all the items to which the hon. member has made reference.
The first point I would like to make-and it is one that all hon. members should bear in mind-is that an appropriation act is an act of Parliament. It seems to me that in the course of his remarks the hon. member has ignored that very fundamental principle.
Beginning with the first item raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre, namely, Vote 5c of Energy, Mines and Resources on page 24 of Suplementary Estimates (C), I would point out to the House and to the hon. member that the definition of any appropriation item is that it is an authority to expend moneys for its purpose, specifically a purpose as set forth in the estimates. Clearly, if one looks at the language of Vote 5c it is apparent that it is a proper appropriation within the meaning of that definition. It establishes an authority to expend money, as the hon. member has pointed out, up to a fixed amount of $1.7 billion, for a very specific purpose, namely, the acquisition of Petrofina by Petro-Canada. Therefore, it is not at all correct to maintain, as does the hon. member for Calgary Centre, that this account will in any way be outside the estimates procedure. To effect any change in the upward expenditure limit would require a further authority, and it would have to be obtained through the estimates or some other legislative authority.
Beyond that, the hon. member is under the mistaken impression, apparently, that this fund which is being established by Vote 5c to which I have made reference and which is found at page 24 of the Supplementary Estimates, is somehow outside the Consolidated Revenue Fund. Indeed, this is merely an account within the Consolidated Revenue Fund. It will be established in the manner described in the vote. It is clear from an accounting point of view that the levies will be gathered in the fund and accounted for in respect of the accounts of Canada as part of the Consolidated Revenue Fund. What is particularly significant is that there is no attempt in any way to change any existing legislation, as suggested by the hon. member. Every appropriation item is clearly a legislative item; every vote in the estimates is a legislative item. There is no attempt here to amend existing legislation.
I can assure you, Madam Speaker, that the well-established precedents which are followed by the government and by Treasury Board in preparing estimates is to ensure that no items are to have that effect. In that regard, it might he helpful to the House, in terms of this particular item and the other items with which I will deal in a moment, to outline the circumstances in which one dollar votes are, in fact, used and will, in fact, continue to be used, and also to deal specifically
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
with some situations where one dollar votes are inappropriate and are not used.
First, one dollar votes will be used in the following cases: the transfer of budgetary funds between votes and programs of the same department. This is to provide operating flexibility consistent with the accountability of heads of departments and agencies.
The second is in the area of new and increased grants, since parliamentary authority is required for new and increased grants even when funds are available within the vote. That, of course, requires a one dollar item.
The third is in the deletion of debts, which is a point to which the hon. member has made reference at some length, specifically with respect to the deletion of debts which appear in Supplementary Estimates (C). The Financial Administration Act, as the hon. member points out, requires that the deletion of operating debts in excess of $5,000 be approved by Parliament although no additional funds may be required. Hence, the deletion of debts is a proper application of the estimates procedures.
The amendment of previous appropriation acts is a fourth area where one dollar votes are used, and this is to effect changes to previous votes authorized through appropriation acts. One example which comes to mind would be increasing the limits of revolving funds.
Finally, there is a general miscellaneous category to provide financially-oriented authority in instances where separate legislation would not appear to be warranted. This is to authorize guarantees or to deem an individual to come within the ambit of existing legislation.
I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that every single item to which the hon. member for Calgary Centre has made reference, that is to say with respect to guarantees in the cases of both de Havilland and the IDA, clearly falls within existing authorities. With respect to deletion of debts, again this clearly is within accepted practice for which there are many precedents.
However, I would like to complete my comments on this particular point, which is the use of one dollar items, by citing some instances where the government does not consider one dollar items to be appropriate. The first case is the transfer of budgetary funds between departments and agencies. This is not a concern with operating flexibility. It would be acceptable if there was a related transfer of a function between departments and agencies, but in the absence of the transfer of such a function, that kind of transfer is not acceptable.
The second case is the transfer of non-budgetary funds. This is because of the specific nature of the non-budgetary vote. 1 notice that the hon. member for Calgary Centre is not listening and, perhaps, I should send him a note on this aspect afterwards so that he will clearly understand the practices of the Treasury Board and of the government, which we submit are completely in accordance with precedents and the law.
Finally, the point to which the hon. member makes reference, one on which we would have agreement, is that there can

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
be no amendment of existing legislation other than an appropriation act, since the relevant act itself would normally be amended.
1 believe in the course of these comments 1 have covered the specific objections raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre and the specific definitions which clearly fall within established precedent, a practice which has been carried on for many years. The guarantees the hon. member referred to are, of course, ones with respect to de Havilland and are within the program of the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce and the IT&C votes. Industry, Trade and Commerce votes do require parliamentary approval, as do other votes. In the past this has always been obtained through appropriation acts in this House. So I submit that in all these items we are following precedent and the law.
I would like briefly to re-emphasize the importance with respect to vote 5c, which was the first item raised by the hon. member. It is a normal appropriation item in every sense of the word since it merely establishes an authority to spend a specific amount of money for a clearly specified purpose. Second, it is obviously not an attempt to legislate through the estimates, since it contemplates no amendment to existing legislation; it is simply an expenditure item.
So far as the income side of that equation is concerned, the levy itself will be authorized by legislation in this House, and hon. members will have full opportunity to debate that particular provision in committee and in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order, which really relates to the rights and responsibilities of Members of Parliament to examine the spending plans of the government. It is a pleasure to follow the speech of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston).
It is important to begin by pointing out to you, Madam Speaker, that in our normal daily lives, the fact that we have done a certain thing before, whether it is illegal or immoral, is no justification for continuing to do it in the future. The point of order raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) requires every consideration, and the previous practice of the government should not be taken into consideration in your ruling.
I want to broaden the issue raised by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. It is incumbent upon all hon. Members of Parliament to take responsibility for examination of the government spending plans very seriously. The Standing Orders of the House of Commons should be-perhaps they are not- clearly phrased so that we, as elected representatives of the people, responsible for trying to keep taxes down, can undertake that responsibility.
Madam Speaker, I believe that one of the unfortunate consequences of your assuming the Chair of this House is that sometimes you are not totally aware of what happens to those
of us who carry on the daily business of the House in relation to its standing committees. However, my desire to broaden this question is related to one of the Standing Orders of the House, in particular Standing Order 58(15). As it is directly relevant to the arguments I wish to make, I would like to read it:
Supplementary estimates shall be referred to a standing committee or committees immediately they are presented in the House. Each such committee shall consider and shall report, or shall be deemed to have reported, the same back to the House not later than three sitting days before the final sitting or the last allotted day in the current period.
I would assume that the terms of that Standing Order must be met or the estimates cannot be passed by the House of Commons. We are now reaching the end of the supply period.
I can speak of my own personal experience. In that context, I want to re-emphasize the words "each such committee shall consider". What they shall consider in this context is the supplementary estimates. Madam Speaker, you are well aware of the fact that the standing committees of the House of Commons are controlled by the chairman and the vice-chairman who, in almost all instances, are members of the governing party from which comes the majority membership.
I was appointed by the leader of my party to be the manpower critic in this House of Commons. Part of that responsibility is to sit as a member of the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration. When I examined the supplementary estimates, I found four pages devoted to a revision of estimates for Employment and Immigration, and two relating to the Department of Labour. It is the responsibility of the standing committee to consider those estimates, but it cannot consider the spending plans of the government unless the chairman calls a meeting. From personal experience, I can say that the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration has not called a meeting to consider the supplementary estimates of the Department of Employment and Immigration and the Department of Labour. I cannot indicate whether the same situation exists with respect to other standing committees of the House.
When I look through the supplementary estimates, I see that the Department of Employment and Immigration wants to change Vote lc to move some $2,621,999, which I presume is a saving, from one vote to another. I cannot tell the House with accuracy whether that is the intent and purpose of that vote because the standing committee has not met to consider this supplementary estimate. I suggest that it would therefore be illegal for this House to pass this supplementary estimate.
I draw your attention to Vote 5c contained in the administrative part of the supplementary estimates for employment and immigration. Again, the department wants to transfer the sum of $5,535,999 from one appropriation to another. Once more it appears that there is a saving, but in fact the government wants to spend the money elsewhere. I cannot say whether this is the case because the Standing Committee on Labour, Manpower and Immigration has not yet met to consider the supplementary estimates. I think you will agree, Madam Speaker, when the government controls the chairmanship and the vice-chairmanship and has the largest part of the voting membership, that if the government is truly serious about its
March 24, 1981

supplementary estimates, it has the responsibility to call the standing committee and give it an opportunity to examine the spending plans of the government.
I also draw attention to Vote 20c found under employment and immigration, which wants to transfer the expenditure of $686,999 from one vote to another. Again I suggest that some money is saved, but the government still wants to spend it. However, I cannot give a definitive statement because a standing committee has never been called and has not had an opportunity to consider the supplementary estimates.
Vote 25c is a very large one dealing with immigration. It transfers $18,304,999 from employment and immigration, vote 15, to be used for another purpose, and the government is doing it under the guise of a one dollar supplementary estimate. Again, I cannot say whether this move is wise because the chairman of the standing committee, the vice-chairman and the majority of the voting members are members of the government party and they have not given the opposition an opportunity to consider the supplementary estimates of this department.
If I turn to the Department of Labour, I find a similar pattern. Vote lc is a supplementary estimate of $105,000; vote 5c is for $370,000. This is a statutory payment increase of $1,500,000, for a total change of $1,975,000. I am embarrassed to be standing in this House not able to say whether that is a wise expenditure decision or not, because the chairman and vice-chairman of that committee are members of the governing party, the majority of committee members are members of the governing party, and they have not called a meeting or given the opposition an opportunity to examine the wisdom of these spending estimates.
1 suggest that the protection of members of this House, on behalf of the constituents they represent, lies in Standing Order 58(15), which clearly provides that no supplementary estimate can be passed by this House without at least the condition being met that the standing committee of the House be given the opportunity to consider it and to ask questions of the minister and his officials about the planned expenditure.
1 have just received a note from the lobby, Madam Speaker, stating that members who sit on the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works have been similarly treated by the government. Therefore, so far as the estimates which relate to the functioning of the Department of Public Works are concerned, if you rule as I think you must on the point that I raised, then it would not be appropriate for this House to pass the estimates of that department either.
The two departments whose estimates I had the obligation to examine in committee, if that committee had been called, dealt with taxpayers' money in excess of $35 million. That figure is not taken from the main estimates, which run into hundreds of millions of dollars, but from the supplementary estimates. The government chooses to spend some $35 million, money that it was saving but now wants to spend in some other fashion. It chooses to do so in a manner which does not allow
Point of Order-Mr. Andre
me to question the wisdom of that spending on behalf of my constituents.
I have been informed by a voice in the chamber that the Standing Committee on Communications and Culture has not met either. I therefore suggest that any supplementary estimates relating to the functioning of that committee must also be found ineligible to be passed by this chamber, based on Standing Order 58(15) which requires that members of Parliament be given the opportunity to consider supplementary estimates.
I would encourage you, Madam Speaker, to inquire from the Clerk of the House whether the three situations that I have brought to your attention are the only situations of that kind or whether there are others.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vanvouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, I want to intervene briefly at this point. I will not repeat the very sage and cogent arguments made by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre). The hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) covered some points that I had intended to make so I shall deal with one or two that have been missed, particularly with regard to the Department of Agriculture's Supplementary Estimates (C) at page 10. There is a suggestion that the gross program supplement of $62,803,000 should be reduced by funds transferred to other votes. In other words, we are being asked to approve a net amount of $58,613,000 instead of the gross expenditure of $62,803,000. This involves the principle referred to earlier of transferring credits from one area to another when approval has not been given for the gross expenditure requested.
On pages 32 and 34 the estimates of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources suggest that Eldorado Nuclear Limited, under a $1 vote, be authorized to increase its borrowing limits from $130 million to $280 million. This is an increase of $150 million under the guise of a $1 vote. This will increase the debts of the Government of Canada by that amount in the manner referred to by the hon. member for Calgary Centre. The normal procedure is to pass a specific bill for borrowing or for increases in government debt of this kind.
There is an item on page 32 which I do not fully understand. It purports to be a transfer of title by the minister to Eldorado Nuclear Limited in the uranium stockpiles recorded in the accounts of Canada at a value of $76 million. In other words, under a $1 vote the minister would be able to turn over $76 million to Eldorado Nuclear Limited.
Page 34 deals with the Department of the Environment and shows the transfer of $2,371,000 from a different vote to vote 5c under the guise of a $1 item.
I think you have had enough examples, Madam Speaker, and I do not need to go on; the point has been well made. I support the comments of my two colleagues from Calgary and ask that you declare this procedure to be beyond the powers of the government.


Madam Speaker:: Far from being a new matter, this is one which has been brought before the House from time to time.
8564______________________________________COMMON:
Order Paper Questions
There are several precedents set and rulings given by my predecessors which deal with this matter. I would have to look into the arguments and the nature of the objections brought forward by hon. members, so I shall take the question under advisement and rule upon it later.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, at the request of many hon. members and pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), I have the honour, in the name of the Minister of Justice, to table a document entitled "The role of the United Kingdom in the amendment of the Canadian Constitution."


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,976, 2,062, 2,063, 2,064, 2,065 and 2,152.
EBATES			1 March 24, 1981		f' "


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1 and 2.					
ss than $20.00 per month	Retired RCMP Personnel 0	Widows 3	;Y$ 20.00	to	$ 29.99 per month	0	4	30.00	to	39.99 per month	0	l	fix '40.00	to	49.99 per month	0	2	mm-50.00	to	59.99 per month	1	6	60.00	to	69.99 per month	2	3	70.00	to	79.99 per month	3	2	80.00	to	89.99 per month	1	9	.90.00	to	99.99 per month	1	7	'."7100.00	to	149.99 per month	28	44	150.00	to	199.99 per month	90	39	*200.00	to	249.99 per month	160	56	250.00	to	299.99 per month	182	59	.7300.00	to	399.99 per month	429	88	*n,:.- * :400.00	to	499.99 per month	418	67	500.00	to	599.99 per month	430	46	600.00	to	699.99 per month	440	22	700.00	to	799.99 per month	503	7	800.00	to	899.99 per month	279	6	900.00	to	999.99 per month	171	2	1,000.00	to	1,499.99 per month	294	12	1,500.00	per	month and over	197	0	Province	Retired RCMP Personnel	Widows	
3.
Newfoundland
Prince Edward Island
Nova Scotia
New Brunswick
Quebec
Ontario
Manitoba
Saskatchewan
Alberta
British Columbia Yukon
Northwest Territories Outside Canada
25
127
781
192
1,063
30
15
26
22
18
63
1
2 6


[Stage Direction]
4. There are 216 orphans of RCMP personnel being paid pensions. The average amount is $69.12 per month.
Mr. Knowles: 1.	How many retired Royal Canadian Mounted Police personnel are receiving
pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the following brackets (a) less than $20.00 per month (b) $20.00	to	$29.99	per	month (c) $30.00 to $39.99 permonth (d) $40.00 to $49.99	per	month	(e)	$50.00 to $59.99 per month (f)$60.00 to $69.99 per month (g) $70.00 to $79.99 per month (h) $80.00 to $89.99 per month (*) $90.00 to $99.99 per month (j) $100.00 to $149.99 per month (k) $150.00 to $199.99 per month (I) $200.00 to $249.99 per month (m) $250.00 to $299.99 per month (n) $300.00 to $399.99 per month (o) $400.00 to $499.99 per month (p) $500.00 to $599.99	per	month	(q)	$600.00 to $699.99 per month (r)$700.00 to $799.99 per month	(s)	$800.00 to	$899.99 per month (t) $900.00 to
$999.99 per month (u) $1,000.00 to $1,499.99 per month (v) $1,500.00 per month and over?
2.	How many widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel are receiving pensions, including their basic pensions and any supplement or supplements added thereto, of amounts within each of the brackets indicated in the above question?
3.	What is the number of retired RCMP personnel and also the number of widows of RCMP personnel or of retired RCMP personnel presently residing in each province?
4.	In respect of how many orphans of RCMP personnel are pensions being paid and what is the average amount thereof?
STE-ANNE-DE-BELLEVUE, QUE.-MUNICIPAL GRANT	*

Question No. 2,062-Mr. Herbert:	I
What is the estimated amount that is to be paid in 1981 to the town of * Ste-Anne-dc-Bellevue, Quebec, under the Municipal Grants Program'.'	H


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: 


[Stage Direction]
000 is the estimated amount to be paid in 1981 to the town of H Ste-Anne-de-Bellevue, Quebec under the Municipal	Grants H
Program.	f||
SENNEVILLE, QUE.-MUNICIPAL GRANT	H

Question No. 2,063-Mr. Herbert:	B
What is the estimated amount that is to be paid in 1981 to the town of B Senneville, Quebec, under the Municipal Grants Program?	|H
Paul James Cosgrove: $28,870 is the estimated amount to be paid in 1981 to the H town of Senneville, Quebec, under the Municipal Grants H Program.	H

March 24, 1981


Mr. Herbert: What is the estimated amount that is to be paid in 1981 to the municipality of Stc-Madeleine-de-Rigaud, Quebec, under the Municipal Grants Program?


Paul James Cosgrove: $72,247 is the estimated amount to be paid in 1981 to the municipality of Ste-Madeleine-de-Rigaud, Quebec, under the Municipal Grants Program.


Mr. Herbert: What amount was given in 1980 under the Municipal Grants Act to the town of Dorion for the (a) post office building (b) employment office building and what are the estimated grants for 1981?


Paul James Cosgrove: In 1980, under the Municipal Grants Act, the town of
Dorion received for:
(a)	post office building	$7,663(b)	employment office building	$2,166
The estimated grants for 1981 are:
(a)	post office building	$9,475(b)	employment office building	$2,690


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,152^-Mr. Herbert:
1.	Have any scientific, cultural or technical exchange agreements been signed with China in the past three years?
2.	Did Chinese government delegations, during this period, visit Canada to discuss engineering, educational and medical subjects and, if so, does the government send representatives to such discussion sessions?
Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: 1. The Canadian government has signed no scientific, cultural or technical exchange agreements with the People's Republic of China during the past three years nor are there any at present under active consideration.
2. A number of official government delegations from the People's Republic of China have visited Canada during the past three years to discuss a broad variety of subjects in such areas as engineering, education and medicine. When Chinese delegations visit Canada at the invitation of Canadian government departments, representatives of the latter host the visitors throughout their stay and are usually the primary interlocutors. They also normally accompany the delegations on calls on private industry. On the other hand, when Chinese delegations are invited by private industry or other levels of government, the federal government ordinarily plays a facilita-tive role but only on occasion attends these meetings.
Order Paper Questions
Below is a list of official government delegations from China arranged chronologically. Each entry is followed in parenthesis by the host organization.
1978 Sept.
Sept./Oct.
Sept./Oct.
Oct.
Oct.
Apr./May Apr./May
1980 May
May
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Aug.
Oct.
Oct.
1981 Jan.


David Michael Collenette: 1 ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: The questions enumerated by the parliamentary secretary have been answered. Shall the remaining questions stand?


Mr. Beatty:: Madam Speaker, I want to bring two questions to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. The first is question No. 1,439 dated July 11; the second is question No. 1,450 dated July 16. These questions deal with the government's advertising budgets for the last several years. They ask about the government's advertising plans during the Quebec referendum as well as contracts given to various advertising agencies in the country. They also inquire whether purchases have been made in the name of one government organization with the intention of turning space and time over to other government organizations.
Harbour Facilities and Equipment Mission (DOT)
Delegation to attend the International Electricity Conference in Ottawa (EMR)
Gas Pipeline Survey Delegation (EMR)
Satellite Mission (ITC)
Vice-Minister of Education (EA)
Higher Education Study Group (CIDA/UNESCO)
Vice-Minister, Second Ministry of Machine Building-Nuclear Energy and Hydroelectricity Delegation (AECL)
Chinese W.H.O. Fellows to McGill and McMaster Universities (HWC)
Four-Member Chinese Delegation from the Ministry of Public Health (HWC)
Atomic Frequency Delegation (NRC)
Steel Engineering Delegation (NRC)
Three-Member Religious Studies Delegation from the Chinese Academy of Social Sciences (University of Montreal)
Two-Member Delegation from the Chengdu Blood Research Institute (Canadian Red Cross Society)
Two-Member Delegation from the Research Institute of Petroleum Processing (NRC)
Three-Member Delegation from the Xian Institute of Metallurgy and Construction Engineering (University of Alberta)
Education Delegation to the Province of Quebec (Quebec Government)
Two-Member Delegation from the Peking Blood Transfusion Research Institute (Canadian Red Cross Society)
8566

March 24, 1981
Adjournment Motion
When you consider that the first question I asked was about the government's total advertising budget for the fiscal year 1979-80 and the proposed budget for the fiscal year 1980-81 and that the estimates have already been tabled for fiscal year 1981-82, it raises questions about the government's seriousness in dealing with these issues. We will be into a new fiscal year before 1 learn about the advertising budget of two years ago.
The first part of question No. 1,450 asks the government to go back in time and give information about its advertising budget, and it may be the case that the government feels it is not possible to give that information or that it would be too costly to do so. What the government should be doing is simply to say so in a direct way as part of an order for return or as part of a response to this question.
I think the other elements of the two questions asked are fairly easily answerable and that the House is entitled to an answer to them. I would appreciate the parliamentary secretary giving some priority to answering these questions, which have stood on the Order Paper for more than half a year.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I take note of the suggestion made by my colleague opposite. I want to assure him sincerely that the government is not dragging its feet in answering these questions. I have been pursuing the matter quite diligently. We have a number of the answers, but there are five or six pieces of information required to complete the picture, so to speak. As soon as we have the whole picture, we will table the answers in the House.
1 should inform the hon. member that we did answer a series of questions asked by his colleague, the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens). I believe No. 1,740 was answered and a few more after that in that series. That was a few weeks ago. The answers dealt with this question but on singular issues involving singular departments.
We have also answered questions about the media-buying contract, as it is known. This clearly illustrates that we are not trying to hide anything. We are certainly committed to getting these answers before the House. 1 realize there has been some press speculation about delay in answering these two questions, but 1 can assure you, Madam Speaker, and all other members that we shall be answering these questions soon.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: 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
Victoria (Mr. McKinnon)-Royal Canadian Mounted Police-Reported removal of "E" Division from Victoria, B.C.; the hon. member for York-Sunbury (Mr. Howie)- Energy-New Brunswick oil shales development; the hon. member for Winnipeg-Birds Hill (Mr. Blaikie)-Health care-Request for legislation to ban extra billing by doctors.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
On the order: Government Notices of Motions:
March 19, 1981-The President of the Privy Council:
THAT WHEREAS the Prime Minister tabled in the House of Commons on October 6, 1980 a document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen Respecting the Constitution of Canada";
AND WHEREAS the motion to refer the said document to a Special Joint Committee of the House and Senate was debated in the House on 11 days between October 6 and October 23, 1980, allowing some 78 members to speak;
AND WHEREAS the Joint Committee, on which some 132 members of this House served, held 106 meetings, sat for 267 hours, received over 1,000 written submissions and heard testimony from 95 groups and 5 individuals;
AND WHEREAS the Joint Committee, having had its reporting date extended twice, reported on February 13, 1981 with the recommendation that the government introduce a motion for the presentation of the Address as modified by the committee;
AND WHEREAS the motion of the Minister of Justice implementing the Joint Committee's recommendation was moved on February 17, 1981;
AND WHEREAS the honourable member for Provencher moved an amendment to that motion on February 17, 1981;
AND WHEREAS the said amendment has been debated by this House for some five weeks, with the result that as of March 18, 1981 there have been 52 speakers on behalf of the official opposition, 15 speakers on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and 31 speakers on behalf of the government;
THEREFORE until the motion of the Minister of Justice for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada and any amendments thereto have been finally disposed of. Standing Order 6(1) and Standing Order 40 shall be suspended and, notwithstanding any other Standing Order, Private Members' Business shall be suspended, and the House shall sit from
10.00	o'clock a.m. to 1.00 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays for the consideration of government business; and Standing Order 6(3) shall be read as if it said "At 11.59 o'clock p.m. on Mondays, Tuesdays and Thursdays, at
10.00	o'clock p.m. on Wednesday and at 7.00 o'clock p.m. on Fridays, Mr. Speaker shall adjourn the House until the next sitting day."
AND during debate on the said motion of the Minister of Justice and any amendments and sub-amendments proposed thereto,
(a)	notwithstanding Standing Order 31(1) no member shall speak for more than 20 minutes;
(b)	when no member rises in his place to participate in the debate, or at 15 minutes before the time of adjournment provided for by this order on the second day during which the motion of the Minister of Justice or any amendments and subamendments proposed thereto have been under consideration following the adoption of this motion-whichever occurs first-the Speaker shall interrupt the proceedings and put forthwith every question necessary to dispose of any amendments and subamendments then under consideration;
(c)	if, at the time provided for in paragraph (6) there is no amendment or subamendment under consideration, the Speaker shall put every question
March 24, 198!
[Stage Direction]
necessary to dispose of the main motion; otherwise, after the amendment and any subamendment have been disposed of, the debate on the main motion may be resumed;
(d)	at 15 minutes before the time of adjournment on the second sitting day following the resumption of the debate on the motion of the Minister of Justice pursuant to paragraph (c), the Speaker shall put every question necessary to dispose of the motion, including any amendments and subamendments proposed thereto; and
(?) any member who, not having spoken in the debate either on the main motion or on an amendment or subamendment may at any time before the fulfilment of the conditions set out in paragraph (b) deliver to the Clerk a written speech relevant to the debate of not more than about 3,000 words, which will be printed as an appendix to the House of Commons Debates on the day following the conclusion of the debate.
Madam Speaker:: I recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) on a point of order.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: 1 recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, it is customary to recognize first the official opposition. What is happening today?


Madam Speaker:: I am terribly sorry. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre gave me notice yesterday that he would rise on a point of order at this time. I know it is customary that 1 recognize a member from the opposition first, and I usually do. However, when I do get notice I try to put things in the order in which 1 receive them. In this particular case, 1 received notice yesterday from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He told me precisely what his point of order would be. Subsequently, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) gave me oral notice of a point of order, but his was of a general nature. Therefore, 1 think it is fair at this point today to recognize the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate the point normally. The normal courtesies and traditions have it that members of the official opposition are usually recognized first.
I am aware that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) gave you notice, Madam Speaker. If the matter were a question of privilege, then I think that notice would have had some validity; but it is not a question of privilege and the notice is not critical in terms of giving recognition first to any member on a point of order. 1 know of no practice which exists in this regard. As the House leader for the opposition, 1 claim the right, if I may do so, in the normal traditions and passage of events, to be recognized first. That is the position I take.
I do not think we should depart from the normal practices of the House. I am aware of the notice that was filed. I indicated to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and I am not catching him by surprise-that 1 intended to exercise the right that I feel, by tradition in this House, falls upon Her Majesty's loyal opposition and upon the official opposition. 1 happen to occupy the position of opposition House leader. It is
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
a position, for better or for worse, which is recognized in the House of Commons Act.
I could go on for some time because, with respect, Madam Speaker, 1 think I do have the right to advance an argument. It may well be the argument I would advance would encompass part of the argument that will be made by my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, because he was quite precise about the argument he will be dealing with and he will have his opportunity in the normal course. Therefore, I claim the normal courtesy in this matter.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, 1 simply want to say it is true that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) told me he would try to get ahead of me on this matter. 1 told him that I could not stop him from trying to do so, but that I would claim my right, having given notice yesterday.


Erik Nielsen: Notice is not necessary.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I think perhaps I shall leave that determination to the Chair. Of course, if hon. members are not satisfied with the person on whom the Speaker has called, they can move a motion under Standing Order 29.


Madam Speaker:: 1 recognize the arguments which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has just put forward. It is true that members of Her Majesty's loyal opposition have certain privileges in this House, but I am not sure they apply in this circumstance.
It is true that, as a matter of courtesy, members of the opposition are usually recognized first on points of order which deal with government business. However, in this particular circumstance it seems to me that 1 owe the courtesy to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre because he gave me notice of it yesterday.
I am just trying to be as courteous and as fair as it is possible to be. The same situation occurs when members rise during question period. Sometimes five members rise at the same time and they have to be put in a certain order. But if one rises before the other, the first one to rise is usually recognized. The hon. member has said, quite rightly, that it is a matter of courtesy. I accept that as being a matter of courtesy, but this time 1 think I owe the courtesy to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, and I will recognize him.
I see the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is rising.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, with respect, it is not a matter of courtesy; it is a matter of long-standing usage, custom and practice in this House to recognize the opposition House leader. I, for one, resent that kind of departure from our customary practices. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton be now heard.


Madam Speaker:: Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: All those in favour of the motion will please say yea.

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


Madam Speaker:: All those opposed will please say nay.


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


Madam Speaker:: In my opinion, the nays have it.
And more than five members having risen:


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost.
Motion (Mr. Nielsen) negatived.


Madam Speaker:: Therefore, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has the floor.
It being six o'clock, 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m. this evening.
At 6.11 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is interesting the new things that can happen to one no matter how long he stays around this place. This is the first time 1 have had 151 members of the House vote to hear me speak.


Mr. Herbert:: Don't abuse it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: At any rate, Madam Speaker, I rise to press the point of order of which I gave you notice yesterday, it has to do with the final paragraph in the proposed motion on today's Order Paper in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard). I will not take the time to read that final paragraph for, as members know, it is the one in which provision is made for members not to speak in the rest of the debate on the constitutional package but yet to have their speeches printed in Hansard.
March 24, 1981

My purpose now, and 1 hope I can stick with it, is not to argue the merits of that proposal-I can do that later if Your Honour does not find it out of order-but rather to state the reasons I believe it should not be permitted to remain in the motion before us.
As I indicated yesterday, Citation 311 of Beauchesne's fifth edition reads as follows:
Under no circumstances-
That is positive: "under no circumstances".
-may a member merely table a speech for printing in Hansard. With minor exceptions, what appears in the record of debates has actually been spoken in the House. On rare occasions a member may receive the consent of the House to have printed as part of his speech long lists, statistics or similar material. Such consent should rarely be asked for and is rarely granted. The House may also give its consent to have documents, or exchanges of letters, printed as a formal appendix to Hansard for the use and information of members.
As I said, Madam Speaker, the first sentence of that citation is absolute: "Under no circumstances may a member merely table a speech for printing in Hansard." Since I gave you notice of this point yesterday, that has provided time for you and those who assist you to study the matter. 1 suppose the first response you are inclined to make is that what 1 have quoted is only a citation in Beauchesne but is not a Standing Order as such.
With respect to that possible answer may I draw Your Honour's attention to an interesting paragraph in the first few pages of Beauchesne's fifth edition. On page 5, the section headed "Precedent and Tradition" reads:
Behind the written rules and filling in the gaps, lies the vast quantity of precedent. Although the House normally assumes that a ruling is binding for the future. Speakers have used the flexibility available to them to develop procedure regardless of conflicting precedents in the past.
A little further along in that same paragraph it says:
It is impossible to estimate the extent of this body of traditional parliamentary law. In Canada, not only is there more than a century of native practice, but also Standing Order 1 adopts for Canada all the centuries of tradition (where applicable) of the United Kingdom House of Commons. Custom and precedent are basic to the parliamentary system.
In a moment, Your Honour, I shall with great pleasure refer to things that happened this very day which underline the fact that we are governed in this place not just by the precise rules set out in our Standing Orders, but by custom, precedent and tradition.
Going back to some of the earlier parts of the chapter just referred to, 1 would draw your attention to the fact that there is provision for rules to be passed by a simple majority, to be altered or added to and so on, but note this:
By custom, changes in the Standing Orders are generally made after study and a recommendation by the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization.
Then later in that same paragraph are these words:
Sessional and special orders are normally moved by the government after consultation with the opposition parties.
Then at the bottom of page 6 there is the heading "Unanimous Consent" under which it is pointed out that many of our rules are set aside. We do it every day, we set aside this rule
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
and that by unanimous consent. However, it is also clear, when you put these things all together, that you cannot change a rule except in one or the other of two ways: either by the rule being brought before the House, usually on a report of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization; or for sessional or special purposes by the government after consultation with the House leaders of the other parties.
Now, I point out that what we have in this paragraph (e) is something which changes the rules in the sense that it changes a century-old tradition and precedent. There has been no consideration by the committee of this House on changing the rule, and if it is argued that it is just a sessional or special order applying only to this debate, the rule that before this is done there should be consultation with the representatives of the other parties has not been kept. Therefore, Madam Speaker, this proposal before us that permits speeches to be printed in Hansard without their having been delivered in the House, has been brought forward contrary to the principles and practices of the House.
I did not arrange, Madam Speaker, for today's business to take the turn it has, but I point out that considerable time was spent on a question of privilege. Your Honour had to read from Beauchesne's in support of your position when you sought to rule that there was no privilege concerning the Gouzenko affair. There is nothing in the Standing Orders that gives you any direction on handling a question of privilege. The only thing in the rules pertaining to questions of privilege is Standing Order 17 which tells us when they can be raised. But what you do when the matter is raised depends entirely on the precedents and traditions. As 1 say, we are governed by the customs and practices of the years. In perfect fairness, Your Honour, I felt that the Gouzenko matter was not a question of privilege and you got rid of it as quickly as you could.
We also had a point of order today regarding dollar items in the estimates. We all seemed to realize that this was a genuine point of order, but there is nothing in the Standing Orders that tells you that. You were acting on the basis of custom, tradition and precedent.
This afternoon, when the bells were ringing for some considerable time, some of my colleagues and members of other parties as well came to me and asked how long those bells were going to ring. I said: Until the Whips come in. A couple of members picked up the rule book and said: Stanley, where is the Standing Order? I said it is not in the Standing Orders at all, it is in the citations, part of the tradition and practice. At one point this afternoon things looked a little rough when one of the members was asserting himself and I wondered if we were going to get to that ultimate situation when the Speaker has to name a member. I point out to Your Honour that you will not find anywhere in the Standing Orders a reference to the naming of a member. It is in the citation, the precedents, the traditions; that is the basis on which you act.
Almost every day, certainly more than once every week, the Chair has to deal with what it calls unparliamentary language. Try to find a reference to that in the Standing Orders. There is none. You will find that the Speaker must maintain order and

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
decorum, but if you want to look up phrases that are unparliamentary you have to go to the citations in Beauchesne or other books. In other words, our practices are governed more by the practices of the past, by the traditions, the things that have been found to work, than they are by the precise Standing Orders.
I suggest, Madam Speaker, that Hansard being a document in which only those speeches that have been made are printed, is in that same category. For the full 100 years of Hansard in this House, that has been our tradition. The cover of Hansard says "House of Commons Debates", not "House of Commons Essays". It is not House of Commons speeches that have been prepared and handed in. It is a booklet called "House of Commons Debates".


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: I know that on many occasions there have been requests for a speech to be put in Hansard even though it had not been delivered, and 1 can yet hear Mackenzie King objecting: 1 hear St. Laurent in particular saying: Is that not an American custom that we do not want in this place? We have never done it. I say there it is, Madam Speaker, and that makes Citation 311 just as much a part of the rules of procedure of this House as are the citations regarding parliamentary language on which you have to rely, as are the citations regarding naming members, which has to be done once in awhile, as are the citations about privilege or points of order or the ringing of the bells. Indeed, though 1 have contended that we are governed by citations as much as we are by rules, I would point out that Standing Order 1 does say that:
In all cases not provided for hereafter or by sessional or other orders, the usages and customs of the House of Commons of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland as in force at the time shall be followed so far as they may be applicable to this House.
1 say that in Britain, where they have had Hansard much longer than have we, there has never been a deviation from the rule that the only speeches printed in Hansard are those that were delivered. As a matter of fact, they do not even permit the appendices and things like that which we add at the back of our copies of Hansard. They are as strict as citation 311 says, that under no circumstances may speeches which have not been delivered be put into Hansard.
I contend that this is a violation of a tradition of 100 years in this House, and longer in Britain. I maintain that it is just as much a part of our rules as are the things that had to be contended with today: privilege, points of order, ringing of the bells and unparliamentary language. All of these things are governed by the citations and by the practices, and we should stay with them. The same is true about the printing of speeches.
1 think 1 have fairly well kept my promise not to get into the merits of the issue as to whether or not it is a good idea. 1 am sticking to this as a point of order. I believe Your Honour
should rule that paragraph (e) at the end of this motion, which would permit speeches to be handed in and printed in Hansard, is out of order. As I say, it is not an attempt to change the rules on a permanent basis. Neither is it something that has been put there as a sessional order because there has been consultation with the other parties-there has been no such consultation.
I note in respect of other things that are being set aside for the purposes of this motion that there is a reference to orders that need to be changed, there is the word "notwithstanding" and so on. We find references to Standing Order 6(1) and Standing Order 40; somewhere else there is the word "notwithstanding", and so forth. But when it comes to this departure from a century's practice, there is not even the word "notwithstanding". There is not any suggestion that this change in the rules is one to which the House should consent.
Therefore, I contend that we should not have to debate this when we get to the motion. This is why I sought to raise the point of order right away, even before Your Honour put the motion. 1 contend that Your Honour should rule paragraph (e) out of order and that it should be stricken from the motion now before the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is my neighbour and co-conspirator in the ownership of a snowblower. Sometimes he is a passenger in my car on the way to work, and sometimes 1 am a passenger in his car going home. Members of this House should know that despite that, from time to time we have differences of opinion. We are, nonetheless, neighbours and friends. I also have occasion to agree with him from time to time. As I indicated to him privately earlier in the day, I intend to argue the point he has made, but I also told him that there are other aspects of this motion which are quite important from the point of view of this House.
Before I get into the merits of the argument, I want to say there is one thing that is absolutely important in respect of this question, and that is the matter of the long traditions of the House of Commons regarding the rules. It is true that before rule changes are made there is consultation in respect of those changes. It is true sometimes that consultation takes the form of private meetings where specific things are brought forward by one House leader to another, and there are debates in the House. As a result of the debates and the references therefrom matters are sent to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization. The whole House of Commons, not just the opposition House leader and not just the House leader of a third party, knows precisely what is intended by the government as a result of the speeches and the debate which occurred in the House of Commons.
In this case and with respect to this order the whole House of Commons did not know. We certainly knew of the impatience of the government. That impatience is not surprising. We knew of that, but the uncommon thing about this is that up until the announcement downstairs in this building in Room 130S not even the opposition House leader or the House
March 24, 1981

leader of the New Democratic Party knew what was happening.
1 do not go to House leaders' meetings to establish the basis for that lack of knowledge. 1 start from the House business question last Thursday, when I put the usual question to the government House leader and asked him what he intended. There was nothing about this. In violation of the traditions about which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke, and in violation of everything we have come to know about the rules of the House, the government House leader at six o'clock apparently-this is what he said, anyway-went to the Table, filed a three-page document and held a press conference. That was the first time any of us knew what was on the mind of the government House leader except, of course, that he was impatient to get on with this. He had said that publicly, and we knew that. We knew that from our discussions.
That is the situation in which we find ourselves. What is the result of what he asks this House, and now the Chair, from the point of view of this point of order, to accept? He asks the Chair to accept a violent change in the Standing Orders of this House. It is not a simple change but a violent change in the Standing Orders of this House. I think we should all understand what it is about.
The first thing he wants us to do in terms of the motion itself is to suspend private members' business. He wants to extend the hours of the sittings of the House of Commons on various days as set forth in the motion. He wants us to lose the right to debate a motion that is important and fundamental to the country, the motion which deals with the Constitution. This is not the dogfish subsidy. It is not a change in the legislation respecting the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). It is nothing like that. It is the basic Constitution of the nation, and he wants us by this order to agree to a violent change. He wants to cut out adjournment debates. That may not mean anything to hon. members of the government who do not have questions of the ministry to put in adjournment debates, except planted questions from time to time.


An hon. Member:: Sure we do.


Walter David Baker: But that right to question and that right to debate the issues happens to be important to members of the opposition and important to Parliament.
The other thing we must remember about this is that the government House leader is really saying he is not happy with the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. These are the Standing Orders that protect the rights of every member whether sitting on my side of the House or the government House leader's side of the House. They are not happy with them. These were the Standing Orders of the House which, in 1969, were pushed through the House of Commons by closure. There have been arguments about the curtailment of the rights of private members with respect to the existing Standing Orders as compared to what they used to be. That was one set of closure rules. We are living under them now, and every observer of the House of Commons, even those who do not sit
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
here in this place, thinks that the present rules are most inadequate.
The government House leader has finally decided, because of something his colleagues have said, because it is imperative to the government's plans, I suppose, or to somebody's plans that something be done by a certain date, that even these rules are not satisfactory and that the government must initiate a brand new process and deny rights, such as curtailing my right and that of other members of the House to speak about a subject that is important, thus flying in the face of 100 years of tradition. These things are not done without consultation which must go far beyond merely saying, "I want that through." The government should indicate in these consultations what it intends to do, and that did not occur.
1 do not think this House of Commons began yesterday. I do not think the traditions of this House began yesterday or when the procedural motion was conceived. The House of Commons is much older than even the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: It goes back hundreds of years. Its traditions, as he has said, have come from another parliament. We have melded our traditions with theirs and developed our own, but those traditions are important to the House, to the members and to the people who are represented by members. That is the issue I want to put forward by way of a preliminary statement regarding the feeling of resentment which is being felt in Parliament over the apparent use of the government of its majority to push something through and, if it cannot do that, to change the rules and to fly in the face of the traditions, customs and precedents of which the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke.
To put it bluntly, Madam Speaker, we look to you for some protection. You are the first commoner, you are elected by all members of the House. You were nominated by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), your nomination was seconded by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and every one of us was proud to support that motion. You have a unique obligation to ensure that even the things that are not mentioned in the Standing Orders, the customs and traditions of Parliament, are observed. As the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre has said-1 will expand briefly on his remarks with respect to the subparagraph on the written speeches a little later-this does fly in the face of those customs and traditions.
I will sum up briefly on the motion itself. I think it is an insult to Parliament. I say this directly to my friend, the government House leader. Aside from being an insult, and over and above the good point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-and he did make a good point-it is procedural garbage in other ways as well. I hope to be able to develop as best I can an argument on three other points which are, I believe, in error with respect to this motion.

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
I will start by saying that I hope and wish the government would reconsider the motion, not just in the light of anything one says in the House but in the light of the traditions of the House. I should like to make my points quickly to you, Madam Speaker. The first one is this. The motion itself contains factual assertions which should form part of the speeches in support of the motion rather than being contained in the motion itself. So that there should be no doubt as to what I am referring to, let me say I am referring to a series of clauses, which may be loosely described as "whereas clauses", in which there is a recitation of what purport to be facts but what in effect are arguments. My contention to you, Madam Speaker, is that those things which purport to be facts-and I use the word "purport" advisedly-are arguments and have no place in the modern day practice of the House as it has evolved. I will point to some by way of an illustration. First, there is an assertion that:
-the Prime Minister tabled in the House of Commons on October 6, 1980, a document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen Respecting the Constitution of Canada";
Second, it states:
-the motion to refer the said document to a Special Joint Committee of the House and Senate was debated in the House on 11 days between October 6 and October 23, 1980, allowing some 78 members to speak;
Then there is another assertion that:
-the Joint Committee, on which some 132 members of this House served, held 106 meetings, sat for 267 hours, received over 1,000 written submissions and heard testimony from 95 groups and five individuals;
Surely that has no place in a modern day motion, and I will argue the point. I want to give you, Madam Speaker, examples of how flagrantly the government House leader has mistreated the practice in this House.
The motion goes on to state:
-the Joint Committee, having had its reporting date extended twice, reported on February 13, 1981, with the recommendation that the government introduce a motion for the presentation of the address as modified by the committee;
It goes on to state:
-the motion of the Minister of Justice implementing the Joint Committee's recommendation was moved on February 17, 1981;
Those words have no place in a modern day motion in the House of Commons. They may have a place in a speech in the House of Commons by a member of the government, such as the government House leader or one of his supporters. They certainly do have a place there if he wants to make those assertions in explaining some factual omissions. They would also have a place in debate, but they have no place in the motion itself. The precedent for that is Citation 423 of Beau-chesne's fifth edition which reads as follows:
A motion should be neither argumentative, nor in the style of a speech, nor contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words.
This motion violates at least three of the four prohibitions in the citation. It is argumentative, it is in the style of a speech, it contains unnecessary provisions, and it may contain objectionable words if you would consider the first three points as making up the concept of objectionable words. They are not
unparliamentary, but they are objectionable in the sense that we are arguing this motion. That is the first point.
My second contention is that the wording of the motion does not properly express an expression of the House, but that the motion is presented in the form of a conclusion to the argument to which I referred a few moments ago. The fact that that is a failing or a fault in something which purports to be a motion is set forth in Citation 411 of the fifth edition of Beauchesne's, which reads:
Every matter is determined in the House of Commons upon a question put by the Speaker, on a proposition submitted by a member, and resolved either in the affirmative or negative as the case may be. This proposition, called a motion, is a proposal moved by one member-
In this case it is the government House leader.
-in accordance with certain well-established rules, that the House do something or order something to be done or express an opinion with regard to some matter.
On the face of it-and I will argue this more fully later on-this motion fails on that ground. It fails in that it does not properly express an opinion of the House but, instead, is presented in the form of a conclusion to an argument which is set forth in the paragraphs I received earlier.
Third, the motion itself in certain of its parts is self-contradictory and, therefore, the will of the house in passing the motion is not certain. The proposition in support of that, again is contained in Citation 411 in Beauchesne's fifth edition, which I read just a few moments ago and which I will not read again.
While the motion purports to operate, notwithstanding certain Standing Orders, it leaves in operation-and this becomes more important later on-the full range of custom, practice and precedent in areas not covered by these Standing Orders. This was the point made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, that there is more to the rules and the operation of the House of Commons than merely the Standing Orders. Beauchesne's is cited time and time again as a repository of the customs, traditions and precedents of the House of Commons. The Standing Orders are guidelines only. They are not exhaustive. Our customs and precedents are not all enshrined in that green book called the "Standing Orders of the House of Commons."
I wish now to deal with argument No. 1. It is that the motion contains factual assertions which should form part of the speeches in support of the motion rather than being contained in the motion itself. This concept is set out in Citation 423 of Beauchesne's.
I want to now ask you, Madam Speaker, to turn to a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Michener on Monday, January 16, 1961, where he dealt quite fully with the proposition which I placed in the first part of my argument. I would like to quote from page 1074 of Hansard for that date, about the middle of the page, where he said:
1 have come to the conclusion that this amendment is not defective because it is preceded by whereas clauses, reasoning clauses or argumentative clauses in the
March 24, 1981

form of a preamble, our practice to the contrary is too well established to be upset.
On the other hand, 1 am not satisfied that I should follow the precedent of allowing a preamble to include a lot of matter which would properly be part of the debate which would follow the motion. Therefore, without trying to split hairs at all, because I think there is a principle involved, even if the principle is only that the Speaker must do his best to draw the line somewhere between what may and what may not go in the preamble. I have come to the conclusion that the whereas clauses in this amendment are not objectionable in accordance with our practice, but that the inclusion of the eight quotations in one recital and of the two quotations in another recital are bad and should not be permitted to restore a practice which has not been followed since 1932 and only twice in our whole parliamentary history, as far as I can discover.
I remind you, Madam Speaker, that this ruling was made in 1961.
Therefore, my view is that if the amendment stopped after the figures "1960" in the second paragraph, so as to eliminate "as illustrated by the following ministerial statements" and the eight numbered paragraphs of statements then set out, and stopped again after the third recital after the words "Leader of the Opposition" so as to eliminate clauses one and two which quote further, the rest of the amendment would be admissible, according to our practice.
That is the gist of that argument.
Madam Speaker, you no doubt have had the opportunity, or will have, to compare the wording in the recitals and the "whereas clauses" which have been referred to in the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener and in the "whereas clauses" contained in the motion before us. You are nodding, Madam Speaker, that you have had a chance to look at it. I am asserting and submitting respectfully to you, Madam Speaker, that what was offensive in 1961 is equally offensive in 1981 in this motion put by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and which we are arguing tonight.
If Mr. Speaker Michener was occupying your seat tonight, Madam Speaker, he would have to come to the same conclusion as I respectfully submit you must come to with respect to this particular motion because of the similarity of the wording. As you know, Madam Speaker, in the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener there are numerous quotations and statements made. But the essence of it is that the reference in the government House leader's motion as to hours, speeches, speakers, the facts and the selection of them are basically argumentative. That was the argument put to Mr. Speaker Michener. He did not assert that you could not have a "whereas clause", he said you could not have a "whereas clause" of the very kind that is now contained in this motion being put by the President of the Privy Council.
I want you to note, Madam Speaker, and I would underscore it, what Mr. Speaker Michener said must be done in a case like this. He said:
Therefore, without trying to split hairs at all, because I think there is a principle involved, even if the principle is only that the Speaker must do his best to draw the line somewhere between what may and what may not go in the preamble.
What he is saying there is that you, Madam Speaker, are in charge of the proper practice and procedure in the House of Commons, not only to protect the rules and precedents of the House of Commons, but to protect the members of the House of Commons from abuses of the rules; and this motion, in my respectful submission, contains an abuse.
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
1 made reference to the date of Mr. Speaker Michener's ruling, being 1961. He recognized that in the preceding 20 years custom and usage had changed. The House of Commons evolves, and as it goes ahead it evolves in a positive way. We are now at a time, 20 years after the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener, and I am putting to you, Madam Speaker, that the argumentative practices have fallen out of use even more than they had prior to 1961.
1 referred to rule changes made in 1969 and what has occurred in the House of Commons since that time. Those rule changes completely changed the practice of the House of Commons in supply and ways and means motions. The practice has now moved even further away from the practice of 20 years ago. I give you the examples that there are now succinct motions on the budget, very succinct motions taken by the opposition parties on days allotted to them, on the Speech from the Throne, and the list goes on. We are now in the position, through the ordinary evolution of the rules of the House of Commons, where the argument, which the government House leader obviously put in for political purposes, is not permitted for procedural purposes. That is the difference. He can make those arguments when the merits of the motion are debated-I am not going to argue the merits of the motion tonight-but he cannot make them on procedural terms. I ask whether you, Madam Speaker, could imagine what it would be like in this House of Commons with 25 allotted days, with three budget motions, and with three throne speech amendments; particularly allotted days, if it were held that argumentative preambles would be allowed on these motions. 1 do not think there would be any busier person in the national capital than you, Madam Speaker, with respect to points of order arising out of them.
It is for very good reason it was decided that those matters should be dropped. They are dropped because they have been proven to be unnecessary and, as Mr. Speaker mentioned, are contrary to the principles that he, as Speaker-and I respectfully suggest that you, as Speaker-must uphold.
If I may repeat the argument on the second point, my proposition at that point was that in its wording the motion does not properly express an opinion of the House but, instead, is presented in the form of a conclusion to an argument. This seems to flow out of the first argument. The whole matter is presented as an argument and a conclusion rather than a proposition. I want you to note the recitals, the "whereas clauses" which 1 have mentioned, and then note the beginning of what purports to be the motion. It says: "Therefore, until the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) for an Address to Her Majesty the Queen, respecting the Constitution has been finally disposed of', etc. It contains no words which say "that this House resolves" that certain things will happen, or "it is moved that" certain things will happen. That is why the precedent in the citation which I quoted in support of it is absolutely important.

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
What purports to be a motion is really, on its wording, an opinion of the government rather than a motion of the House of Commons. Clearly, it must be moved; the House must be asked to do something definite, clear and precise, and that does not appear on the words. Therefore, the words, by themselves, are not sufficient. If the government House leader had put the words "that this House resolves", or, "it is moved that", or words asking the House to do something, then we would have more than merely a conclusion to an argument.
With respect, in the French version on the opposite page, it is even more obvious that we have a conclusion following an argument rather than a substantive motion.
For clarity, I am going to briefly repeat the third point. The motion is, in certain of its parts, self-contradictory. Therefore, the will of the House, in passing the motion, is not certain. As hon. members recall, I relied on Citation No. 311 from Beauchesne's.
I want to call attention to the provisions of Standing Order 40, which that part of the motion purports to deal with, and particularly Standing Order 40(7) which appears on page 36 of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. It says:
(7) When it is provided in any standing or special order of this House that any specified business shall be continued beyond the ordinary time of daily adjournment or that any such business shall be forthwith disposed of or concluded in any sitting, the adjournment proceedings in that sitting shall be suspended.
That is what the Standing Order says, and it is pretty clear. Apparently the government, in part of the order, wanted to somehow get rid of Standing Order 40. Its obvious intention was that the House would sit beyond the time allotted and that the private members' rights to which I have referred would be written over; but they wanted to get rid of it. If the government had meant to say there should be no adjournment debate at ten o'clock, p.m., or at midnight, or whenever, under the order which had been proposed, it simply would have allowed Standing Order 40(7) to take effect because it is already there. There was no need to deal, or purport to deal with it, at least in the wording of the government's motion.
Standing Order 40 exempts certain things, but the exemptions contained in Standing Order 40 are also exempted. We have a contradiction in terms. I do not know what it means. Nobody knows what it means. The government House leader says, "Very easy." But I am not so sure that it is quite so easy or, more importantly, that it is clear and certain.
Therefore, I respectfully submit to the Chair that at best it is a redundancy, and it is perhaps a contradiction. But in any event, it is a fatal confusion, and it ought not to be allowed to stand. If it does not stand, then I respectfully suggest there is a case that the motion itself ought not to stand.
Finally, the fourth submission I wish to make to you is that in its wording, the provision for tabling speeches directly offends the practice of this House. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre read the precedent upon which 1 rely, Citation 311 of the rules of the House. I do not think 1 have to read it again, because it is quite clear.
Citation 311 is a devastating and conclusive attack on the ridiculous proposition that this House and this institution could be served and that Parliament could function if we write our little 3,000 word essays and put them on the Order Paper or Hansard. There is not one self-respecting hon. member of the House of Commons who can stand up and do anything else but condemn what must be a warped aberration of the mind of the government House leader.
There is an hon. member down there who is shaking his head. I recognize he is shaking his own head, and we know what hon. member is shaking his head, we can hear it. He does nothing at all to detract from the force and the truth of the argument.
[ Translation]


Irénée Pelletier: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) on a point of order.


Irénée Pelletier: Madam Speaker, would the hon. member allow me a question?


Madam Speaker:: Unless the hon. member accepts this, there are no questions allowed on points of order, I would think the hon. member should continue his intervention and not receive questions at this time.


Walter David Baker: Thank you, Madam Speaker. The hon. member can keep shaking his head, and I can speak to him later outside.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Get a job on the Muppett Show.


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said that the traditions of the House of Commons are enshrined in Beauchesne's. They are not enshrined in the mind of the government House leader. They are not enshrined in the mind of my hon. friend who is shaking his head, agreeing that it would be appropriate for him, at any rate, to file his speeches. That is not the point at all.
My submission will be short. The fact is that the proposal made by the government House leader is directly contrary to the practices set out in Beauchesne, if the intent itself is specifically to exempt the proposal from the operation, custom and practices which Beauchesne dictates. Beauchesne is the repository of those customs, practices and traditions.
It is void, as well, because there is nothing in there that says, notwithstanding any Standing Order something shall be done; that is vacant; that is absent from the clause which deals with the filing of speeches. Without it, Madam Speaker, the proposition of the government House leader falls to the ground.
March 24, 1981

The last point I want to make is important. It shows that what is wrong with this motion in terms of custom, precedent, tradition, vagueness, uncertainty, violation of Beauchesne and all the other things from which it suffers-its conception and in the mind of the government House leader, in the lack of consultation with members of the House, with his colleague House leaders and with the wording as it appears on the Order Paper-is that it so violates the traditions of this House and ought not to be allowed to stand. Common decency demands that it be withdrawn. Given his anxiety to continue the debate, the government House leader should propose something which, while it is questionable in parliamentary practice, is at least within the bounds of decency. It is in that area, that final area, that this motion ought to be struck down by the Chair.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, 1 want to participate in this point of order with respect to the admissibility of the motion before us today. As a member who did not have an opportunity to participate in this debate I feel quite strongly about it and want to make sure this point of view is brought forward on behalf of those many other Members of Parliament who did not have that opportunity. This motion purports to curtail and restrict the ability of members of the House of Commons to participate in debate on a very important topic.
The basis on which I enter the debate, after listening to the presentations made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) and the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), who dealt with a wide range of objections, is to bring forward a perspective and an argument which would support the position taken by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. This motion sets an unusual precedent, one which has extraordinary implications, and one which offends the rules established in the House of Commons during the life of our country.
Twould point out to Your Honour that this motion is unique in the parliamentary history of Canada. In our parliamentary history there has never been an occasion when the government, during debate of whatever nature, has taken the course of changing the rules of the House in mid-stream. From my study of our parliamentary precedents, this seems to be the first occasion when a government has taken the Draconian measure that is now being taken, to impose a form of closure, under whatever guise or name, during the course of debate.
As my House leader pointed out, this is not a debate with respect to a minor piece of legislation; it is a debate that affects the fundamental rules of our country; a debate which is of considerable importance; it is an historic debate and I acknowledge that. It is a debate in which you, Madam Speaker, as the first commoner, must take special care to ensure that the rules of the House of Commons which allow members to participate freely, without intimidation or unnecessary exclusion are applied. It is your responsibility, Madam Speaker, to ensure that there is an opportunity for members of this House of Commons to adequately, properly and democratically debate this very important motion.
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
I should like to make one reference in this connection, Madam Speaker. As you are well aware, the rules of the House of Commons are established by the Standing Orders, by the precedents and traditions developed over the course of years, not only in this Parliament but also in the parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland as referred to in Standing Order 1.
You will know that there is no deviation allowed, unless by unanimous consent, in the method of changing the rules of procedure. In other words, it is not possible for me as a member of Parliament to stand in the course of the daily proceedings and gain the floor unless I abide by the rules. I cannot smuggle a particular motion in by standing on a point of order. The examples are many. The rules are there; they are carefully guarded and interpreted by Your Honour, and enforced by the House of Commons.
In light of that background, it is absolutely imperative that you, as Speaker of the House of Commons, look at any motion that comes before you to make sure it is fully and completely in accordance with the tradition or Standing Orders of the House. That almost goes without saying.
If I may be permitted to say so, it is doubly incumbent upon Your Honour to pay special attention to any important debate; that is the nature of politics, that is the nature of Parliament and that is the nature of the democratic system in our country.
Perhaps I can begin my presentation by referring to what I consider the least important aspect of this particular motion, an aspect referred to initially by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre speaking on behalf of the New Democratic Party. We know the position of that party on the matter. It supports the government with respect to the motion. But on the other hand, he has indicated they are opposed to the motion as being a form of closure. The member for Winnipeg North Centre has shared the bed with the government, but he now wants to put in, by virtue of this minor objection, a kind of a bundling board between himself and the government in order to maintain his chastity in respect of the position the party has taken. That is rather difficult to accomplish.
The question of the tabling of speeches is dealt with, as Your Honour will appreciate, in Citation 311 of Beauchesne. Since the full context has not been brought to Your Honour's attention, I shall read it.
Under no circumstances may a member merely table a speech for printing in Hansard.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I read it all.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: When the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre spoke, he said he heard voices, those of Mackenzie King and other eminent parliamentarians. I appreciate the fact that he hears voices. I did not hear his voice dealing with this in the same way that I shall deal with it. He and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) are roughly the same age. Yesterday the Prime Minister heard the voice of George Drew. This place is becoming a little hard for us younger folk to take. Madam Speaker. I should like to finish reading Citation 311.


David Michael Collenette: Filibuster.

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, that was the parliamentary secretary to the government House leader. I was going to raise a special question of privilege with regard to him. I do not mind him wearing a bow tie but I do not know if it is within the rules of the House of Commons that he should wear the kitchen curtains! If he will just keep quiet 1 will finish speaking on this very serious motion. I am sure he will understand or remove himself from the chamber.
On rare occasions, with minor exceptions, what appears in the record of debate has actually been spoken in the House. I do not have to point this out to you. Madam Speaker. This is the House of Commons and it is part of Parliament. What is the origin of Parliament? Does it derive from the French word parler which means "to speak", to participate, or to debate? This is a forum. This is not a congressional hall in which we come forward and table documents which purport to be speeches. There are rules of which you are well aware. The rule is that no member can do this. Occasionally one is observed doing so, more in the breach rather than-I must admit that sometimes I am subject to cheating on the rules as well-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, no.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: -but only in the first week I was here, Madam Speaker. The fact is that Members of Parliament are not allowed to read their speeches. That is the rule of the House of Commons. Members are supposed to speak from the heart, from the bosom.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I simply want to say that is Parliament. It is not a question of tabling of documents or of somehow being able to get some researcher in your office to prepare something for you as a very scholarly treatise and then put it on the record. That particular objection would make this motion itself defective. It offends against the very principle of Parliament. It offends against the principles of the House of Commons where debate takes place, where the give and take of debate goes on and where members on the government side are able to participate occasionally by heckling, which has been the extent of their participation over the course of this Parliament.
1 simply say to you, Madam Speaker, that is the nature of this House, and any motion which permits or directs those of us who want to participate in this debate as having the option of tabling and having appended to Hansard a speech prepared in our offices is offensive. It is offensive under the rules in the legal and parliamentary sense and it is simply not acceptable.
When we look at the motion itself, it underlines the basic objection I think 1 have with respect to it. It is a motion which purports to curtail the rights of Members of Parliament to participate in this debate; it limits the rights of members. I suggest to you, as Speaker of this House, that this motion must be carefully examined and allowed only if strictly to be found in accordance with the Standing Orders and precedents of the House of Commons. This is an important debate.
In the reading of the motion itself, and as my learned colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has said, the motion itself is confusing, it is unclear as to its consequences.
I want to bring to Your Honour's attention that we now have before us a resolution brought by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on behalf of the Prime Minister, who finally spoke at length yesterday. I will not get into that because I am still waking up from the effects.
When one looks at this motion, it purports to do two things. First, in the preamble it outlines that there has been debate only on the amendment introduced by my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) up to this point, and that is quite right. But Your Honour will note as well that you have not, nor have any of the occupants in your chair in your absence, called to order any member of the House of Commons with respect to remarks dealing only with the specific amendment put forward by my colleague from Provencher. If one goes over the record and reads the speeches, he will see they cover the waterfront. They deal with every aspect of the constitutional debate. They deal with the consideration of what members who have participated feel about their country, about what they think should be included or excluded in this resolution and about the process. By no means can it be said that Members of Parliament here have been restricted by the fact that we have been debating a technically narrow amendment as put forward by the hon. member for Provencher. Indeed, the other interpretation is probably more appropriate. There has been no restriction. Your Honour understood, as I think did the other occupants of the chair, the gravity of this particular motion, this resolution, and the importance and the necessity to show flexibility in the interpretation of the rules respecting participation of members.
What does this motion purport to do? In effect it says that after the motion has been passed there will be two or four days of debate. After two days maximum, provided there are no further speakers, or speeches stop before that time, the amendment put forward by my colleague from Provencher will then be brought to a vote. The second part of this motion says that another two days can pass and after those two days all other amendments not then voted on must be called, with the resolution itself voted on at 15 minutes before the witching hour at the end of that time.
The motion is defective. The rights of Members of Parliament are being limited by this motion. The motion does not contemplate or ensure the ability of Members of Parliament to bring forward amendments. We will certainly have one amendment because there are two days in which to do that. But it is quite within the realm of contemplation that whoever is recognized first, whether we have to vote to see whether it is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, whoever gets the Speaker's eye after that vote will have his or her amendment put forward. Then there will very likely be no opportunity for any other amendment to come forward. The implication is that Members of Parliament are being deprived of the ability to bring forward amendments to this resolution. It is an infringement upon our rights. It is a defect in this motion. If I were to
March 24, 1981

have given advice to the government House leader, I might have said that if he wanted to make this a valid motion, instead of including the tabling of speeches, he should have said that anyone who has an amendment would be allowed to table it, and even though there would not be a chance to debate-and 1 will not get into that argument-at least everyone who had a legitimate and receivable motion would have the opportunity of having that amendment voted on. That provision is not contained in the motion of the government House leader. Therefore, it is defective because it is an infringement of my privilege and the privilege of every member in this House of Commons not to be able to bring amendments to the resolution. It is stifling debate on the floor of the House of Commons. The motion by itself for that very reason, apart from the tabling of speeches, should be found defective and not permitted by Your Honour.
Incidentally, I was almost prepared to stand up today and support the government on its motion to allow tabling of documents until I heard the Prime Minister. Then I realized that was the one instance where that provision should have been included. It is contrary. It may be efficient, it may be novel, it may be innovative, but the government House leader has pointed out, whatever term it was he used, was trying to demonstrate that somehow he was being very magnanimous in this motion to allow us all an opportunity to table speeches. The descriptive adjectives he should have used were that it was restrictive, regressive and devious. Those would be more appropriate adjectives for the government House leader because that is the consequence of accepting this motion as far as operation is concerned.
The other observation I want to make deals with the precedent that will be established if Your Honour allows this motion to go forward. My colleague from Nepean-Carleton pointed out that this motion is discursive and descriptive. He pointed out the ruling of Mr. Speaker Michener disallowing a very similar kind of motion which had a statement of alleged facts preceding a motion to substantiate or build up the case for the motion put forward.
I know yours is not an easy job, Madam Speaker. I always try to be helpful. If you allow this motion to go through, God help us in the weeks and months to come with the motions that will come forward. They will be minor novels. They will list every possible deviation and every possible offence committed by members of the government. You will have a most difficult time if you allow this precedent.
We have a lot more facts to work with than those on the government side because the government has committed so many sins of commission and omission that any motion that is brought forward, if this motion is allowed to go through, cannot be ruled out of order because it lists seriatim all the sins of the government on the basis of alleged facts. That by itself should cause you to pause to think whether this precedent, which the government is attempting to create through
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
the government House leader, should be allowed to become one of the precedents of our House.
The simple fact is, as Mr. Speaker Michener pointed out in his decision referred to by my colleague from Nepean-Carleton, the government party's version of Groucho Marx has now been interjected into this debate. I am glad to see he is participating with his maiden speech. The fact is I have read the decision of Mr. Speaker Michener. He makes the very valid point that if you are to allow this kind of extensive preamble with "whereas clauses", the proceedings of the House of Commons will be seriously prejudiced.
It has been a long time since I have seen a three-age motion which purports to say a lot but says little. On those bases 1 will conclude now-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Since the hon. member did refer to the ruling of my predecessor, Mr. Michener, I might point out that I am not reading it in the same way as the hon. member. For my benefit I would like him to give me his total interpretation of it. In his ruling, Mr. Speaker Michener said that a motion is not defective because it has these "whereas clauses."


Walter David Baker: Merely because.


Madam Speaker:: I interrupted the hon. member because he was repeating an argument brought forward by another member, but I would like to hear his interpretation. It would be helpful to me.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I am glad you will allow me to hone in on the pith and substance of this argument.


Mr. Blais:: Be short.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No. Mr. Speaker Michener was not brief in his ruling. Neither is the government House leader in this motion. I am going to be very brief by comparison. I will look like a saint compared to the government House leader.


Mr. McKinnon:: That's not difficult.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As you will recall, Madam Speaker, the motion in question was moved by Mr. Regier, the then member of Parliament for Burnaby-Coquitlam. The motion dealt with a number of statements on the part of the minister of finance of the day, Mr. Fleming. The point was raised in the decision by Mr. Speaker Michener that if, in fact, a very substantial part of the discursive section of that motion were deleted, he would have found it in order. He said the reason was that while they were purported to be statements of fact, in the parliamentary context they tended to be in the nature of argumentative assertions in the course of amendment. In other words, they were building a case to support the passing of the motion.
The analogy is quite clear here. In his decision, he said that if they were able to delete all of those alleged statements of fact, the motion would possibly be in order. 1 will just read one part of his judgment:

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
Beauchesne's citation on the same subject has already been given by the hon. member for Carleton (Mr. Bell) but for clarity I shall repeat it. This is citation 198 of Beauchesne's fourth edition: "A motion should not be argumentative and in the style of a speech, nor should it contain unnecessary provisions or objectionable words."
That is the essence of it. It should not be argumentative, it should not be in the style of a speech and it should not attempt to build a case for the motion. Once you open the door to that kind of motion, you will find yourself in a most difficult position in terms of conducting this House of Commons in proper order. It will tend to cause disorder, obscure the essence of the debate and allow Members of Parliament in the course of putting motions on the Order Paper to plug the Order Paper with long statements with respect to alleged acts of commission and omission; the sins of the government, the sins of the opposition, and the sins of splinter parties such as the NDP, Social Credit or libertarian. That is the essence of his statement.
I hope once Your Honour has a chance to consider this she will see the validity of my contention. This motion is almost an analagous situation to that dealt with by Mr. Speaker Michen-er. It was rejected because of the argumentative nature of the motion. He suggested that, had it been in a different form, it would have been accepted.
That was a debate with respect to a budgetary provision. Important as that is, I reiterate that this is on the Constitution of our country. This is a debate in which Members of Parliament have a particular vested interest. When speaking on the Speech from the Throne, the Prime Minister said he had a special message for members from western Canada. He said in that message that because there were no government members elected in western Canada there was a special responsibility on members from western Canada to articulate the hopes and aspirations of the people of western Canada.
In that spirit there are many members in this House who have not had that opportunity. They are being deprived of it because of the Draconian measure being taken by the measure to curtail debate arbitrarily, for whatever reason. Second, as I pointed out, the motion offends against the privileges of members of the House of Commons because we are not able in the normal parliamentary tradition to bring in our amendments, legitimate though they may be, our suggestions for improvements and suggestions for deletions to improve this resolution. We are to be deprived of that because there is no provision within the motion to allow those amendments to be brought forward. If you want to go back to the least important element which is almost laughable, we go back to the suggestion of tabling of speeches. It is more in accordance with the practice of the United States Congress where it is permitted, but not in any parliamentary system developed on the tradition of the British Parliament. Parliament means to participate, debate; it is a forum for free expression, and I think for those reasons I humbly submit that you, Madam Speaker, should find this particular motion out of order, reject it out of hand and let us get on with the nation's business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the issue with which we must deal today is in fact fairly simple. We must determine what is the true value and effect of our authorities' citations, more specifically Beauchesne's, because the arguments put forward by my hon. colleagues opposite are based exclusively on Beauchesne's citations. And it is important, I think, if we want to limit ourselves strictly to the question of procedure and law which must be relevant here, to try to answer this question to find the solution to this so-called problem.
Beauchesne's citations, with all due respect for authorities, are not the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. They make it possible for us to understand better previous decisions and regulations, as well as the traditions and customs of the House of Commons. I suggest that Beauchesne is a lot less conceited than some of the hon. members who have participated so far in this debate would have us believe. One need only read the preface to this work to discover what the editor was trying to do, and I quote from page V of Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition:
Our decision was based upon the fact that it was a Canadian book dealing directly with the parliamentary procedure in our House of Commons. It had a system of numbered paragraphs for quick reference-
And here is where it becomes more important:
-and, of course, some of its citations were still useful in interpreting the rules and practices of the House. Initially, our task involved deleting the obviously outdated citations-
What does that mean, Madam Speaker? That means that from time to time, when we look into the fourth edition, the third edition, the second edition and the first edition, we realize that at one point or other some citation was dropped because it had become irrelevant, for as time passed the rules had changed, practice had changed, in line with the new parliamentary ways.
So Beauchesne does not deny the right to evolution. Beauchesne does not go as far as my Progressive Conservative colleagues do in denying any evolution of the parliamentary procedure. Beauchesne simply establishes the present rules or practices, it does not say that rules cannot be changed. Quite the contrary. It does not say either that the practices cannot be changed. It states the opposite. It does not say that tradition cannot be changed. The reverse is implied. And this publication is in itself an example of this, since in its five editions, Beauchesne was revised five times to adapt to the facts. One only has to read on in the preamble from Beauchesne to put the citations back into the right context and avoid giving a narrow-minded interpretation of some of them, which would likely distort their meaning. It reads as follows:
March 24, 1981

Since 1958, there have been many changes in our procedure. During the 1960s special committees on procedure met regularly, reporting their recommendations for improving the Standing Orders. The revised rules were adopted on December 20, 1968, with further amendments being adopted in subsequent years.
So between 1958 and 1968, Beauchesne's citations had to be adapted to changing times-it is even stated that after the new Standing Orders were updated in 1968, other improvements were made.
One of the major modifications, as you know, Madam Speaker, was the elimination of the right to appeal the rulings of the Speaker. Just imagine the general outcry that would have happened if a motion introduced then had proposed to eliminate the right to appeal, the protests coming from a party that claims to be conservative and not open to change. However, the changes have effectively been made, Madam Speaker. Today, your rulings cannot be appealed any more, that has been changed. Parliament has evolved into accepting this change, and in spite of those who steadfastly cling to tradition, time marches on, slowly but surely.
There have also been important changes in procedure with regard to appropriation bills. In the past, these were debated in the House sitting in Committee of the Whole, but now they are studied by the standing committees of the House, allowing the latter to deal with other subjects and giving twenty committees or so a chance to do more work.
Madam Speaker, this reminds me that not long ago, a motion I introduced in the House completely upset normal parliamentary procedures in the House.
Remember how, after the last election, changes were approved by the House with a view to rescheduling proceedings on supply bills. We managed to convince the House, which later approved it as perfectly normal and acceptable, that what would normally be looked into in standing committees should come back to the floor of the House sitting in Committee of the Whole. Remember those estimates. We chose the estimates of three separate departments to come back before Committee of the Whole instead of going to standing committees of the House. The House, on the second day of each one of those three periods, sat until midnight, past normal hours; yet, all those changes, those breaks with established practice since 1968 were not contrary to the parliamentary spirit: they were perfectly acceptable. They were the result of a special order of the House and there it was-
Beauchesne says it himself. House proceedings must primarily be governed by written rules, standing, sessional and special orders. Madam Speaker, allow me to quote Beauchesne, fifth edition, Section 7:
Standing, sessional and special orders are the rules and regulations which the House has agreed on for the governance of its own proceedings.
That, then, is how our proceedings are governed. First and foremost by standing, sessional and special orders. Everything else, traditions, authorities, is related to the written rules and to sessional and special orders. Beauchesne, like the others, has
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
to abide by the rules of the House and is subjected to sessional orders, to special orders. Furthermore, Beauchesne has never claimed that he was not subjected to that. He merely says that he interprets current practices, but he does not say that these cannot be changed. And that is where lies the fundamental difference between our own approach to the way we conduct the business of the House, and the approach taken by the hon. members opposite who rose on the point of order tonight.
Madam Speaker, in the fifth edition of Beauchesne, Citation 9 reads as follows and 1 quote:
9. All rules are passed by the House by a simple majority.
This is crystal clear. Normally, I should sit down now since the matter is altogether settled. But let me go on with this citation:
All rules are passed by the House by a simple majority... there is no procedural reason why any private member or minister of the Crown could not introduce a motion to alter the rules.
All that is in Citation 9.
That being acknowledged, Madam Speaker, the only true way of regulating the business of the House is by means of written rules, sessional or special orders, as required now, which are to be voted upon and which can probably be passed by a simple majority. Let us deal now with traditions and jurisprudence which should be based on written rules and sessional or special orders. I think that Beauchesne is even more broadminded, much less conservative than those whose speeches we have heard up to now.
Parliament, and the manner in which it works, has developed-
I am sorry, I do not want to offend anyone on the other side, but the word "developed" is written in Beauchesne.
Parliament, and the manner in which it works, has developed over centuries and the written rules are relative newcomers to the procedural field. Indeed, increasingly, the written rules are being used, not to codify existing practice, but rather to trim and adjust historic traditions to modern needs.
Madam Speaker, the requirements of the modern era allow us, of course, to introduce motions either to amend the Standing Orders permanently, as noted in Citation 9 of Beauchesne which I quoted earlier, or to ask for sessional orders. I could move a motion tomorrow asking that the House not sit in the evening but in the morning until the end of the session. Of course, members on the other side would say that this goes against our traditions and against parliamentary practice. This is true, but it does not mean that such a motion would be out of order, would be illegal, and would go against the evolution of our procedure if it is to be brought more into line with modern times. A sessional order could therefore bring about such a result, or, as a third option, for a specific debate, we might ask that certain Standing Orders, practices or traditions not apply, and this would not go against parliamentary spirit either. This is all part of the evolution of Parliament.

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
Madam Speaker, if it is true, according to Beauchesne in Citation 9 and under our parliamentary practice since we have begun to change our rules-and we are increasingly in favour of written rules, while precedents and traditions have less and less authority-if it is true that by means of a motion passed by a simple majority, our rules can be changed or one or several of the 116 rules written in this little green book can be changed, then we must certainly be able, by means of a motion passed by a simple majority, to suspend some of these Standing Orders for a limited time and for a very specific debate.
This would seem to be only logical, and this is what we are now doing. To understand that and to be able to accept it, you need a certain openness of mind and you have to be able to admit that evolution is possible, desirable and has in fact occurred throughout the history of our Parliament. Those who have raised points of order this evening based their arguments essentially on a few citations of Beauchesne.
I have just quoted a citation to explain in which context these citations must be viewed. They state what the rules provide and what is the practice. However, Beauchesne does not forbid us to change the rules and practice either permanently or for one session or for a special debate. These are essentially my arguments in response to the points raised generally by the three members opposite who have expressed their views.
I am willing to deal specifically with each point raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) and the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). Let us consider first of all the points which can be disposed of most simply, those raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.
I say this with all due respect because I believe that these points will take less time to dispose of in view of the points I have just made. I do not mean to say that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did not work as hard as the others. His first point was that the preamble of the motion is unacceptable, because it goes against Citation 423 of Beauchesne. It is argumentative, according to him, and he quotes a ruling made in 1961 by Mr. Speaker Michener to prove his point. However, Madam Speaker, let us examine the preamble. There is nothing like examining a motion to see what it contains, and before concluding that it goes against a citation or a ruling of a former Speaker, one has to know what the preamble contains. According to Citation 423 of the fifth edition-this also disposes of the point made by the member for Saskatoon West, Citation 198 of the fourth edition, which seems clever but Citation 198 of the fourth edition and Citation 423 of the fifth edition are exactly the same-a motion should be neither argumentative nor in the style of a speech.
Madam Speaker, it is surely not in the style of a speech. That can be ruled out immediately. It is not in the form of a speech. A speech is not full of whereas clauses.
We are dealing here with a preamble. There are such preambles in all our bills. Our parliamentary procedure recognizes them as such since even the preamble is put in Committee of the Whole. The constitutional resolution before us contains a preamble, and is it argumentative? I respectfully submit that it is not. All that we have are statements of facts that are in the record of the House. They are not arguments. It cannot even be questioned. It is a statement of the actual facts that have occurred during the course of this debate and that are recorded in the proceedings of both the House committee and the joint committee as well as in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. Therefore, to say, and I quote:
THAT WHEREAS the Prime Minister tabled in the House of Commons on October 6, 1980 a document entitled "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty-"
-is not argumentative. It appears in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. It is a statement of fact that speaks for itself and cannot be denied.
AND WHEREAS the motion to refer the said document to a Special Joint Committee of the House and Senate was debated in the House on ! I days between October 6 and October 23, 1980,
-allowing some 78 members to speak.
That is in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. It is not argumentative. It is taken from Votes and Proceedings.
AND WHEREAS the Joint Committee, on which some 132 members of this House served, held 106 meetings, sat for 267 hours, received over 1,000 written submissions and heard testimony from 95 groups and five individuals;
Just read the committee report submitted to this House, it is in there. It is a fact taken from the report. It is a statement of what has happened in committee and it is not argumentative, it is just a statement of fact. These are excerpts from the proceedings of both the committee and the House.
AND WHEREAS the Joint Committee, having had its reporting date extended twice, reported on February 13, 1981 with the recommendation that the government introduce a motion for the presentation of the address as modified by the committee;
There again, it is stated in the committee proceedings that the date was extended twice.
AND WHEREAS the motion of the Minister of Justice implementing the joint committee's recommendation was moved on February 17, 1981;
This is not argumentative. I am speaking to a point of order. [English]


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The minister is reading the resolution as if it were fact. If the minister will check the joint committee resolution as printed in Votes and Proceedings for Friday, February 13, I think he will find that the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) did not in fact implement the recommendation of the joint committee as moved on February 17, 1981. There is a difference in substance between the committee's recommendation and what is presented before the House. I ask the minister to check Votes and Proceedings for that day. He will find that the statement he just read is incorrect.
March 24, 1981

[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: And I go on quoting the facts which are on record:
AND WHEREAS the motion of the Minister of Justice implementing the joint committee's recommendation was moved on February 17, 1981:
The Minister of Justice moved a motion implementing the recommendation of the joint committee, and that appears in the recorded proceedings.
AND WHEREAS the hon. member for Provencher moved an amendment to that motion on February 17, 1981:
That is not an argument, it is simply taking note of facts which once again are on record. And finally:
AND WHEREAS the said amendment has been debated by this House for some five weeks, with the result that as of March 18, 1981, there have been 52 speakers on behalf of the official opposition, 15 speakers on behalf of the New Democratic Party, and 31 speakers on behalf of the government;
Here again that is on the record. I even have the number of minutes during which the proceedings lasted. The official opposition spoke twice as long as the Liberal Party, they have so far devoted more than 55 hours to this debate on third reading.
But those are not arguments. It is not for the purpose of argument or debate that such things are alleged; we are taking note of the reality and of the facts which are recorded in the Votes and Proceedings of the House. Therefore in no way does that run counter to Beauchesne's Citation 423, or Citation 184 of the fourth edition as my colleague from Saskatoon West claims. Nor does it fly in the face of the ruling made by Mr. Michener because each case stands on its own merits and we are not dealing here with an amendment but with the main motion. The preamble here is not argumentative, it simply relates the proceedings before the committee and the House. So what is left of the substance of the arguments raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton? He states that our motion is self-contradictory because it provides that Standing Order 40 be suspended, whereas Section (7) of that order stipulates that when there is a special order of the House, Standing Order 40 shall be suspended. On the contrary, I fail to understand why he should make such a statement. The special order we are seeking does not apply solely to Section (7) of Standing Order 40, that is not hard to understand, it applies to Standing Order 40 as a whole.
Now then, a little further on Section (7) of Standing Order 40 gains even more weight. We did not have to say that, and I agree with him. We did not have to specify that there would be no adjournment debate, all we had to do was to ask to sit beyond normal hours and, pursuant to Standing Order 40(7), there can be no adjournment debate. That is what it says in Section (7).
But our motion does not provide that Standing Order 40(7) be suspended. It says that Standing Order 40 as a whole will not apply. Standing Order 40 deals with adjournment proceedings. That is the way we tried to make it more certain that
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
there would be no adjournment debate; there is nothing contradictory in that, it is for emphasis, it goes even further.
So, as an argument to have us put our motion aside, it is not very convincing, it is not the find of the century, Madam Speaker.
There is also a third argument, Citation 411. 1 have read and reread it and, frankly, I must say that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has not proven to me how that citation could prevent us from moving on that motion, except that I retain this part of it, and I quote:
No motion is regularly before the House until it has been read by the Chair. Then it may be debated, amended, superseded, adopted, negatived or withdrawn, as the House may decide.
That is what Beauchesne says. And if we were to give it a literal interpretation, we could not hold the debate now in progress until the motion is put. This shows that Beauchesne's citations are not always observed. So, this is what I read in Citation 411.
I say it once again. No motion is regularly before the House until it has been read by the Chair; only then it may be debated.
Finally, as mentioned by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, according to Citation 311 we cannot table written speeches because this is against tradition.
Madam Speaker, there are many democratic countries in the world where written speeches can be tabled and those are not totalitarian states. One has only to look at what is going on in Washington; but regardless of the fact that written speeches can be tabled in several other democratic countries, if ever there was an independent country, it is the United States, and the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) will have to admit it.
Madam Speaker, there is a tradition here in this House that written speeches cannot be tabled. That is actually a fact. But as I said earlier in my speech, traditions are there to be changed. Madam Speaker, our parliamentary tradition has been a continuously changing process and Beauchesne does not say that in the future it will not be possible to table speeches, but simply says that up to now according to our practice, that is not acceptable.
But once again, we can change tradition by introducing written rules, sessional or special orders. Traditions may be subjected to any one of those three kinds of changes I mentioned earlier. And because we propose that a simple majority of the members in this House do pass a special order to allow honourable members to table written speeches, I would say that this is not against Beauchesne. Beauchesne's citations record the past, but do not close the door to evolution nor to future changes.

March 24, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Knowles
The hon. member for Saskatoon West was saying, and once again this goes to show that Beauchesne's citations and other authorities do not have force of law nor are always implemented, and I will quote what he said:

"members should not read speeches"
f Translation]
1 checked with Beauchesne whether it was true, because that is not the practice here, where many members do read their speeches. Citation 309 of Beauchesne reads as follows:
It is a rule in both Houses of Parliament that a member must address the House orally, and not read from a written, previously prepared speech.
And Beauchesne is also referring to Bourinot.
This is the best indication that these citations, Madam Speaker, fall short of the written rules, sessional or special orders which regulate our proceedings. Some of them are never implemented. Some are even ignored when new practices are evolved and traditions are changed.
The example given by the hon. member for Saskatoon West is the most blatant of all. I have just read a citation from Beauchesne which is not even implemented, namely, Citation 309 (1). It says that no hon. member may read from a written speech in the House and yet this is done and there are no written rules, sessional or special orders to prevent it but this practice developed and allowed us to set aside this tradition. If we can do it in this regard, why could we not do it as well in other areas? This is my answer to the argument put forward by the hon. member for Saskatoon West.
Then he said it was required to get the unanimous consent of the House in order to bring about changes in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons. Madam Speaker, this is not true. Citation 9 of Beauchesne, which I quoted earlier, states clearly that all rules can be altered by a simple majority. This practice has always been the one used to make changes in the Standing Orders of the House of Commons.
Now, as I said, to conclude, I do not wish to repeat myself, Madam Speaker, but it seems so obvious, it seems so clear that the motion is in keeping with the spirit of Parliament, in keeping with a long-established practice. There are special orders in specific debates to extend sitting hours, reduce the time limit on speeches, change the current rules, change the usual practice, the tradition. There is absolutely nothing there that is contrary to the spirit of Parliament. Quite the opposite, it is the end result of a practice that evolved over these last few years, particularly since we have these written rules, these sessional orders or special orders. In this case, we are not changing the Standing Orders nor the practice for the future, all we are doing is changing them for a specific debate, to adapt to circumstances and ensure that in this specific case, as has been done so often in other cases, certain rules will not apply and there will be special orders to determine the way the
debate will be proceeding in the days ahead or until completion.
In conclusion, Madam Speaker, what we are introducing is a motion that is quite in keeping with the Standing Orders and the spirit of Parliament. As I said, the points made by those who oppose its value, its content are based essentially, or exclusively on a few citations in Beauchesne, and in particular Citations 311 and 423. Incidentally, Citation 423 is not relevant because in this case our preamble is not a matter of contention, it is a statement of facts that are on record in the proceedings of both the special committee and the House of Commons. This leaves Citation 311, and as I said earlier, it is written in Beauchesne's fifth edition, in the preface, the foreword. Our intention is not to establish rules governing this House. What we are doing is recognizing how the rules were applied in the past, and how the tradition evolved until now. Beauchesne is proof that the progress of Parliament requires a change of rules, a change of traditions to keep up with the times, and this we are doing through a motion passed under the majority rule, not only when we want to make permanent changes to Standing Orders, but from time to time to change them for specific debates as is the case in this Constitution debate.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I call it ten o'clock?


Madam Speaker:: The applause lasted long enough for me to now stand and adjourn the House. The hon. member for Victoria.


Henry Perrin Beatty: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: It is ten o'clock.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

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

Allan Bruce McKinnon: Mr. Speaker, I rise tonight because of a series of questions I have asked over the last couple of weeks concerning the projected move of "E" Division of the RCMP from Victoria to Vancouver. As far as the House of Commons is concerned, this issue started on March 6 when, after having heard rumours from Victoria of this move, I asked a question of the Minister of Justice (Mr. March 24, 1981

Chretien) in his position as Acting Solicitor General during the absence of the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan). I would like to thank the Solicitor General for staying for the adjournment debate this evening.
The Minister of Justice knew nothing of the case, and, apparently, neither did the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove), who tried to answer a supplementary question I put to him.
I took this matter up again on March 9, when the Solicitor General was in the House. I asked him about the plan to move the headquarters of "E" Division of the Royal Canadian Mounted Police out of the city of Victoria. In my question I said:
I understand the Solicitor General has informed the media that this projected move is by no means certain. However, RCMP senior officers have said the move is on. Would the Solicitor General clarify this matter, please?
His reply was:
Madam Speaker, if the hon. member would tell me which members of the RCMP were saying that, I will get in touch with them and tell them the move is not on, not finally settled, and will not be until I have had an opportunity to discuss this with the provincial attorney general.
Those are pretty strong words from the Solicitor General, Mr. Speaker. Obviously, he did not know anything about any press releases which had been issued, nor did he have any information about a move taking place. As far as he was concerned it was not on, it was not settled and he was going to discuss it with the provincial attorney general.
His answer to my supplementary question on the same subject as to whether there would be impact studies done on the move before it took place was that he did not undertake that there would be specific impact studies undertaken. He ended his answer by saying:
That is not a decision which will be made until 1 have consulted on the matter with the attorney general of British Columbia.
It is interesting to note that this was on March 9, when clearly the Solicitor General did not know the RCMP were even thinking of moving. But, on March 4 the RCMP in Victoria issued a press release which stated:
Deputy Commissioner G. W. Reed, Commanding Officer of the RCMP, "E" Division, British Columbia, confirms that reorganization of the RCMP in British Columbia is planned and part of this reorganization would be the establishment of the headquarters in Vancouver.
This reorganization is still in the planning stages and will take place over a comparatively long range period of time and the gradual movement of the headquarters from Victoria to Vancouver will not likely commence until the end of 1981 at the earliest and proceed over a two or three-year period.
After his bold words in the House of Commons, the Solicitor General roared like a lion and said if I would only tell him who had informed me of this he would get in touch with them and tell them the move is not on. He said he was really going to straighten them out. He then went out to Victoria and apparently he got straightened out by the RCMP.
The next thing we heard from him in the House of Commons was on March 18. I asked him if "E" Division was going to move and his answer was:
Madam Speaker, what I had in mind was that the move would be phased in over a three-year period-that there would be normal attrition and transfers
Adjournment Debate
during that period, and that all of the officials working in the program who wanted to do so would have a priority for transferring to other federal jobs-
In my supplementary question I said:
On Monday he told reporters:
"They were fully consulted about it during the last two years of planning."
However, the Hon. Allan Williams, Attorney General of B.C., stated today:
"To suggest that we have been consulted is inaccurate and misleading. This is a callous and insensitive move and I oppose it until it is supported by an economic and social impact study."
That brings us fairly well up to the present. I might say that the press release, issued in Victoria on March 4, five days before the Solicitor General knew anything about it, caused a great deal of concern on the west coast. The mayor of Victoria sent me a copy of his letter to the Hon. Robert P. Kaplan on March 5, which said:
This letter is to object strenuously on behalf of myself and the mayors of Saanich, Oak Bay and Esquimalt to this proposed move.
The local newspapers reported the following day that the acting mayor, alderman Bill McElroy, said:
This is not the stupidest decision the federal government has ever made, but it's definitely in the top two.
The adverse criticism continued.
We are different in Victoria, I believe, in that we are very proud of the environment, the town we live in, and our community. People do not try to alter communities without a great deal of preparation. An impact study is absolutely vital. It should check into whether there will be a serious social impact for over 200 employees, and an economic impact on those who will pay for this move, considering that only three years ago $4 million or $5 million was paid for the buildings they moved into two years ago.
I would also suggest to the Solicitor General that he might consider polling his employees on their positions which he has now caved-in about and who will have to move whether they like it or not. Apparently he does not want to do any studies. The problem there is that the Solicitor General, if he looks back on the history of "E" division, will find that at one time they were grouped in one headquarters. In 1976 they were broken into two districts. Now you are going to put them back and get right back to your 1976 problems. There will be no change. The problem will simply be transferred from Victoria to Vancouver. This will mean there will be two problems: the problem of 1976 in Victoria plus the problem there will be in Vancouver.
I would submit to the Solicitor General that if he would have an impact study done on the economics of this, and would check into his own "E" division out there to find out if this is really in the best interests of the RCMP or only in the best interests of some individuals, I think he would find that his problem is not administrative, but one of personnel.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has now expired. The hon. Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan).

March 24, 1981
Adjournment Debate


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Mr. Speaker, I have indicated in this House, and when I was in British Columbia, that this move is now on, and it is obviously not a very popular decision for the people of Victoria. I fully understand that they would prefer to have the RCMP "E" Division headquarters in their city.
1 therefore want to take the opportunity to briefly review how this decision was made. I say at the outset that the decision is the responsibility of the Solicitor General of Canada, under the regulations of the RCMP Act. The force has kept me informed of developing plans to move the headquarters. Until my formal approval was attached to the plan, it did not become-if I could put it that way-an official plan. Even now pieces of it require approval of the Treasury Board before implementation, and approval will not even be sought immediately for all of them. It is a two to three-year gradual phase-in process which I think will have a minimum impact on Victoria. However, approvals will proceed along that course.
One hon. member opposite shouted that I do not know the difference between Vancouver and Victoria. 1 do know the difference; but even more important, the commissioner of the RCMP knows the difference because almost two decades of his career have been spent in British Columbia. It is no secret that he always regarded its establishment in Victoria as a less effective location than Vancouver.
The proposed move did not come from an easterner of someone who does not know what is happening in the west; the move is being organized, planned and put to me by experts who know very well what the needs are for efficient policing in British Columbia.
1 have a copy of a letter which Allan Williams sent to me a few days ago. I would be happy to table it if the rule and hon. members would permit. The letter makes it very clear that Allan Williams had discussions on the subject, and that his view is that the implementation of the plan will contribute to an improved delivery of police service to the people of British Columbia.
Our responsibility is to deliver good police service to the people of British Columbia. The attorney general, after his staff was consulted, and after writing and saying he recognizes that he is being consulted and that this decision would contribute to an improved delivery of service, then urges me to make further investigation into the matter. I know it is an unpopular decision but it is not for him to make; it is for this government to make.
I feel that we have acted in a responsible way and I hope, in a larger sense, the people of British Columbia recognize all the advantages of the efficient and improved policing that the force itself has put to me, that the attorney general of the province has approved on policing grounds, and that I fully believe will improve the efficiency and effectiveness of policing-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.
1 would remind the House that this is an adjournment motion. If the minister wishes to communicate copies of correspondence to the hon. member I suggest that he simply send it to him.


ENERGY-NEW BRUNSWICK OIL SHALES DEVELOPMENT
Hon. J. Robert Howie (York-Sunbury):: Mr. Speaker, I asked the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to explore the development potential of oil shale in the province of New Brunswick for two reasons: first, because it is important to Canada as we drive toward energy self-sufficiency and, second, because it is important to New Brunswick in that it would provide badly-needed jobs and be a tremendous stimulant in the field of development.
I should like to say a word about what the oil shales comprise. The oil shales are found in the Albert geological formation which in many ways can be likened to a large saucer. It results from an ancient lake. If I might go back to my analogy of the saucer, the centre of that saucer would be located in the Gulf of St. Lawrence and the perimeter of the saucer would be developed from the centre at an angle of approximately 40 degrees. The oil shales are near the surface in the province of New Brunswick; they are found in the county of Albert and stretch from an area nqrth of Moncton to an area midway between Sussex and Saint John. The shales comprise about 2,500 square miles in southeastern New Brunswick.
Around the turn of the century the local people discovered the potential of the shales and used it as an energy source. I do not think it was a viable commercial operation but I have seen what is seemingly a rock of oil shale ignited by a match which burned freely. I saw that happen in the last month.
The process of obtaining oil from the shale is to first grind the shale to a granular form, put it in a retort, and heat it to 900 degrees Fahrenheit. The oil then flows out through the bottom and gas escapes from the top. If the gas which escapes from the top is captured it can become the energy source for sweating the oil from the shale.
This process is quite similar to that which is employed in the tar sands of Alberta. A small pilot project is under way in Colorado in the United States operated by the Occidental Petroleum Company.
When the shale is located at a greater depth, tunnels are bored into the rock, a combustion chamber is hollowed out, fire ignites in the combustion chamber and heats to 900 degrees. The oil then flows through the bottom where vertical tunnels gather it and it is pumped to the surface. This is another technique that is used in Alberta. It is more costly and it is used for deep-seated shale.
Significantly, about one-third of the shale in New Brunswick is surface and can be mined in an open pit or in the
March 24, 1981

strip-mining fashion. It can provide the nucleus for our energy resource in that regard.
Canadian Occidental Petroleum has done some initial exploratory work on an area of 1,000 acres of shale deposits with some surface exposure. They found a relatively constant thickness of 250 feet. The hydrocarbon content in the principal zone which was explored is estimated to be from 8 per cent to 10 per cent. The oil has been found to be of a light, sweet nature.
The study evaluation is required because the only area evaluated is this 1,000 square acres. The possibility of surface mining and surface retorting of crude bitumen is a very important potential, one I would like to see the Government of Canada and the government of New Brunswick join in considering. The potential, based on the small sampling done, indicates 15 billion barrels or more of oil. That is well worthwhile exploring. There are some uncertainties. There are environmental aspects which must be looked at and there are some really tremendous job creation benefits. There is also the potential of helping us nationally with our security of supply problem.
The National Energy Program appears to me to underestimate the potential for the New Brunswick oil shales and also the potential for providing a nucleus in a special field of research and development in the extraction technology.
Saskatchewan has a five-year $50 million heavy oil research and development program. New Brunswick has none. It would be my hope that we would not resort to DREE and its very slender funds to move in this development area. I would like to see it included in the inventories of our National Energy Program and developed in that way. I think it is essential to select a portfolio in research and development investments which recognize our regional diversities. I think if this particular potential is included in the National Energy Program inventory it will not only recognize the regional diversities, but it will provide a tremendous development stimulus in an area which needs it very badly.
I want to thank you, Mr. Speaker, and the House for its indulgence this evening.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member opposite has indicated, the New Brunswick oil shales have attracted attention for many years. From time to time efforts have been made to develop them commercially. In the past, such attempts have proved to be uneconomic. However, with the high world price of oil there is renewed interest in the potential of these shale deposits.
The oil shales in southwest New Brunswick are believed to cover between 1,000 and 2,000 square miles. They have not yet been thoroughly explored. It is obvious that a great deal of work needs to be done. Some work is currently being carried out on the evaluation of the potential of the oil shales. Under the Canada-Brunswick mineral and fuels subsidiary agree-
Adjournment Debate
ment, $60,000 has been spent on mapping the oil shale formations, compiling existing data and some preliminary investigation of oil recovery using microwave technology. A $75,000 program has just started to examine the use of oil shale as a combined sulphur entrapment medium and heat source when burned with high sulphur coal in fluid bed combustion.
Canadian Occidental Petroleum has large holdings of the oil shale formation. However, the company is expected to relinquish much of its ground next month. When this happens, the province may call for exploration commitment bids on six to eight blocks of 90,000 acres to determine if the private sector is preferred to carry out the work on the resource.
In February, a meeting took place in Ottawa between New Brunswick officials and those of the Department of Energy, Mines and Resources. A technical committee may be established to evaluate the potential of these oil shales.
The National Energy Program makes provision for assisting in the development of oil and gas resources. A proposal for the commercial development of the New Brunswick oil shales would be considered under the terms of the petroleum incentives program in the same way that a proposal for the commercial development of the oil sands in Alberta would be considered. For instance, the depletion allowance for approved expenditures on integrated oil sands projects can be earned at one-third of qualifying expenditures. In addition, there would be incentive payments to companies having a Canadian ownership rate of 75 per cent or more. An oil shale project would be eligible for reference pricing under the National Energy Program thereby providing a price for the product considerably higher than that pertaining to the traditional oil deposits of western Canada.
The New Brunswick oil shales may yet have a role to play in helping to ensure security of energy supply for the Atlantic region. Of course, much work would have to be done to prove the economic viability of this resource. However, for companies willing to take the initiative, the National Energy Program may offer a very helpful incentive.


HEALTH CARE-REQUEST FOR LEGISLATION TO BAN EXTRA BILLING BY DOCTORS
Mr. Bill Blaikie (Winnipeg-Birds Hill):: Mr. Speaker, on Monday, March 16, 1981, the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) confirmed the figures that the CBC had obtained which showed that the Canadian public was paying some $56 million more for health care than they should have to as a result of extra billing by physicians.
Some 71 per cent of this extra money is being paid out by the people of Ontario who, I might say, already pay for health care through general revenues and through regressive premiums, thus paying three times for what other Canadians pay for once through the tax system. One is truly amazed at the masochism of the Ontario people, demonstrated by the re-election of the Progressive Conservative government just recently.

March 24, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Mr. Justice Hall in the Health Services Review of 1980 recommended that extra billing be outlawed by amending the Medical Care Act to provide that extra billing by physicians inhibits reasonable access to services and is contrary to the intent and purpose of the act. This is what 1, as health critic for the federal New Democratic Party, implore the minister to do now and not to wait for the renegotiation of the Established Programs Financing.
March, 1982 is just too long to wait for a remedy to this extremely serious problem. We allow extra billing to increase in the meantime; that is between now and the renegotiation of the Established Programs Financing, at the peril of so seriously eroding the principles of medicare that people come to expect extra billing, particularly in provinces like Ontario. They take out insurance against it, then we have exactly the two-tiered health care system Mr. Justice Hall warns us against, one for the rich and one for the poor.
During the two recent election campaigns, the minister talked tough to the provinces; when she was the minister prior to May, 1979 and then when she was in opposition. Now she is backing off, citing improvements in New Brunswick while she turns a blind eye to events in Ontario, British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta, to mention a few.
In her answer to me in the House the other day she posed the problem of doctors leaving a province that banned extra billing. That is precisely why we cannot expect even governments like Saskatchewan, which would like to so act, to outlaw extra billing by themselves. We cannot expect Saskatchewan to go through the trauma of giving birth to medicare once again while neo-conservative provinces sit idly by and watch the struggle.
Federal action will be required, the kind 1 am requesting of the minister. Federal leadership is required. That is what I and my colleagues in the New Democratic Party will wring out of this government if it is the last thing we do. We will not allow this government through sloth, cowardice, indifference or restraint to dismantle the heritage which the pioneers of our movement fought to get for the Canadian people in universal health care or in other social programs.
Let me give notice to the government that as we enter a period in which federal-provincial fiscal relationships are to be studied by an all-party task force, on which 1 will sit as the representative of my party, we will not accept or work within any hidden agenda that presumes a lessening of federal financial or philosophical commitment to medicare. [DOT]


Mr. Doug Frith (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Mr. Speaker, with respect to
extra billing, 1 must first remind those who have tried to confuse this issue that this government is opposed to any form of extra billing. Mr. Justice Hall was justifiably concerned about extra billing and its possible impact on access to health care by disadvantaged groups in our society. He stated that "the practice of extra billing is inequitable" and would lead to a two-tiered system. He also noted that extra billing is twinned with the issue of protecting the legitimate interests of physicians when one way of increasing their income, the extra billing, is eliminated.
Mr. Justice Hall's solution to the problems of extra billing and reasonable compensation for physicians was to recommend that the provinces "outlaw extra billing" but also agree to establish and accept binding arbitration on compensation issues for which negotiated agreements could not be reached.
Mr. Justice Hall described the federal role as "a responsibility to set objectives which will reaffirm the national character of Canada's medical care program." He suggested that to fulfil this role with regards to extra billing and physician compensation, the federal government support the provinces my making legislative changes so that extra billing was declared contrary to the intent and purposes of national health insurance and to encourage the provinces to "develop a mechanism to ensure reasonable compensation to physicians." The minister strongly supports Mr. Justice Hall's views and intends to recommend to her colleagues in cabinet that, when the government begins bargaining with the provinces on fiscal arrangements with EPF, a primary goal of these negotiations should be an end to extra billing in conjunction with a system to ensure reasonable compensation for physicians.
Ever since the completion of the Hall report, officials of the department and the minister have been working with provinces to resolve this dilemma, and to build the groundwork for such negotiations. It is federal-provincial co-operation which will ensure that national objectives in the health sector are attained, and it will not be done by precipitous action on the part of the federal government.
As for the figures that gave rise to the estimated $56 million in the cost of extra billing for insured medical care services, this is, 1 repeat, an estimated figure. These data were developed in co-operation with the provinces on a tentative basis, and until, and only until they have been further reviewed by the provinces, the minister is not prepared to release any supporting documentation.
In conclusion, this government is not prepared to withhold payments from provinces simply because they do not immediately agree to ban extra billing. Such hasty action could result
March 24, 1981

in a catastrophic disruption of services to patients, defeat the basic purpose of the Medical Care Act, and might leave the federal government open to court action. The key element of the Hall report is that his proposals should be achieved through negotiation, and the minister is confident that this will be accomplished through that same process. Thank you.
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 2 p.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.27 p.m.

Wednesday, March 25, 1981