1981-04-02

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. S. J. Korchinski (Mackenzie):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the proposed Constitution does not give consideration to the rights of unborn children, and since the abortion rate last year was 65,000, the lives so exterminated representing the size of my constituency and another city of 10,000, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour):
That the Prime Minister immediately announce his intention to exact a protection for unborn Canadians within any charter or, if there is failure to do so, that this House condemn the Prime Minister and his government for the endorsation of human destruction and that he remove himself as head of Canada's government since this country does not deserve the condemnation of practising genocide.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Hon. Steven E. Paproski (Edmonton North):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact manoeuvres in Poland, which were to have concluded on March 26, have now been extended indefinitely; whereas Moscow issued a statement that the U.S.S.R. will not tolerate chaos in Poland; whereas our Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) lacks the resolve to initiate action by the NATO countries for a show of solidarity against any possible outside intervention in the affairs of Poland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn):
That this House sends its support and prayers to the people of Poland and strongly urges that all outside countries refrain from interfering in Poland's domestic affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Liberals said "No" for the third time.


FINANCE
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since it is perfectly clear that the government's proposed 9 per cent sales tax levy on explosives used for construction purposes discriminates against regions such as British Columbia and Newfoundland, discriminates against this one aspect of the construction industry, and discriminates against certain types of jobs such as logging and highway construction, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper):
That the federal government reconsider its decision to levy a sales tax on explosives used in the construction industry.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ADMINISTRATION
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert):
That this House endorse the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board that legislation introduced in the House have a cost estimate for the implementation of the legislation so this House may better control government spending.

April 2, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATURAL RESOURCES


Mr. Bill Yurko (Edmonton East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Yukon, the Mackenzie Valley, the Beaufort Sea and Arctic Island hydrocarbon and mineral resources are being increasingly delineated. The ownership rights, further discovery and delineation, development and transportation of these vast resources to markets present Canada with a major challenge and will set the stage for the future well-being of the northern half of this nation. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson):
That a joint committee of the Senate and the House of Commons be established to examine and report on the ownership rights of such resources, the programmed development of such resources, the appropriate transportation systems for delivery of such resources to markets, and the desirable nature of community development in the high Arctic.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

[DOT] (MIO)



NATIONAL PRAYER BREAKFAST


Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of some importance under the provisions of Standing Order 43. At the National Prayer Breakfast this morning Mr. Tom Skinner of Washington, D.C., delivered an extremely inspirational and outstanding address to all those assembled. The remarks and observations of Mr. Skinner were so moving and so appropriate, and because I feel his comments would be of value to every member of this House, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Welland (Mr. Parent):
That this House give unanimous consent to having the complete text of Mr. Skinner's address incorporated into the Hansard for today, April 2,1981.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid it is not possible to have speeches which are made outside the House printed in Hansard.



AGRICULTURE


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Because the government deliberately encouraged farmers in western Canada to purchase the necessary feed so that they would not sell off their livestock herds when the drought first occurred in western Canada, and because of the impractical criteria set by the government resulting in the rejection of one third of the applications, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, who is responsible for PFRA, meet with representatives of the appeal board to establish practical criteria so that the 8,000 outstanding appeals may be accepted into the program as requested by the appeal board.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE


Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, in light of the fact that Mr. G. Davidson, a district manager with Consumer and Corporate Affairs in Winnipeg, has announced in a letter dated March 13 the government's intention to have bait, including minnows, sold by number and not by weight, as is presently the case, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, in the same insane tradition, introduce a motion that all outstanding votes in this House be conducted by a count of Fingers, toes, and, where necessary, both sides of a member's face.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



CANADIAN WHEAT BOARD


Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, since the Canadian Wheat Board is trying to sell a new grain marketing plan, called the Market Assurance Plan, to western farmers, but has failed to provide sufficient details and specifics of the plan to enable farmers to make an accurate assess-
April 2, 1981

ment of the program, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That this House condemns the Canadian Wheat Board's inept attempt to inform farmers of the details of the Market Assurance Plan and that this House calls upon the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board to take responsibility for the Market Assurance Plan in the name of the farmers he purports to represent, and ensure that they are provided with accurate and complete specifics of the plan, and also with alternative plans which have been put forward, so that the farmers themselves can decide which program, if any, they want.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



INDIAN AFFAIRS


Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, whereas over 150 members of the Bigstone Band of Wabasca, Alberta, including some elderly people and some children, have completed the first leg of their 240-mile march to Edmonton to protest the high rates of unemployment, poverty, poor housing, inadequate health services, and lack of funding for economic development, which continue to plague their everyday lives; and whereas the government's response to the plight of these native people has been almost non-existent, despite Telex messages from the Chief to the Prime Minister's office; and whereas the Bigstone Band is representative of the problems which exist for native people all across Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House direct the government to demonstrate its good faith and its pledge to honour and protect the special rights of Canada's first people in the Constitution by acting immediately to rectify the severe destitution now facing the Bigstone Band and, indeed, all native people in this nation.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to alert this House to an economic crisis of alarming magnitude. We have already pointed out that the 100th oil drilling rig has left Canada and crossed the United States border. Today I have learned that
Oral Questions
the sale of drilling licences in Alberta, which were valued at $280 million for 1.5 million acres in the first quarter of 1980, have dropped to $62 million for 555,975 acres in the first quarter of 1981, a decrease in dollar value in the order of 78 per cent. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary South (Mr. Thomson):
That the Prime Minister himself personally intervene to roll back the negative National Energy Program which is wreaking economic and social ruin and havoc in Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Prime Minister and it relates to the so-called Kirby document, the strategy document that was set out by the government in the summer of last year, which indicated the way it could get its constitutional package through. I wonder if the Prime Minister could tell the House whether the government has an opinion from the Department of Justice that:
-a law passed by the U.K. parliament to patriate the Constitution, with an amendment formula and other changes, could not be successfully attacked in the Canadian courts.
I would also like to ask the Prime Minister, in light of the unusual interest in a situation where action by the British parliament could not be challenged by the Canadian courts, whether the Prime Minister would take the unusual step, in these unusual circumstances, of publishing that legal opinion of the Department of Justice.


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, I indicated to this House before that I have seen the so-called Kirby document but I had not read it. I therefore cannot answer the question as to whether there is any legal opinion to that effect. However, it seems to me that if the Leader of the Opposition had any fears in that regard, they would have been dissipated by the proposal I made earlier this week to the effect that we would not, in fact, go to Great Britain, if the Supreme Court of Canada ruled against the constitutionality of the motion now before the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 2, 1981
Oral Questions


QUERY RESPECTING FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETINGS
Charles Joseph Clark: I would feel considerably more comfortable about that matter if the Minister of the Environment, speaking for the government, had not indicated that the government intended to file any resolution which passed this Parliament for first reading in Great Britain before any decision was taken by the court. I would like to request the Prime Minister to inform himself on the question of the Department of Justice judgment and decision, and then, after he has informed himself, to consider whether he might publish that document so that the country and the public would know about it.
On March 27, in answer to questions which I had been putting to him regarding the possibility of a meeting with first ministers, the Prime Minister said:
-I will initiate discussions with them-
He was referring to the other first ministers.
-as soon as Canada has its own Constitution and as soon as Canadians have given themselves the means to improve that Constitution.
Did the Prime Minister intend, by that answer, to preclude meetings with the premiers before the constitutional resolution goes to Britain?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says he would feel more comfortable if the Minister of the Environment did not say certain things. I would like the Leader of the Opposition to feel comfortable. I would tell him that it is quite clear from my exchange with the House leader of the New Democratic Party that that aspect of it was negotiable. My first offer was to ensure that we would not press the British Parliament to pass the measure until the Supreme Court ruled. However, in answer to a specific question from the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, I said that it is quite acceptable to us-if that is what the House prefers that it would not be sent there at all.
So, now that the Leader of the Opposition feels comfortable, perhaps he will consider this very real offer of having the legality of the matter settled by the courts. I thought that was the whole purpose of the Tory obstruction, that they assumed we were doing something illegal. I am offering to let the courts determine whether it is legal or not before the British parliament acts on this matter.
In so far as the legal document which the Leader of the Opposition alleges might exist is concerned, I put to him once again that his fear, based on something that might have been said in a leaked document, is that once the British parliament has acted, then the Supreme Court of Canada would be powerless. I have made an offer to this House which would guarantee against that fear, that the British Parliament would not act until the Supreme Court had judged. Therefore there is no ground on which to concern oneself about a legal document saying that once Britain had acted the Supreme Court could not act. The whole intent of my offer is to put the Supreme
Court first and the British parliament after, if indeed the Supreme Court decides the motion is legal.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the Prime Minister is prepared to put the Supreme Court decision first in relation to the British Parliament and trust that he will be prepared to put the Supreme Court decision first in relation to the Canadian Parliament so that we will know that we are dealing with legal matters here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question had to do with another important element of the constitutional resolution now before us, and that is the willingness of the Prime Minister to meet with the first ministers of the provinces prior to this resolution's leaving this country and going to Great Britain. I would like to know whether the Prime Minister's answer of the other day to me was designed to preclude any meeting with first ministers on constitutional matters or to discuss this resolution precisely prior to this resolution going to Britain.
Second, while I am on my feet, 1 wonder if the Prime Minister could tell us whether there are any elements of the proposal he now has before the House of Commons that he would not be prepared to have discussed at a meeting of first ministers.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition seems to make something in the fact that I am putting the Supreme Court first before the British Parliament but not before the Canadian Parliament. Surely that is the way he has been asking that things proceed. He wants to make sure that our action here, before it is sent to Britain, is judged to be within a law, and legal. Surely he is not asking that we should put the Supreme Court before Parliament on any matter it is legislating. Surely the Leader of the Opposition should remember that the whole basis of our system is that the Supreme Court judges upon laws which are made by this Parliament and the legislatures of the land.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I suggest that it is our duty in this House to pass laws as best we see them, relying on the people to judge them politically, and relying on the courts to judge them legally. It is the division of powers which is the essence of our system, that we do our job as legislators-that is what I am asking we do-and then we let the Supreme Court do its job as judges.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Supreme Court judges upon legality, and we in this House of Commons want to know that what we are being asked to approve is legal. That is very clear.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Chretien:: Go back to school, Joe.
April 2, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: If the shouting on the Liberal side will subside, let me bring the attention of the Prime Minister back to the first ministers. Twice now I have asked, and now for a third time I ask the Prime Minister about the possibility of a meeting between himself and the first ministers to discuss the best means of resolving the constitutional problems the country faces, and particularly the constitutional resolution before the House.
First, did the Prime Minister intend his answer to me the other day to preclude a meeting with first ministers before the constitutional resolution goes to Britain?
Second, is there any element of that constitutional package which he would not be prepared to have discussed in a meeting of first ministers?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition says this House of Commons has the right to know if what it is doing is legal before it does it.


Mr. Andre:: The Newfoundland court says it is illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Hon. members opposite keep saying, "Answer the question".


An hon. Member:: You don't do it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I do not do it because you do not let me do it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Stevens:: Poor Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think we are well accustomed in this House to the practice of every member of the opposition making statements in preface to a question which, in my view, can be discussed and answered, then a question is added to the preamble. In past days, when I have been answering the sometimes very long preambles to questions, I got shouts from the opposition that I should be answering the questions. I am first answering the preamble, which the opposition has been allowed to make, and then I deal with the question. If you allow the preamble, Madam Speaker, I take it you will allow the answer to the preamble.


Charles Joseph Clark: Now the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Not now the question. First the preamble, my friend.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition, in preface to his question, says the House wants to know before it does it if we are doing something legal. This would be the way to ensure the paralysis of Parliament.


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


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If every time a measure is introduced into this House, somebody, whether it be a province, a private individual, or some other litigant challenged the legality and put the matter before the courts-


Harvie Andre: But what you are doing is illegal.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -then this House would sit back and say let the courts decide. I suggest to hon. members opposite that they are failing to accept the division between the judicial responsibilities and the legislative responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Crosbie:: Like Bill C-60.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition talks about a first ministers' conference. He will remember that in the resolution before the House there is a provision for first ministers' conferences over the next two years. At this first ministers' conference we can discuss any item they want to put on the agenda. We can even discuss changing the resolution which would be adopted by this House, in a way which would be changed by the amending formula provided for in the resolution. That is why I said it can be negotiated. It can even be changed. The Leader of the Opposition can conduct his next campaign, if he is still around, on a mandate-


An hon. Member:: You are getting desperate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -to withdraw the charter of rights from the Constitution, if that is what he desires. But I think I explained at some length, a couple of weeks ago, that after some 54 years of waiting for federal-provincial conferences to obtain-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Waiting for what?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Waiting for what? The hon. member for St. John's West does not know what we have been waiting for.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


POSITION OF BRITISH GOVERNMENT
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of the Environment. In his appearance on "Canada AM" yesterday, the Minister of the Environment said that the Canadian government would insist that the Canadian resolution be placed on the Order Paper of the British Parliament, in effect giving that resolution first reading in Britain before the Supreme Court of Canada could rule on the legality of the proposal.
Has the Minister of the Environment had any communication with the British government on that matter. Can he tell us whether the British government has given him any indication

April 2, 1981
Oral Questions
of its willingness to place the resolution on the British Parliament's order paper before the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled? Could he confirm he had that information?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am afraid that question would be more properly addressed to another minister. I understand the Minister of the Environment was sent as an emissary. But this is not his ministerial responsibility and the hon. member's question would be better addressed to another minister.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Why did he get his nose stuck in it then?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, you have given me an admonition that I cannot ask that question of the minister, yet the Secretary of State for External Affairs and the Minister of the Environment were emissaries, on behalf of the Prime Minister, to Britain to present that constitutional proposal earlier in the summer. On that basis, I wonder whether they were not speaking on behalf of the government. Definitely the minister of the Environment was speaking on television as a minister of the Crown. But if you keep that restriction on me, Madam Speaker, I would like permission to ask the question of the Secretary of State for External Affairs.
Could the Secretary of State of External Affairs indicate whether or not the Minister of the Environment had had communications or whether he had had communications in which the British said they would be willing to place this matter on the Order Paper prior to the Supreme Court of Canada having made a judgment on it?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, we have not asked any such hypothetical questions of the British government. We have not sought any such answers, so we have not received any.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, obviously the Secretary of State for External Affairs has now totally repudiated the word of the Minister of the Environment. He has not been able to confirm it. The Minister of the Environment very clearly stated that was the position of the government. The minister says they have not asked for any such communication and therefore have not received any. I refer him to the meeting with St. John Stevas on November 10 as well as the meeting with the Right Hon. Mr. Pym on December 19. At the meeting with Mr. Pym, the Secretary of State for External Affairs was pushing the case that there should be a decision on the part of the British before the court decision in Canada. In other words, he was advocating that the British do an end run around the Supreme Court as well as the Canadian Parliament. Has the minister had further communication from any British minister along the lines of December 19 that the British would not be willing to do the end run which he advocated on December 19?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is trying to create a false opposition between myself and my
colleague. My colleague was speaking about the Canadian government, and the hon. member is asking about the British government. We have not discussed in any serious fashion, with the British government, questions of the kind he is raising.


AMENDMENT OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION AND REFERRAL TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, following on the point of order raised by the Leader of the Opposition yesterday, I made a proposal which I thought would achieve some consensus with regard to the concern expressed by all the parties in this House to get us out of this constitutional impasse. Before asking my question I would like to make it clear that this party believes in the general proposition that in the federal state it is our responsibility to legislate and the Supreme Court's function to pass final decision on the legislation.
Given the particular circumstances of dealing with a constitutional resolution that has been challenged in one court at the provincial level, negated in fact, although it has been affirmed in another, I would like to ask the Prime Minister a question. Following the meeting of the House leaders which took place today, is the government prepared to accept a proposal which would limit time on the remaining stages of the debate to cover at least two amendments, the one before the House by the Conservative party, the important one on native rights and achieving greater equality for women which we in this party plan to move, to be followed by a decision on that final package by the Supreme Court of Canada and then, prior to sending the package over to Britain, have the final vote on the package, as adjudicated upon by the Supreme Court, here in the House of Commons?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I think that the suggestion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party derogates somewhat from the statement of principles that he made in introducing his question. If it is our duty to legislate and the duty of the courts to adjudicate, then it would seem that the proposition we made, of legislating and then having the courts adjudicate, would be the proper procedure.
I am ready to look for some way to get out of the stalemate. If it could be made clear, if that course is accepted by other parties and ourselves in the House, that we do not consider this as a precedent but merely an exceptional procedure invoked because we are doing something that has no precedent because, I repeat, we have been failing for 54 years by following precedents, and second, if we could make sure that we agree with what the Leader of the New Democratic Party describes as his party's proposals on native or aboriginal rights and women's rights, that could easily be done because, in happier days when we were hoping to make some progress, there had been some exchange of texts as to what would be acceptable regarding women's rights and Indian rights.
April 2, 1981

If that could be made clear and if I could have the assurance from the Leader of the New Democratic Party that he would not entertain, after the Supreme Court ruling, assuming that it is favourable, another long debate on other long amendments which would change the nature of the subject matter referred to the Supreme Court, I would say on behalf of our party that we would be prepared to accept a House ruling stating those very things, if we could get agreement from all parties in this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSITION OF OFFICIAL OPPOSITION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleagues, and I would hope all members on this side of the House, we see that as a genuine concession by the Prime Minister in the direction of consensus building.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: My Conservative colleagues-some, not all-are laughing. Yesterday the Leader of the Opposition
said:
Of course, we will be bound by what the courts decide and if they upheld Mr. Trudeau, we would be able to act pretty quickly in Parliament.
Given that fact, and the fact that today the Prime Minister has indicated the government's willingness to accept this kind of proposal which would enable us to terminate this serious debate and get on with other matters, I would ask the government House leader, and I have to put this question to him because of the rules of the House, whether, following the discussions this morning, there has been any report back from the official opposition as to whether they will accept these conditions.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker. I would point out to the hon. member that we are not in the habit of making public the nature of discussions held during meetings of parliamentary House leaders. However, since the question is being raised by the leader of a party and since no one would be harmed if I were to reveal what was discussed, I can say that this morning's meeting was held to clear up a few points and no one has made a decision yet.
I believe it is still possible that we will meet again later today to find out the reactions to a much more definite and much clearer proposition than the one made yesterday, including that suggested and proposed by the Progressive Conservative Party. For the time being I am unable to say whether that party accepts or rejects the proposition made by the New Democratic Party. In any event it is not up to me to answer for them, they can do that, but if they would prefer to hold more talks I am at their disposal and at the disposal of the New Democratic Party House leader; another meeting might be
Oral Questions
called later today to hold discussions and further negotiations in an attempt to reach agreement.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, since the Conservative party has proved itself quite adept at raising points of order, perhaps at the appropriate time today the Leader of the Opposition will use that opportunity to outline his party's position.


THE ECONOMY
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I would like to turn now from the subject of the Prime Minister and the Leader of the New Democratic Party hijacking the country, to a different question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Carnell Crosbie: My question is to the Minister of Finance. We have been waiting 13 months, the whole term of this government, for some economic action from the government. The minister's department has reported that over the last four years real wages have declined in excess of 6 per cent, and has suggested that the government attempt to convince the public of the necessity of accepting something less in real wages in the current circumstances. In light of this advice from his department to him, and in light of the minister's firm stance against inflation, is he continuing to advise employees against attempting to get wage settlements which exceed the inflation rate or that provide for any catch-up? Is that part of the minister's policy to fight inflation?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, I believe the threat of inflation is still the foremost economic difficulty the country faces. It is still my view that it is necessary to exercise restraint in wage settlements unless we want to give further impulse to even higher inflation in 1981. That view has been made clear more than once by myself, and it is obviously evident to all concerned that acceleration in wage settlements would lead inevitably to even greater pressure on the cost of living index.


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, the minister then is stating it is the government's policy and its advice to the labour segment of our society, or everybody who is employed, that he does not want wage or salary settlements this year in excess of the rate of inflation or to provide for catch-up as part of his anti-inflationary stance.
On February 23 the minister made a statement in Montreal to the Canadian Club in which he said that Canadian workers had no "inalienable" right to better wages, pensions or benefits, and that this could only come from "increased economic growth". Economic growth last year was only 0.1 per cent, and

April 2, 1981
Oral Questions
this year is only forecast to be 1 per cent to 2 per cent. In view of this, is it the minister's advice to the country that since we are not going to have greater economic growth this year, and we did not last year, people should postpone their attempts to get better wages, pensions and benefits?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: No, Madam Speaker, because there have been wage settlements that have already taken place which provide for increased wages. The President of the Treasury Board in the administration of public pay policy has authorized increases for employees in the public service. We are not suggesting that there not be better wage settlements than in the past, or no increases. That is not the suggestion. The suggestion is that in current circumstances, in the interests of the welfare of the country and all the people of the country, wage restraint is absolutely essential if we are to avoid a further acceleration in inflation. That is the point I have been making.


FINANCE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question is also to the Minister of Finance. I would draw to his attention the Bank of Canada's weekly financial statistics as of March 26. I thought the minister might care to explain to the House why his coffers appear to be running over with cash to the extent they are. We note that as of that date he had $6.4 billion on deposit with Canadian chartered banks, up almost $3 billion compared to a year ago. Will the minister explain why he is running such a high cash position with the various banks of the country at a time when it is costing him 13 per cent, sometimes almost 14 per cent, on the money he has to borrow?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would be glad to tell the hon. member, as he probably recalls, that the cash balances held by the government are subject to very important seasonal fluctuations. Because of these seasonal fluctuations I believe he will see that the weekly financial statistics which are to be released today will show that cash balances of the government have been reduced to $4.8 billion, a reduction of $1.6 billion in one week. These seasonal reductions will take place as a result of a number of factors which occur at this time of the year.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I am pleased that the House has received this little advance release, if you like, that cash balances are still $4.8 billion. Would the Minister of Finance not agree then that any suggestion in relation to certain government measures that there is great urgency for the passage by this House of the bill authorizing further borrowing is a little stretched and, in fact, may be a deliberate misrepresentation ?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I would not agree with that because, as his seat or desk mate will recall, one of the important functions of the Minister of Finance is to plan an orderly marketing program of government instruments, and it is quite impossible to plan, for example, the May 1 normal going to the market unless we have the authority from the House of Commons. If we do not have that authority, I believe this will create unnecessary uncertainty and possibly imperil the capacity of the government to undertake foreign exchange transactions and such like.


OIL PRICING POLICY-REPORTED INTRODUCTION OF TWO-TIER SYSTEM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
Yesterday the Calgary Herald had a report that the minister is considering a new two-tiered pricing system for oil. Is the minister considering such a system and, if so, what is the proposed price for the new oil? In addition, could the minister tell the House what impact this system will have at the gas pump?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, if I were considering such a possibility or concept, there would be nothing new to it because I have already indicated in this House that, in the course of my negotiations with the government of Alberta last year, I offered at that time an approach which would have implied a higher price for new oil. That proposal was rejected at that time. Since then I notice that several members of the industry have picked up that proposal and have suggested it has a lot of merit.
I can tell the hon. member that I am not considering any specific proposal at the present time, nor is the government considering any particular proposal. Obviously I will examine the matter further before my meeting with my colleague in Winnipeg on April 13, but I have reached no conclusion in this respect, and obviously the government has not at the present time. The whole report in this regard is totally speculative and has no foundation in so far as it could refer to my intentions or the government's intentions at this stage.


COMMITTEE CONSIDERATION OF BILL C-48
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I am sure the minister will know that a two-price system will mean higher prices and a broken promise. Let me ask him about another broken promise, if I may.
The government rammed Bill C-48 through this House and into the committee stage by the use of closure. At the time his colleague, the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, said we in committee could hear all the witnesses we
April 2, 1981

wanted, yet next week the government is closing down that committee's hearings. Does the minister intend to impose Bill C-48 on the northern people without hearing from them and without consulting with them? Will he put an end to the steamrolling of Bill C-48 and allow the members to go up north and listen to the native people?
Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, there are so many inaccuracies in the hon. member's question I do not know quite where to start. There was no closure in respect of Bill C-48; there was an allocation of time under Standing Order 75c. As far as the hearings are concerned, the committee has heard a very large number of witnesses on Bill C-48 from industry, people from the north, and all kinds of experts from Canada and abroad. Certainly this bill during this session has been the subject of discussion by the largest number of witnesses, second to the constitutional resolution, obviously. As far as the proceedings of the committee are concerned, the committee is the master of its own business and it is improper for me to comment on its activities.


MANPOWER
Mr. Normand Lapointe (Beauce):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Employment and Immigration. Considering that highly creative projects presented under the program of Canada Community Services projects have been temporarily shelved, can the minister say whether his department will soon release additional funds to make it possible to carry out those projects presented by people who are particularly affected by unemployment such as women, the handicapped and young graduates who would use such projects to meet precise social needs?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question, and I am pleased he found that particular program to be beneficial to those who really need the assistance. For his information, we have signed something close to 500 projects across this country; of the participants in those projects, two thirds of them are women, large numbers are disabled, and many of them are young people, so I think the program has reached its objective. Because of the program's success we have an additional $1 million in supplementary estimates for it, and if the hon. member has some good projects he would like to propose, I would certainly be very pleased to receive them.
Oral Questions FINANCE


INDEXING OF INCOME TAX AND SOCIAL TRANSFER PAYMENTS-GOVERNMENT POSITION
Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance and is supplementary to those of the hon. member for St. John's West and the hon. member for York-Peel. Last fall, with inflation considerably less than it is today, the minister considered, but did not put in his budget, a limit on the indexing of personal income tax and social transfer payments. The January 9 Finance Department document stated that, despite political difficulties, that policy appears to be worth keeping under consideration.
Will he tell this House whether he is again considering the imposition of a limit on such indexing, and give the House his assurance that he will not consider this in the future given its unfair application to the taxpayers and the recipients of old age pensions and so on?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I refer the hon. member to the budget statement itself when I dealt with the question of indexation and I said there, as I recollect, this was a subject that one might return to later. That situation has not changed and the words used in the October budget still apply.


Harvie Andre: So the minister is saying that still remains a threat to Canadians.


TAX BASED INCOMES POLICY
Harvie Andre: Is the minister considering a tax based incomes policy with reference to price and wage guidelines, or does he agree with another part of the January 9 discussion paper which states that such a policy would cause more problems than it would be worth? Could he tell the House what his views are with regard to such a policy, and does he also go along with the view expressed in that discussion paper that this is unfair?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have not reached the conclusion to introduce TIP, as it is called, and if and when I do the House of Commons will be the first to know.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, on March 24 the Prime Minister stated in this House that the causes of inflation were "mainly energy prices and higher food prices and interest rates". Surely the Prime Minister is aware by now that when energy and food prices are removed, inflation is still running at a rate of 10.2 per cent.
In view of this I ask him to comment on these facts, interest rates clearly being an area that he could control, and tell the

April 2, 1981
Oral Questions
House whether he intends any new economic policies to control this killer inflation rate which is so devastating to our senior citizens and other low-income people?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member seems to suggest that we could control food prices and-


An hon. Member:: Interest rates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and therefore bring the inflation rate down to 10 per cent.


An hon. Member:: No, interest rates.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. members did not listen to their own questioner and so, Madam Speaker, I cannot deal with it.


REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Robert Alfred Corbett: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has just taken the reverse aspect of that particular question and did not answer it at all. The Gallup poll shows that inflation is a major concern of over half the population. Indeed, a recent poll shows that it is of major concern to over 70 per cent of Quebecers. Based on that, and the fact that over 60 per cent of the people disagree with his method of patriation of the Constitution, why will he not adjourn debate on this motion until the Supreme Court of Canada takes a decision on its legality, and concentrate on measures to fight inflation on which he will have the full support of this side of the House?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, now I do agree with the preamble to the question. The hon. member suggests that we should get on to other business-


John Carnell Crosbie: You should.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -particularly the financial matters. We attempted all day yesterday to get on to the borrowing bill which the hijacking of Parliament by the official opposition prevented us from doing.


An hon. Member:: There is another question of privilege.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hope that they will be a bit consistent. If they want us to deal with other things, as we attempted to do yesterday, I hope they will permit us to do it today, unless of course the Leader of the Opposition is prepared to answer the suggestion made by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, which of course would be the perfect answer to the concern of the hon. member. If we can have agreement in this House on a House order in the direction indicated by the Leader of the New Democratic Party, then indeed we could dispense with this whole matter, I believe he has said in a couple of days, and then indeed we could get on to other things and tackle inflation.


FISHERIES
Mr. Ted Miller (Nanaimo-Albemi):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The growing opposition in Atlantic Canada to the quality program announced by the government, and in particular the Newfoundland Fishermen, Food and Allied Workers have officially come out in opposition to the program simply because they feel that it loads the cost of quality programming on fishermen and offers no guarantee that they will benefit from increased quality.
Could the minister give some assurances to the fishermen in Atlantic Canada that his department is looking at ways to see that the price to fishermen increases as a result of their providing better quality?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I do not see many ways that I could intervene in negotiations as to price between fishermen and processors, but I know one thing: if we do not make sure that our place in the markets is protected and ensured by consistent quality of the fish we export, then I can predict to the hon. member that the price will drop because we will be the first to suffer from tightened market conditions.


Edward Allan Miller: No one in the industry questions the advisability of increasing quality. What the Fishermen are saying is that they will have to increase their investment capital and manpower in their vessels, and yet there is no collective bargaining in three Atlantic provinces which would guarantee them a fair price. I am asking the minister if he is suggesting that all they have is hope for an increase in the price of their product, or is there some other mechanism whereby he can assure them that if they put that money in they are going to get some money back?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, there is more than hope; there is reality. Of the $8 million in the boat subsidy program for the year starting yesterday, $2 million has been put aside for improvement of holding facilities, icing equipment, carrying equipment, gutting machines, etc., to be used on fishing vessels. Two million dollars is already committed to this program, and more will be added if the fishermen so require.
As to the three provinces the hon. member mentioned where fishermen have not yet been given the legal right to organize and to bargain for fish prices, I can only give fishermen one piece of advice: they should throw out the three Tory governments in those provinces.
April 2, 1981


HOUSING
[Stage Direction]
Mir. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby): Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Public Works, the minister responsible for the housing crisis in the country. Inflation is now at 12.2 per cent, and with its accompanying ballooning of mortgage interest rates, obviously is causing severe financial distress and wreaking havoc with Canadians holding mortgages which must be renewed, and with the housing industry.
Will the minister confirm that the Canadian housing industry, on a yearly basis, is in the deepest slump since the 1930s? Will he agree that the inflation created by government deficits and oceans of new money being printed to cope with this deficit are the major cause of the housing disaster facing Canada?
Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, in so far as my ministry responds to the part of the question dealing with the condition of the housing industry in Canada, I might say that about a year ago some of the statistics might have been approximately accurate, that is, the slump of the industry and the difficulties of the industry. But I am sure the hon. member and many hon. members have seen in recent months, particularly in the first quarter of this year, improvement in the industry, as reflected by the increase in the number of starts. Indeed, according to industry spokesmen-I am thinking of the urban development industry and, for example, the HUDAC spokesman; leaders in the industry-obviously the record of the first quarter of this year shows an improvement in the industry and optimism in the industry which was not apparent, as I have indicated, 12 months previously.


Mr. Cook:: Madam Speaker, in an effort to be sweetly reasonable-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Eric Cook: -what new policy does the minister have to fight inflation as the main obstacle to expanding and building more houses? Will the minister try to persuade the government to get off its constitutional obsession, so that we can deal with both inflation and the housing problems?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, with some modesty, I might say that sweet reasonableness is one of the attributes I attempt to project and to apply to all my duties and responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Paul James Cosgrove: I would think anyone applying those standards in any objective manner would have to agree that the signals in the industry are to an upturn, there is optimism in the industry and, in part, that reflects the previous action of the government in the last 12 months, for example, in increasing social housing starts, in the budget provisions with respect
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
to MURBs, and in the better use of government machinery under the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation to be a more effective provider vis-a-vis the housing needs of Canadians generally.


POINTS OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order concerning House business and flowing from the fraternal discussions between the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). I want a little clarification on what exactly the Prime Minister indicated he would find acceptable, particularly since it was not clear to me in the statement of the Leader of the New Democratic Party whether or not he was talking about votes on amendments in the House prior to any package going to the Supreme Court of Canada.


John Edward Broadbent: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: He now says, "Yes". To come back to the proposition I raised yesterday which caused discussions among House leaders that have now been carried on publicly-I must say it was somewhat to our surprise that those discussions should be carried on publicly on the floor of the House, but that process having been started, we will carry it on-let me ask the Prime Minister whether he would be prepared to accept a position which contained the following elements. First, there would be a grouping of a limited number of amendments agreed to among all parties in the House. Second, that the constitutionality of those amendments, as well as the constitutionality of the government's own resolution, would be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada before Parliament votes on any question relating to the constitutional resolution.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Third, that the debate in Parliament be adjourned until a decision by the Supreme Court of Canada to allow Parliament to get on with the other urgent business of the nation. Fourth, that no new amendments would be introduced to any resolution after the Supreme Court of Canada has rendered its decision on the legality of the government's position and on the legality of any amendments which might be proposed by other parties in the House.
Would the Prime Minister be prepared to respond positively to a proposal containing those elements?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, this is a rather strange point of order. It began with asking me to clarify the suggestion of the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) that I accepted. I can only
8886

April 2, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
suggest, since we are on a point of order, that the Leader of the New Democratic Party answer that. I have answered his suggestion affirmatively. Let us deal with that; let us hear the point of view of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on that proposal. If it is accepted, it solves the matter; if it is not, then we will see if there is any further room for compromise.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister has heard our proposal and the proposal of the New Democrats. He knows there is one fundamental area in which they disagree. The New Democrats and the Liberals, together again, appear to be prepared to have the House of Commons vote on a matter which the courts of Canada have declared illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We are not prepared to have the House of Commons vote on a matter which has been declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland.
An appreciable distinction between the two proposals concerns whether or not it is appropriate for Parliament to vote on matters which a court has found to be illegal. We believe it is not appropriate for Parliament to vote on a constitutional matter which has been found by a court of this country to be beyond the constitutional competence of Parliament. That is our position; that responds to the position put forward by the New Democratic Party.
I return to my question to the Prime Minister. Would he be prepared to accept a proposal such as the one I put forward yesterday and again today containing the elements I have enumerated, a proposal which would allow us to determine the question of legality, to consider the appropriateness of all important amendments, to adjourn this debate immediately so that we could get on with the important business of Canada, and to ensure that there was a Constitution in Canada which adhered to the constitutional law and practice of the country? Also, perhaps the adjournment would provide an opportunity for the first ministers of the nation to get together to see if there might be some greater room for agreement on the Constitution of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, neither the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) nor myself had the dubious pleasure, perhaps, of going to law school, but I would like to-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Thank you very much.


John Edward Broadbent: Well, I never went to law school, Madam Speaker. However, I want to say in all seriousness to the Leader of the Opposition that I was responding in my comments yesterday to the suggestions I heard for the first time from the Leader of the Opposition. The responses were made on the floor of the House immediately after I heard them.
There was no conspiracy either with members of his party or with the party opposite.
However, I would like to say, since he asked a question here on a point of order concerning our attitude with respect to voting on amendments, that the position I put forward on behalf of my colleagues was that, yes, there should be a vote on amendments. There are important matters affecting the native people of Canada; they want to know where we stand. There are important matters affecting the women of Canada; they want to know where we stand. There have been matters which my party have attempted to debate for six weeks in the House of Commons. We would like a vote taken on those. Presumably the official opposition, which has one amendment before the House, would like to have a vote on it or it would never have moved the amendment.


Charles Joseph Clark: That was before the Supreme Court decision.


John Edward Broadbent: I want to come now to the final point of law. As I understand it, we are proposing to vote on the amendments but withholding the vote on the final resolution, as amended, precisely to deal with the point raised by the Leader of the Opposition, that at this point in our history, in the moral sense-


An hon. Member:: What about the legal one?


John Edward Broadbent: -we should obtain the acceptance of the Supreme Court of the legitimacy of the way in which we are proceeding, given the fact that the court in Manitoba ruled one way and the court in Newfoundland ruled the other. We have made the proposal, although according to strict constitutional law I do not think it is necessary. But I think in terms of political and moral legitimacy it is necessary, which is the point the Leader of the Opposition is making.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: All I am asking the Leader of the Opposition to do is to be logical on this issue and allow a vote on his amendment, a vote on our amendments-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -and then suspend final judgment until we hear from the Supreme Court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition motions for me to stand up. I will answer very clearly, Madam Speaker. I accept the proposal of the Leader of the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Can the Leader of the Opposition stand up and say, yes or no, whether he accepts it? Let us hear his answer.

April 2, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Yes or no?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I regret that the Prime Minister missed my first answer. We cannot accept a proposal which would have the House of Commons voting on matters which the Supreme Court of Newfoundland has declared to be beyond the competence of this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blais:: It's not so!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Do I understand the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is asking for the floor again?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am asking for the floor simply because in these exchanges between the Leader of the New Democratic Party and the Prime Minister we have yet to receive an answer from the Prime Minister to the question I put to him in respect to the proposal, the elements of which I have outlined today. I would like to have that response from him.


Some hon. Members:: Yes or no?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, to look at things in order, I suppose that the Leader of the Opposition would require not only agreement from myself but agreement from the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Why?


Harvie Andre: He is in bed with you. He will do whatever you want.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am asked why, Madam Speaker. Because if the New Democratic Party are not part of the deal, they can, if they wish, and if they are as destructive as the Tories, hold up the work of this House for weeks, just as the Tory party is.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is why we are looking for a compromise that everyone can agree to.
The Leader of the Opposition wants a yes or no answer. It would depend on what happened after the Supreme Court decided. The Leader of the Opposition has not dealt with that. Once the Supreme Court decides and if the decision is that the matter is legal, would he then agree to pass in the House the whole package within, say, 48 hours?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: No!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I take it that is the only question in the Prime Minister's mind in relation to our package. Is that correct?


Some hon. Members:: Answer the question! Yes or no?
Point of Order-Mr. Epp


Charles Joseph Clark: Could I have an indication from the Prime Minister whether that is the only reservation, the only question he has in relation to the proposition-the time element after the matter comes back from the Supreme Court?


An hon. Member:: Up, Pierre!


Some hon. Members:: Up, up!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I want to point out to the House that the Chair is rather uneasy since these are the kind of negotiations that do not usually take place in the presence of the Chair. These are the kind of matters that are not usually conducted in open debate. I have tolerated it for a while in the hope that, perhaps, something speedy could be accomplished. It might be wiser to continue the negotiations in another place, but the House may do as it wishes.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I have a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Provencher on a point of order.


MR. EPP-DISALLOWANCE OF QUESTION ON CONSTITUTION ADDRESSED TO MR. ROBERTS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises out of the question period today. You will recall that I asked a question of the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) regarding the Constitution. Your Honour ruled that I was not in a position to ask that question of the Minister of the Environment in view of the fact that the Constitution does not fall within his area of ministerial responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Not again!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I direct the attention of the House to page 6224 of Hansard for January 15, 1981.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Could I have order, please?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Might we have some quiet in the House, please?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I refer you to page 6224 of Hansard for January 15, 1981. On that day the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) used the following words in his question:
This matter has been discussed between the prime ministers in June. Could the Minister of the Environment in his capacity as envoy on constitutional matters inform the House?
The Minister of the Environment then proceeded to answer the question, which was strictly on constitutional matters as they related to his duties, as given to him by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and to his contacts in Great Britain.
My question today was exactly on that point, on the Constitution and the contacts the minister, as the envoy of the Prime Minister, had in Britain regarding the possible conversation

April 2, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Epp
between members of the British cabinet and the Minister of the Environment. On January 15 you allowed the minister to answer exactly with respect to that issue. Today you chose not to do so.
I would like the Chair to give me an indication whether I can ask the minister those questions in the future, in view of the fact that he has been able to answer them before, and it is public knowledge that the Prime Minister instructed the "Mark and John Show", the two apostles, to go to Britain.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I remember that incident, but I cannot call it a precedent because I did not make a ruling. These sort of things happen very quickly in the House of Commons, and having happened there is very little that the Speaker can do. However, the Speaker may not interfere if the minister chooses to answer the question. On this particular occasion, the minister rapidly answered that question; that was his choice. However, this point remains very clear in Beau-chesne, Citation 361;
A question may not be asked of a minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province-
That is a very clear rule. It is also up to the minister to decide whether he wants to answer a question.
What I did today was not to disallow the question put to the minister; I simply suggested that it might more properly be addressed to someone else. The hon. member received an answer to his question from another minister. But the rule is there for his guidance. The Chair cannot really prevent a minister from answering or force him to answer a question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, on the same point, if you could give me further instructions, are you saying that, despite the ruling in Beauchesne if a minister chooses to answer, and if he is quickly enough on his feet, he can answer?


Madam Speaker:: It is his own choice whether to answer. It is the minister's choice to answer a question or not to answer. It is very hard for me to determine all of the specific responsibilities of the minister. This particular question was long enough that I was able to react, and it seemed that it might more properly have been addressed to another minister. I simply suggested to the hon. member that he might address it to another minister.
In the particular circumstance of today, the Minister of the Environment chose not to answer the question I suppose, though I cannot answer for him, because he felt it was not within the realm of his specific ministerial responsibilities; but another minister took up the question.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Just one more point, Madam Speaker. If I interpret your ruling correctly, it is very difficult for an hon. member on this side of the House to ask a minister a question in an area in which he has answered before. The minister has made public statements which have been repudiated in this House by his colleague, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan). Therefore, it is impossible, in view
of that ruling-despite the fact that the minister has already answered once-to discover who is speaking for the government in this House and what communications have taken place. It is a ruling which places all of us in a Catch-22 situation.


Madam Speaker:: I think the hon. member is more confused than he need be. He did occupy a cabinet post and he does know that ministers may make statements outside the House on any aspect of government policy, be it the Constitution or any other matter. Therefore, the Minister of the Environment may quite properly make statements on the Constitution outside the House, but it does not then necessarily follow that because the minister has made a statement outside the House, hon. members in the House may be allowed to ask questions on that statement if it is not within the realm of his ministerial responsibilities.
The rule is quite clear. If an hon. member asks a question, a minister may answer it. But ministers may answer only those questions which are within the realm of their responsibilities, and they are the judges of what matters fall within the realm of their responsibilities. I think that is quite clear.


Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, on the same point of order, I believe this is important to what you said. I recall having asked questions of former solicitors general which they chose to answer despite the fact that they no longer occupied the portfolio.
I want to point out to Your Honour that while you were engaged in this interesting point of order with my colleague, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) was also listening very closely and he indicated, to me at least, that he did not agree with your interpretation that he did not want to answer the question. From his clear gesture, I understood-he is nodding his head now-that he really wished to respond to the question, which raises a whole new dimension here. Just as a former solicitor general responded to me when I was asking what I thought to be an important question, the Minister of the Environment indicated that he, too, wished to follow that precedent. It would appear that he was inadvertently prevented from having this opportunity.
Therefore, my point of order is that I believe the minister should now be given the opportunity to indicate to the House whether he does wish to exercise his option and answer the question.


Madam Speaker:: Well, first of all, the question period is over. Secondly, to answer the hon. member's point of order, I suggested that the question might more properly have been addressed to another minister. If the Minister of the Environment had then risen in his place, I do not feel that I could have prevented him from answering the question; but he did not. Instead, the question was addressed to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan), and he chose to answer it.
April 2, 1981

If another question is posed in other circumstances, I might again point out to the House that that question could perhaps be more properly addressed to another minister. However, that does not preclude a certain minister from rising in his seat to answer the question. For the time being, we cannot come back to this question because question period has concluded.
I will hear the Minister of the Environment, but only on a point of order; I will not allow him to answer the question.


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: I understand, Madam Speaker. If I have caused any problem, I am sorry to have done so. I had no particular desire to answer the question, but I would have been quite happy and prepared to respond to it, as a matter of politeness to the hon. member opposite. There is really no need for me to do so since one of my colleagues gave the answer. However, if someone else wants to pose another question at some other time, I would be happy to hear it and possibly respond in a way which might be helpful.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, when the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition began the exchange a while go, he referred to it as having started under the heading of House business. I had assumed that somewhere in that exchange the usual Thursday questions would be asked. I do not wish to jump ahead of my friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Go ahead!


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are very kind.


Walter David Baker: You are standing, so go ahead.


Stanley Howard Knowles: May I ask the government House leader if he can tell us what the government plans for business today, if we get there? At the same time may I make the plea, despite the fact that agreement did not seem to get reached earlier this afternoon on how we handle the Constitution, that we have further meetings of House leaders to see if we can resolve the one or two points of difference which still stand?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think we will have some relief today, if the opposition has been sincere, and I think it has been. We will not deal with the motion to allocate time to the debate on the Constitution today, so I suppose there will then be no problem and no delaying tactics. What I propose to do-and I mentioned this earlier to my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton-is to deal with a motion in the name of the Minister of State for Finance to allocate time to the debate on the borrowing authority bill. Since less than two hours remain to debate that motion, it is possible that it will be voted on before the end of the day and we will have to deal with something else.
Business of the House
I say now publicly that we will not deal with the motion to limit time on the Constitution debate, but instead we will deal with the borrowing authority bill after the motion to limit time for debate on that bill has been voted on. That is the only item on the program today. We will deal with that very important motion on a very urgent bill which should have been passed by both Houses yesterday but is still pending because of the delays we have faced within the last days.
Since hon. members of the opposition have been saying all along that if another item of business is brought under the order of the day they would then show their seriousness and let it proceed, I am publicly saying that that is fine. Today we will not deal with the motion to allocate time on the Constitution. We will deal merely with the motion on borrowing authority and the bill itself.
In so far as the business for tomorrow and next week is concerned, obviously it would have been much easier to establish the order of business if we had concluded an agreement as suggested by the Leader of the New Democratic Party; but if I understood the Leader of the Opposition, he rejected the offer made by the Leader of the NDP.
Consequently, I think we will have to wait and see when the motion is voted on today and when there is an order of the House allocating two days to deal with the borrowing authority bill. I am prepared to discuss with the House leaders having the report stage tomorrow, for example, assuming that a vote is taken today and that part of the debate proceeds after that vote on the borrowing authority bill. I am prepared to discuss a proposal that the report stage of the borrowing authority bill proceed tomorrow. If there is a vote, we could agree to postpone it to next week. I am even prepared to discuss a proposal that the bill be read a third time Monday, assuming always that there is a vote today to limit the debate to two days.
If hon. members opposite are sincere, we will face no hijacking for the next three days and will make progress on a very urgent and important item of business.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I wonder if the government House leader would also answer my question about further House leaders' meetings on the issue of the Constitution debate. Even though the differences today might have been rather sharp, their number is only one or two. Since we do want to get out of the impasse and get on, a further meeting might be useful.


Yvon Pinard: Yes, Madam Speaker, I am always pleased to meet with my colleagues. That seems to be a constructive suggestion. If it suits my colleague the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, I am willing to have that meeting in 15 minutes in my office.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am always happy to meet in House leaders' meetings with my colleagues in the hope that we can make some progress.

April 2, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Waddell POINTS OR ORDER


MR. WADDELL-ALLEGED MISLEADING REPLY OF MR. LALONDE
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, it may' be a pleasant change of pace to hear a point of order from down here; perhaps not.
My point of order is this. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) may inadvertently have misled the House in reply to a question I put to him in question period with respect to the meetings of the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works. The minister indicated to the House that the committee had been hearing from many witnesses and from northerners. Perhaps the minister did not know this, but the fact is that in 11 meetings we heard from government civil servants and bureaucrats; in nine meetings we heard from the major multinational oil companies; and in only two meetings did we hear from the people who will ultimately be affected by the bill and have to live with it with respect to the whole development of the north. I see the minister in the House, and I would not want him inadvertently to mislead the House.
The second point is that the committee voted unanimously for my motion to visit the north at the request of northern people, and then on the instructions of the minister his department-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am afraid the hon. member is debating the question. Whether he finds the answer the minister gave him during the question period complete or not, that does not constitute the basis of a point of order or a question of privilege. I am afraid the hon. member is simply prolonging the question period, and trying to enter into debate with the hon. minister on this question. The hon. member will have many other occasions in the course of the proceedings to do that, but I ask him not to pursue it now.


Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, my point of order will be very short. I can deal with it in just two sentences. If the policy of not permitting an hon. minister to answer a question-


Madam Speaker:: Order. That question has been settled. I have ruled on it.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, there is a point-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Mr. Jean-Robert Gauthier (Ottawa-Vanier):: Madam Speaker, I have just heard that the leaders of the various parties will be meeting to discuss a possible agreement. Madam Speaker, as a member of this House I should like to ask you, in your capacity as Speaker of the House, to reserve the right of any member to be informed first of any agreement which the parties may reach because, as I see it, parties do not have the right to speak. Members have the right to speak. I would also like to reserve the right to rise on a question of
privilege should we as members of the House, be denied the right to introduce amendments to this resolution.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members will understand that negotiations which may be held between party leaders will surely be discussed afterwards with the members. This is something which does not concern the Chair in any way. The hon. member wanted to raise a question and did so, but it is certainly not a point of order.


Mr. Olivier:: Madam Speaker, I would simply like to say that I wanted to raise the same point of order before the House. I will therefore follow the advice you have just given.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the whole question period could be stymied if one minister said to another, "You announce this program on television and then you cannot be questioned in the House of Commons". The entire question period would break down. There have been rulings on that in other legislatures. I very simply ask Your Honour to give cognizance to that fact, because that is doing something indirectly which cannot be done directly.


Madam Speaker:: If the ruling is faulty, we can change it, but I certainly cannot change it. I can only follow it.
I merely want to read Citation 361 of Beauchesne for those who have not read it:
A question may not be asked of a minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
The interpretation of that rule has always been that ministers may answer questions on matters relating to their ministerial responsbility. However, the Chair cannot force a minister to answer. The whole question period could consist of questions and no answers at all, and there would be nothing the Speaker could do about it. Ministers are free to answer or not answer questions. That is the practice; the rule is there to confirm it and that concludes the point of order.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I am now ready to rule on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).
i


Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. I apologize to the Chair for not speaking more concisely yesterday. It is my habit to speak concisely about matters.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I thought I had given the hon. member enough time to expose his question of privilege. I felt that if he allowed me, I would rule right now on his question of
April 2, 1981

privilege. I know it was six o'clock, but he obviously had come to the end of his argument. As a matter of fact, he indicated that he was at the end of his argument. If anything, all I could allow would be that he finish his last sentence.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I thought about this last night and I think I can state the essence of my point-in a somewhat different way from the way I stated it yesterday-in about two minutes, if you will permit me.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: I realize it is a good thing to sleep on it and that is probably what happened. But it was yesterday that the hon. member argued his question of privilege. Of course he still had the floor at six o'clock and I had to interrupt him because the sitting was over. However, I remind him that I will give him exactly two minutes.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I believe the position of the Chair is that you cannot find that we lawyers have a question of privilege, because to do so you would have to find that the matter is illegal. Your Honour said that we have the right to vote or not to vote. My respectful submission is that the way that ruling stands at the moment-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry, but the hon. member is commenting on the ruling I made. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. I made that ruling quite specifically and answered those arguments, so the hon. member cannot come back on that ruling. I have determined that those arguments are not relevant to the question.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, in the minute and a half I have left, let us suppose the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this measure was illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Kilgour: It seems to me that by the jurisprudence referred to by Your Honour and by Your Honour's ruling, if the absurd notion of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) that what the courts say does not matter here were upheld, with the utmost of respect Your Honour would then be in precisely the same position. If the Supreme Court of Canada ruled that this proposal was illegal and we were asked to vote on it-we would not be forced to vote-the position is that no one would attack us for voting. In my respectful submission, unless Your Honour takes a wider, newer or more expansive view of the privileges of members, that is precisely the position members of Parliament will be in.
I suppose Your Honour is going to cut me off. I thank you for listening so attentively.


Madam Speaker:: I am ready to rule on the hon. member's question of privilege. However, yesterday when the hon.
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
member offered me a hypothetical argument as to what would happen, for instance, if this House were to make a motion to send all of the women of this House to the moon, I was about to jump to my feet and say that that motion was quite in order, except that I might want to know whether there is a Parliament up there!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Of course, hon. members would not know why I want to know whether there is a Parliament up there. I can tell them I want to know so that I can decide whether I want a job or want to be relieved of one! That is my secret.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member began his argument by quoting from Erskine May. He read the first paragraph on page 67 of the nineteenth edition. Following that, he enjoined me to take a broader look at what constitutes privilege. He did refer to my inexperience in legal matters. I confess to that. Although I confess to inexperience in legal matters, I am beginning to have some experience in parliamentary procedure, and that is the business I am in.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member has such experience in legal matters, I am surprised, that he did not read the whole paragraph. I will read it to him.


David Kilgour: That is because of experience.


Madam Speaker:: That is because he is experienced, quite right!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: I can tell the hon. member that he is protected from any damage which might occur to him should he be forced by this House to do a number of things that he finds illegal or improper.
The second paragraph on page 67 of Erskine May reads:
The particular privileges of the Commons have been defined as: "The sum of the fundamental rights of the House and of its individual members as against the prerogatives of the Crown, the authority of the ordinary courts of law and the special rights of the House of Lords".
In other words, May says that the hon. member is protected by parliamentary immunity. That is what it is all about. Members in this House can say whatever they feel they should say, and they are protected if they say it within the precincts of this House.
Incidentally, the hon. member had two questions of privilege; he argued them both at the same time. He argued the one about his oath, which would put him in conflict with what he is doing in the House. The second one had to do with the rules of the Bar association, which he would have to contravene if he were dealing with the constitutional motion.

April 2, 1981
Privilege
The question of the oath has been answered. On the second point, the hon. member wants me to apply the rules of the Bar associations of the different provinces to this House. This House is run by the rules of the House, not by the rules of the Bar associations.
I have to tell the hon. member that he does not have a question of privilege on that basis. He did not bring forward any new argument to convince me that he has a question of privilege.
I want members to take note that I have ruled on both those questions of privilege.


REPETITIVE QUESTIONS OF PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I have something to say about the number of questions of privilege that I have on the same matter. I think it was demonstrated yesterday, as speakers rose to defend their questions of privilege, that it is difficult for members to argue them without referring to my previous rulings and also without repeating the arguments which other colleagues have already put forward in their presentations.
Because I cannot allow members to comment on my rulings or refer to them during the debate which follows, I realize that members will be obliged to repeat those same arguments. In fact, three members in a row have repeated the arguments, and the Chair is placed in the peculiar position of having to listen to the same argument on each question of privilege that is raised. The Chair must listen to all members who give notice of a question of privilege. There is no doubt about that according to our Standing Orders. However, the Standing Orders do not provide that the Chair must listen to the same questions several times over. If I read the wording governing questions of privilege, it would be quite obvious to them that in this case we have questions of privilege that are all similar. I do not find it said anywhere that the Chair must listen to the same question of privilege several times over.
Because it will be difficult to pursue these questions of privilege without repeating the arguments and referring to the rulings that I have made, I am going to ask the hon. members who have submitted questions of privilege on the matter of the Constitution to withdraw them voluntarily.
I think hon. members realize that they themselves will have difficulty defending them, and it will be practically impossible to deal with these questions of privilege because of the constraint I will have to put on members regarding the repetition of arguments and reference to my rulings. Therefore, I ask those members who have submitted questions of privilege to withdraw them voluntarily. I will commence with the question of privilege of the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker).


Hon. Erik Nielsen (Yukon):: Madam Speaker, before putting that proposal to hon. members, because of the rather unusual course which the Chair might be embarking upon, may I suggest that perhaps the more proper course to follow would be to hear members individually.
I say that for two reasons. First, while it is totally improper for an hon. member to question or comment negatively on the Chair's ruling, there is certainly no stricture on an hon. member to comment favourably on the Chair's ruling. We are doing it all the time by referring to precedents.
Second, and perhaps more important, the Standing Order requiring notice to be given of questions of privilege requires that notice be accompanied by a brief statement of the subject matter of the question of privilege intended to be raised. Given that a notice you have contains a brief statement-I do not know what kind of statement is contained in the notice but I assume it is brief, consisting of one or two sentences-it seems to me that the fairer practice might be, rather than embarking upon a totally new precedent which may prove to be undesirable in the future, at least to hear the hon. member who has given notice until such time as the Chair determines it is, in fact, the same question with which the Chair has already dealt. Therefore, it seems to me it would be fairer for the hon. member who has given notice to be allowed to develop his submissions to you to the point where the Chair finds there is duplication.
I think it would be extremely undesirable if the Chair were to rule now that there was a discretion in the Chair simply to read the notice, accompanied by the brief statement required under our rules, and to rule on the acceptability of a question of privilege merely on the basis of the notice and the brief statement.
I therefore urge you, Madam Speaker, to hear the hon. member at least until the Chair has formed an opinion one way or another that there is a duplication, at which time 1 totally agree that the Chair would be justified in saying the matter is intruding upon subject matter that the Chair has already rendered a ruling upon. I think the hon. member should be allowed to proceed to that extent.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to take up some of your time with this matter, but I believe that it is extremely important to remind the House of what you have just said in effect that when the similarity among several questions of privilege is such that only a few words differ, it is obvious, normal and also logical for you to make a ruling on all of them at the same time.
I believe that if you could not make a ruling on all of them at one time, the privileges of the House as a whole might be threatened since every hon. member is a legislator, and as such, has the right to speak on legislative measures and not only on points of order or questions of privilege.
The problem, Madam Speaker, is that if you are not given the right to make a ruling on a group of similar questions of privilege which contain about the same words, we shall be prevented as legislators from playing the role for which we
April 2, 1981

have been elected. This is why I support your decision, Madam Speaker, and I ask that you apply it.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I find the intervention of the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) a little offensive at this point. You indicated that you were about to proceed with a ruling. That is not subject to any questioning.


Erik Nielsen: No.


Steve Eugene Paproski: The Speaker did not rule.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I know the parliamentary secretary did not intend intentionally to mislead the House by that observation. I am sure Your Honour will confirm you were indeed inquiring of members who had filed notices of questions of privilege whether they wanted to withdraw their question of privilege. It is for the members, at the request of the Speaker, to make a decision. With respect to the intervention of the hon. member for Olivier, the person who shares an apartment with the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde)-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please!


Steve Eugene Paproski: Sit down!


An hon. Member:: When the Speaker is standing you have to sit down.


Madam Speaker:: We are already on a point of order and there cannot be two at the same time. I shall ask the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) to conclude his point of order, and afterwards, if the hon. member for Lon-gueuil wishes to rise on another point of order, I shall be able to hear him.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, initially I have to apologize to the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier). He is a distinguished member of this House. He is a handsome, intelligent and concise man and I do not want to offend him by calling him by his own name.
The point I want to make is that if members are not allowed at least to make an initial statement with regard to their question of privilege, that would be an unfortunate precedent. In the course of carrying out your duties, Your Honour has the discretion at a particular point in time to ask an hon. member to get to the point. Indeed, you may not be satisfied that there is a question of privilege. If we look ahead to the consequences of not allowing members to have the opportunity to make an initial statement on their question of privilege, we may regard that as an unfortunate precedent. I wanted to clarify this
Privilege
because the parliamentary secretary did interject and I wanted to explain the point to him.


Jack Wendele Shields: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Longueuil yelled across the floor for me to shut up, which is unparliamentary language. I would ask the hon. member to withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: That is not an unparliamentary expression, although I am not sure that it is in the best of taste.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is what you get for living with Lalonde.


Steve Eugene Paproski: You don't say that in your apartment.


Madam Speaker:: I understand from the intervention made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) that he is expressing a view on this subject. I want to say that I did not intend to rule from the written notices. That is not allowed by our rules. It is allowed in the rules or practices of the Parliament at Westminster, but not in our rules. I was not suggesting that I would walk into the House and rule on questions of privilege on the basis of the statements I had received. In the same manner, I do not suppose that the hon. member for Yukon wants to speak for all members who have submitted notices of questions of privilege. Therefore, I will ask them individually.
The only thing I was asking was whether these members would voluntarily withdraw their questions of privilege, taking into account they would be in quite great difficulty. I am giving them notice now that I will not accept an argument that has already been given and I will not accept any negative comments on my ruling-and I thank the hon. member for making the difference between the negative and the positive- It will be difficult to defend those questions of privilege because, as I said, they are similar.
I will ask the individual members if they want to withdraw. If they do not, that is their own decision. I will ask them individually if they wish to withdraw and then I will proceed. Does the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) want to withdraw?


Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills):: With respect, Madam Speaker, I would normally comply immediately with a request from the Chair, but in this instance, and because I did not hear all of the rulings given yesterday, only part, I believe I have a couple of points that would be a niche in the rulings you have given. My comments will be very brief, lasting perhaps five minutes. I am hoping they will give a perspective that Your Honour would appreciate and which would help you in your over-all ruling.


Madam Speaker:: I understand the hon. member does not want to withdraw. I want to remind the House that the circumstance that the Chair should have so many questions of privilege to hear is quite unprecedented. Never in the history of Parliament have we not been able to reach the orders of the day for such a long period. I am told that never in the history

April 2, 1981
Privilege
of any Parliament has the Speaker had to be in the chair for so many consecutive hours. Apparently that has never happened in any Parliament that we know of, so the circumstances are really unprecedented.


Erik Nielsen: The pipeline debate.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is referring to the pipeline debate. Not even during that period did that happen. However, there are rules regarding the question period; questions should be short, answers should be short. There are rules in the Standing Orders about the length of debate; sometimes it is 40 minutes, 30 minutes or some other length of time. There are rules which are quite strict and they are followed by this House. There are rules about the number of times a member can speak on a particular question. However, there are no rules on matters of privilege.
Therefore, I will use my discretion, in view of the unprecedented circumstances in which the House finds itself, to determine that no member will speak more than five minutes. A member must make the point to me in five minutes that he has the basis for a question of privilege; I remind members they need not debate a question of privilege but need only indicate to me that they have the basis for a question of privilege. Members may debate it once I have determined there is a prima facie case of privilege, but they need not do that in the course of presenting their question of privilege.
I now inform all hon. members that I will give them five minutes. I will then have to cut them off in fairness to all members. That is a discretion I am exercising because of the circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, because the Standing Orders and all of our precedents make no reference whatsoever to any time limit on questions of privilege or points of order, I would hope that by now exercising a discretion to impose a stipulated time limit the Chair is not setting a precedent or altering our Standing Orders to that extent. I would have felt very much better if you had come to that conclusion and not told us anything about it. To let it stand in Journals as a ruling from the Chair that there is to be inserted in our Standing Orders a precedent which limits an hon. member rising on a question of privilege to five minutes, I think, is very undesirable.
I am sure you may well wish to consider that you may have misdirected yourself in the interpretation of what you have just said if members conclude that there is now and henceforth a five-minute limitation on questions of privilege. I do not think the Chair intended to alter our Standing Orders to that extent. As I say, I would have felt much happier as a member if you had come to that conclusion silently and determined that was what you were going to do, and then give a member five minutes to discuss his question.
I do not think there should be any doubt whatsoever here that our Standing Orders are in any way so altered that we are now to understand there is a specific time limit on members of
Parliament who wish to raise questions of privilege. I have raised questions of privilege over a period of time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: Hon. members should read the rules, because we are here embarking on entirely new ground when we speak about time limitation on questions of privilege. I have raised matters that have been accepted and referred to standing committees which took a good deal longer than five minutes to develop in order to convince members of the House on all sides they were deserving of sending to standing committees.
I hope that you, Madam Speaker, would at least say from the chair, if it is your intention to deal with these questions of privilege which you consider to be overlapping a ruling you have already made by giving the hon. member a fair warning that if he cannot develop it in five minutes you will be disposed to conclude that he cannot develop it at all, that there is no practice or custom of this House, and no Standing Order or precedent, which imposes any specific time limit.
The discretion is entirely with you, Madam Speaker, as to how long you have to listen. I suggest it would be far better left at that. If you had not heard after listening for five minutes to these overlapping questions sufficient to convince you that there was a different dimension to the question of privilege or that it was a new question of privilege, then you would, of course, exercise your discretion. I certainly hope you will reaffirm that you are not injecting into our precedents a new rule, order or practice which means that in every case there is to be a five-minute time limit on questions of privilege raised by members.


Madam Speaker:: There is no doubt that I did not say this would constitute a precedent, and I did not say it would apply to other questions of privilege on matters other than the one we are now discussing; that is to say, those questions of privilege which deal with the Constitution, the wording of which is similar. This certainly does not in itself change the Standing Orders, which say nothing on this matter, by the way. Since Standing Orders say nothing, somebody has to say something and I guess that is the Chair.
If the hon. member would rather I apply the five-minute limit and not warn members they will not be having a great deal of time to expose their arguments, I could have done it that way. I thought it was much fairer and easier for members if I gave them that warning. If the hon. member would rather this whole thing remain unsaid, I do not mind "unsaying" it. I am just telling the House now that I intend to use this discretion and I will be quite firm about it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, may I just quickly comment that the Chair has very skilfully and quickly clarified the matter to my complete satisfaction.
April 2, 1981


MR. THACKER-ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Blaine Allen Thacker: Madam Speaker, I rise to speak on this question of privilege in respect of which I hope you will find a prima facie case. I hope never in my lifetime or in yours will we again face what we are facing today. We are, indeed, in tough times. The government, as a result of this resolution, has put us in the position that we are really in a fight for the hearts and minds of Canadians.
I am sure, Madam Speaker, you are feeling the loneliness of high judicial office, because you really are on your own. You have joined an elite group of men and women across this country who are occupying positions at a high judicial level. I am sure you have a much clearer understanding of Beckett and his relationship to the Crown.
The issue before you in my question of privilege is whether or not Parliament can pass a law which in its present form is illegal. I submit to you that in your high judicial capacity you stand fifth in line in this nation, starting with the Governor General, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, the Speaker of the Senate and then you as Speaker of this House. In that very unique and high position you are bound to know, by virtue of the concept of judicial notice, that the present constitutional resolution is illegal.
Up until two days ago we were involved in this battle for the hearts and minds of Canadians. The government has a view as to what it wants to do in terms of an amending formula, an entrenched charter and a referendum. We on this side, of course, have a different view of what Canada is as we perceive it. Even when the Manitoba Court of Appeal made its ruling the resolution was still legal because it had not been declared illegal. However, as of two days ago when the Newfoundland Court of Appeal ruled, that constitutional provision became illegal. You are bound by that through judicial notice.
It follows from the Newfoundland decision that all of us find ourselves in a very unique capacity; some in their capacity as ordinary members of the House, some in their capacity as lawyers, some as former members of a cabinet and members of the Privy Council, existing cabinet ministers and you, Madam Speaker, in your high capacity, fifth in order in this nation in terms of precedent. It is within that context that we find ourselves involved in this question of privilege.
I stand by that position in asking you to find a prima facie case and refer the question to a committee. If you were to find a prima facie case, all these questions of privilege would go before a committee where we could debate this whole matter. This is a precedent and a first in the entire history of this country, as I understand it, in that we have a resolution which has been referred to the Supreme Court while it is still being debated in the House.
The perfect analogy, which I do not believe you have considered yet, would be Bill C-60. As you know, it came before this House and went to a committee. There were some problems and it was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Privilege-Mr. Thacker
The Supreme Court found it to be illegal and the bill then died. The analogy with the position we are in today would be, if the day after the Supreme Court of Canada declared Bill C-60 ultra vires of Parliament the government had reintroduced Bill C-60 in the House, in effect asking members to continue to debate the bill even though the Supreme Court had declared it illegal.
I think under those circumstances we would all be in a terrible dilemma in terms of constitutional law, yet that is exactly the point that we find ourselves at today. You have pointed out, Madam Speaker, that we are protected and, in terms of ordinary criminal law or civil law, that is true; but it is not true in terms of our general reputation in the community. Just as members who are clerics, men of God who have made a direct oath to their faith that they will uphold laws-


An hon. Member:: Five minutes.


Blaine Allen Thacker: -that are higher than the legal standard. We have a very low political standard in this country, a legal standard that is somewhat higher, and a moral standard which is much higher; and I think we would all agree we should operate at the moral standard. Many people operate at the legal standard, and there are some who operate only at the political standard.
I am saying to you, Madam Speaker, that if you find there is a prima facie case this question can go before the committee; the whole concept that has been declared ultra vires could be dealt with, and I would think out of that would flow a new Standing Order, a new understanding among us as to how we would handle this legislation. Therefore, if you do find a prima facie case, I will make the appropriate motion.


Madam Speaker:: I want to say to the hon. member that despite my high office I am not bound by judgments such as the one to which the hon. member has been referring. I am not bound to concur that something that is going on in this House is legal or illegal in the face of a judgment made by a court.
The hon. member referred to Bill C-60 and its submission to the Supreme Court of Canada. I want to remind him that it is not the Speaker who determined that a reference concerning that bill should go to the Supreme Court of Canada. Although he cites that particular case, I think he defeats his own argument since that was not the Speaker's action but somebody else's, and quite properly so.
As for anything done by this House that would cause damage to his reputation, I am sure he is quite able to defend his reputation to his constituents should he be attacked in the way that members normally are attacked in the course of debate in this House. I can do nothing to protect his reputation; that would be perhaps extending my responsibility quite a bit. All I can do is protect my own. I cannot find a prima facie case in the hon. member's question of privilege.
I now call upon the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), who is not in the House.

April 2, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Speyer


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, he is unavoidably detained and hopes to be here in time to raise his question.


Madam Speaker:: Then I will call on the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer). Does the hon. member wish to withdraw his question of privilege?


Mr. Speyer:: Madam Speaker, I would like to have the opportunity to make certain submissions to you with respect to this matter.


Madam Speaker:: So the hon. member does not withdraw?


Chris Speyer: No, I do not withdraw.


MR. SPEYER-ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, this matter arises out of a treatise in Erskine May with respect to the jurisdiction of the courts in matters of privilege. To focus in on my question I would refer Your Honour to page 178 of that treatise, which says:
In cases affecting parliamentary privilege the tracing of a boundary between the competence of the courts and the exclusive jurisdiction of either House is a difficult question of constitutional law which has provided many puzzling cases, particularly from the seventeenth to the nineteenth centuries. The history of this question affords many contradictory precedents in Parliament and divergent opinions and decisions in the courts. It is a question which has involved the courts in heated conflict with one or the other House of Parliament and has produced more then one temporarily insoluble rupture between the House of Commons and the House of Lords. In the course of this long controversy much light has been thrown on the nature of privilege and the relations between the judiciary and the legislature, although, no doubt, some unsettled questions still remain.
The question I wish to raise is that in every democratic country with a federal system, whether it be a republican system as in the United States or a parliamentary system such as we have here, there exists a system of checks and balances. In the United States the differences between the offices of the executive, the judiciary and the legislature are more clearly defined. Here there are certain rules that the governed have over the governors. Two of those are the Constitution and the courts.
It was said by Walter Bagehot in England that Parliament is supreme. Well, that is just not so in Canada. Parliament is not supreme in the sense that it can only pass legislation on matters within its competence. The history of our country is that we have a system of checks and balances, that the courts will render unconstitutional any action taken by Parliament beyond its jurisdiction.
Similarly, the provincial legislatures are not supreme; they can only act within their own competence. I submit that what has happened here, by reason of the judgment of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, is that there is an opinion that the course of action taken by this government is null and void, is unconstitutional, and what you are asking hon. members to do is continue a debate on a proposal that has been found to be unconstitutional. I say to you that that is now beyond our
jurisdiction and subject to the final decision of the Supreme Court of Canada.
To briefly trace the history of the government's argument in this matter, as Your Honour is aware, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) have brought to the attention of this House and the country, the position of the federal government in the Manitoba appeal was this. There were three questions posed, four in Newfoundland. The factum submitted by the Attorney General of Canada in Manitoba stated that its position was that in view of the tentative nature of the contents of the proposed resolution, the answer would be speculative and premature. With respect to questions one and two it said that the courts did not have jurisdiction to determine this matter because it was not right. Indeed, the Prime Minister indicated in the last few days that Chief Justice Freedman acceded to that.
On the other hand, we know that the position of the federal government is that it wants to get this proposal to the United Kingdom as quickly as possible, and its reasons are very clearly stated in the infamous Kirby memorandum which deals with the possible legal challenges to unilateral action. I wish to quote this paragraph so that my point comes into focus. It reads:
As to the question of validity, it is the view of the Department of Justice that a law passed by the U.K. Parliament to patriate the Constitution, with an amendment formula and other changes, could not be successfully attacked in the courts. It seems abundantly clear that the legal power remains for the U.K. parliament to enact such a law for Canada, and it also seems clear that they will do so whenever so requested by the Parliament and Government of Canada.
The point I am making is that once the matter gets to the Parliament of the United Kingdom, it is beyond the scope of the Canadian courts to deal with it because it is replacing one British statute with another British statute. That is the intention of the government. On the other hand, certainly the courts of this land in Manitoba and Newfoundland have taken completely different positions. They tried to oust the court's jurisdiction by another method. The method was by saying that the proposals right now are tentative in nature and that any answer would be speculative and premature.
In these circumstances, this matter is beyond the power of Parliament at this point in time, because there is an attempt to oust the jurisdiction of the court. The court has always had the power of judicial review. Judicial review has always been a safeguard in any parliamentary democracy.
In the course of the last few days a decision was rendered by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland to the effect that this proposal is ultra vires. The Government of Canada is asking us as parliamentarians to continue to debate something which is illegal. In my respectful submission, that is beyond the scope of our powers, and I ask Your Honour to so rule.
There are a number of other matters which I should like to bring to Your Honour's attention in this regard.
April 2, 1981


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member should conclude in about two minutes.


Chris Speyer: A few days ago the Prime Minister attempted to make a distinction between Bill C-60 and the current proposals with respect to the matter of a reference. He said that Bill C-60 dealt specifically with Section 91 of the British North America Act and, therefore, it should have been referred to the court. On the other hand, he distinguished this matter because it did not refer to any matters involving the British North America Act. That is a totally nonsensical type of distinction; certainly it is a distinction not worthy of him. I bring it to Your Honour's attention because it seems to me that in these particular circumstances a decision must be rendered by the Supreme Court on constitutional matters which are pending right now.
I return to the initial matter which I brought to Your Honour's attention, that is, that it is unfair for any member to be participating in a debate in circumstances where we are dealing with an illegal matter with respect to a certain province of this land.
I know Madam Speaker has ruled on the question of sub judice. I respect that ruling, but may I say that the whole foundation of the notion of sub judice is that there should be no intimidation of the courts. At a time when the courts are seized with such an important matter, public debate on this matter should cease. The matter is now within the scope of the courts.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have ruled on that matter, and the ruling is quite clear. The matter cannot be considered sub judice for the various reason I gave in my ruling. I ask the hon. member not to discuss that.


Chris Speyer: Madam Speaker, I certainly respect that comment, but the federal government must be in a position to refer the matter to the Supreme Court. It is no longer responding to a case which has been initiated by the provinces. It is now petitioning the court for relief. It is in a situation where it will be asking the Supreme Court for relief by overturning the verdict rendered the other day in Newfoundland.
In these circumstances, it is unfair and improper to ask us to continue debate on this important matter. This concludes my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The arguments of the hon. member have boiled down to asking the Chair to determine that there is something clearly illegal in what is going on between members of Parliament and the proposal before Parliament. The hon. member referred to one court which brought down a judgment. It is quite obvious that another court has brought down a differnt judgment and he would want me to be the judge of which of those two courts is right.
The hon. member referred to checks and balances. One of the checks and balances of our system is that there are several courts. If one court has determined or found a matter one way
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
and another court has found it in another way, there is other recourse. It is not for the Chair to determine what should or should not go to the Supreme Court; it is not for the Chair to determine legal or constitutional matters. Therefore, on the basis of the argument submitted by the hon. member, I cannot find that he has a question of privilege.


Mr. Lambert:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not know where I am on Your Honour's list, but I have a very serious problem involving my inability to control the departure time of a most important Air Canada flight. I was wondering, with the consent of my colleagues, if I could be heard at this time.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: Usually I take questions of privilege in the order in which they reach me. I would not want to be unfair to other members. Not all hon. members who have questions of privilege are in the House, so I cannot ask them whether they want to defer in your favour. I will do my best to recognize the hon. member as soon as I can.


Mr. Nowlan:: Madam Speaker, I appreciate this has been a difficult time for all of us, but I apologize to the House. Things were somewhat mixed up. I was on the telephone and I was advised that Your Honour had called on me. I have no hesitation in taking my chances at the end of the line or, if it is permissible, in standing down so that my hon. friend can present his question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I took it that there was no consent because not all members who have questions of privilege are present in the House. Therefore, I will try to accommodate the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert) as soon as I can. I recognize the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) on his question of privilege.


MR. NOWLAN-ALLEGED ILLEGALITY OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, obviously-


An hon. Member:: Just keep it short.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In view of the ruling of the Chair, obviously one will have to keep it very short. As I said, I apologize for being on the telephone when Your Honour called my name. I understand that you have exercised your discretion in an attempt to keep questions of privilege to five minutes because of the multitude of them.
I was in the House when the Chair indicated that we were engaging in a very unusual procedure and that it was an extraordinary situation. I quite agree with those words, but as was said yesterday and on other days, that is really not the fault of hon. members or the Chair; I suppose it is the fault of the entire process.

April 2, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nowlan
This precedent of five minutes will come back to haunt all hon. members in the House. It is difficult to try to develop any type of legal argument on something as substantive as a rule of law.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I hear the interjections. Do not push, my friends, for unless there is good will one can pervert a prostitute, or the role of anybody, if one wants to; but the point of the matter is that we will not do it. The reason this matter is so unusual and extraordinary is that we all know, regardless of where we sit in the House-even the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) must admit this-that there is a cloud on the status of the resolution before the House. Certainly a most conservative assessment of it would indicate that it has a taint to it. The fact of the matter, in terms of the rule of law which we are trying to explain in certain points of order and questions of privilege, is that as a member of the House for a few years I am being put in the position of being contaminated by debating and/or eventually voting on a tainted resolution, in view of the judicial expressions of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland and also some of the judges of the Supreme Court of Manitoba.
I should like to refer to one of the eminent constitutional authorities in Canada, Robert MacGregor Dawson, in his book entitled "The Government of Canada". At page 88 he attempts to define the rule of law, which reads as follows:
The following comment of Professor Corry on the rule of law in Great Britain is equally applicable to Canada:
"For a long time now, Parliament has been granting to officials special powers to take action not justified under the ordinary law and it has been limiting the right of the citizen to have the actions of officials scrutinized by the judicial power. Yet there has been no general removal of officials from judicial surveillance and it remains true in most cases that anyone who asserts that he has been wronged by the action of a government official-
That is the basis of my question of privilege.
-can bring that official before the courts of law to answer for his conduct. The official may justify himself by pointing to an act of Parliament which gives him a special privilege to do what he has done. But he cannot turn aside the complaint merely by asserting an exalted official status and an inscrutable executive expediency in what he has done. The state can throw away the conscript's life but it cannot conscript him in the first instance on the plea of high policy or public expedience except as supported by a law sanctioned by Parliament. The rule of law, although qualified today by the grant of special powers to officials, remains an indispensable instrument for ensuring that government remains servant."
That is basically the core of what I would like to argue here in the few minutes you have allowed me, Madam Speaker. Here, in effect, the exalted officials are really those in the government who have put before the House a resolution that the judicial process, the check and balance in our system, has said is wrong. Whatever pejorative you wish to use, there is a taint to it. By members being forced to debate or vote on it before that taint is cleansed, they are being contaminated.
I agree with Your Honour, there has never been a position as extraordinary as this, at least that I have heard about. I have talked to several constitutional authorities in the last
couple of days. I asked them if there was ever such an experience in the British House, although you cannot apply the British case because they are not a federation. But in the history of the Parliament of Canada with respect to debating and voting on a proposition which has been ruled illegal by the superior court in one province and by a divided judgment in another, this is certainly an extraordinary circumstance. That is the reason members have presented you with so many questions of privilege, because the matter is so fundamental.
You can turn on the national news and see people in El Salvador shooting each other-there is no rule of law. In Iran they revolt and rebel because there is no rule of law. In Poland the people have a general strike in order to tell the government there is something wrong with the rule of law. The only bullets we have, Madam Speaker, are words. That is what we have been using. That is why members on this side have been exercised with respect to this fundamental issue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We cannot call the Prime Minister and cabinet ministers before the bar of the House. But according to the rule of law, as set out by MacGregor Dawson and Corry, there is something wrong where members have to debate a question which two courts of the land question, one unanimously and one by divided decision.
The time allotted to me has almost run out, Madam Speaker, and I will not trespass. In conclusion, there is another element which has not been mentioned. With respect to the rule of law, what happened to Mr. Nixon, to the south of us, after he took on his oath? He did not observe the very simple oath of the presidency, which is almost as simple and as short as our oath as members, which says that we will do things according to law. Yet the very chamber which makes law is now forced to debate, and perhaps vote on, something which has been determined to be illegal.
This is the other element which has not been mentioned yet, Madam Speaker. Let us assume that this House makes a determination on the resolution. What is to prevent the government of the day, or of the next day, bringing in an amendment to the Supreme Court Act to change the composition of that court, doing what Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to do in the "new deal" process-he wanted to stack the court? It is fundamentally wrong for this House to be placed in the invidious position of putting, in perpetuity, fundamentals into a new Constitution when the next day the Prime Minister could change the whole composition of the court to make sure he gets the proper interpretation from the court.
The other point is, we do not know what is before the court. By Parliament ruling and voting now on the resolution, we could be prejudicing other-


Mr. Orlikow:: Time!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: -matters that are in process in other jurisdictions. For those reasons, Madam Speaker, I believe you must, in an extraordinary way, go to the basic rule of law which
April 2, 1981

keeps this country intact, not just the laws of people in transitory positions of power.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member wants me to apply the rule of law; all I have to apply are the rules of this House. If the hon. member bases most of his argumentation on the fact that he will be contaminated by this whole process, then I suggest to him that it is open to him to decontaminate himself by arguing, which he does quite ably, and by amending, debating and by voting against whatever is proposed to this House. That is the proper course for him to follow. He does not have a question of privilege.


POINT OF ORDER
David Kilgour: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. Approximately 15 minutes ago a copy of yesterday's Hansard of the Senate was provided to me and I would therefore like to deal with a very serious matter-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have notice of a question of privilege with respect to this particular matter. I must know whether that question of privilege is being withdrawn.
The hon. member for Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey).


Mr. Mackasey:: Madam Speaker, I would appreciate it if the hon. member would be permitted to proceed with his point of order, so that I may decide whether or not I can withdraw my question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I will be as brief as I can, but this is a very serious matter.
On March 31, you will recall, since you were in the chair, that I made a statement with respect to a matter which I considered to be a question of privilege. I read some correspondence into the record and Your Honour ultimately ruled that I did not have a question of privilege. I would like briefly to refer to a statement made in the Senate by the senator about whom I referred. For purposes of clarity, I wonder if I would be allowed to read that statement into the record?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


David Kilgour: The senator referred to the correspondence and
said:
To clarify the record, I am in no way involved in, and I therefore have no knowledge whatever of, the financial or administrative affairs of the Liberal
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Party of Canada in Alberta. As an ordinary member and supporter, my only financial involvement is that of a modest contributor, which is on public record with the Chief Electoral Officer. In the past six or seven years I have at no time sought contributions for the Liberal Party in any manner whatever. In 1974 and 1975 my principal activity in connection with financing of the party related to the organization of fund-raising dinners. I have never, never engaged in the conduct, related by the honourable member for Edmonton-Strathcona.
I apologize unequivocally to the member of the other place, Senator Hastings. If the senator had only told me in reply to the letter I wrote to him asking for his comments, I can assure hon. members that I would just as soon have jumped from a bridge as make the statement I made. My information is obviously false. Without hesitation, and with the indulgence of all members, particularly the member in the other place, I unequivocally apologize to Senator Hastings for any unfortunate inferences which may have been drawn from my remarks.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. I wish to express my satisfaction with the gesture made by the hon. member opposite today. I think it is a sign of maturity, which is a useful quality for a member of this House to have. I think it would be helpful if more people were prepared to do what the hon. member has just done, which is to retract without hesitation his allegations, which were extremely serious.
Madam Speaker, I just want to read the one paragraph which the hon. member omitted to read from the letter. Senator Hastings said in that letter:
The allegations contained in his letters of March 12 and 26, and his slurring remarks last night in the other place, are totally false and devoid of substance. As a member of the Parliament of Canada, I am conscious of the duties and responsibilities relating to the public office I hold. I can only hope that, as a member of the same Parliament, the honourable member for Edmonton-Strathcona is aware of his duties and responsibilities.
I think the hon. member is aware of his duties and responsibilities, as evidenced by his retraction. I have no intention of pursuing the matter any further by way of point of privilege.


PRIVILEGE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I now, at long last, appreciate the opportunity of raising a new and novel question of privilege which, I am glad to report, is unique in that it bears absolutely no relationship to the previous seven or eight questions of privilege. Indeed, it is of very great importance to every hon. member of this Canadian Parliament. I am sure you will find there is a prima facie case. I have prepared an appropriate motion to accompany this particular matter when you so find.
I would like to introduce my question of privilege by bringing to the record the statement which I made to you, Madam

April 2, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
Speaker, pursuant to Standing Orders, by way of a letter dated April 1, 1981. It reads:
I hereby give you notice of my intention to raise today a question of privilege relating to my privilege as a Member of Parliament and the privileges of all Members of Parliament by the stated and actual interference and intrusion of the Prime Minister as head of the executive between the will of the Parliament of Canada represented by the Joint Resolution on the Constitution now before the House and the parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
Madam Speaker, I simply want to bring your attention to the fact that this House is debating a resolution which is of very great consequence and importance to the future of this country. During the course of arduous debate, we have witnessed very strongly held views and positions on matters which hon. members on both sides of the House have identified with, and to which the people of Canada are now giving serious consideration. The matter which is being debated is on the minds of all parliamentarians.
During the course of debate issues raised have caused many questions of privilege to come forward. It is not as if we were dealing with any other item of legislation; but rather, we are dealing with matters pertaining to the very foundation of our country. We are in unusual times, as has been stated on many prior occasions. We must look very carefully at this matter to determine whether we are proceeding in a proper and appropriate manner.
What has caused me concern with respect to the present situation is that we are debating a resolution. I want to look at the very nature of the motion before us in the name of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien). This resolution will form part of a joint resolution of the House and the Senate and I imagine it will in due course receive-in whatever form it is presented, if it is determined to be constitutional or legal by the courts-the assent of the representative of Her Majesty in Canada and thereby constitute an address to Her Majesty the Queen.
I therefore want to refer to the actual text of the resolution which expresses the nature of that particular address. The address has taken the words of the resolution itself:
To the Queen's Most Excellent Majesty:
Most Gracious Sovereign:
We, Your Majesty's loyal subjects, the-
Then there is a blank space to insert, of course, the "Senate".
-House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled, respectfully approach Your Majesty, requesting that you may graciously be pleased to cause to be laid before the parliament of the United Kingdom a measure containing the recitals and clauses hereinafter set forth:
Attached to that is the proposed legislation which will be presented in first reading stage, as the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) stated on "Canada A.M.", plus the proposed Canada Act, including the various elements respecting the constitutional provisions, amendments and the charter of rights.
This particular address is from Parliament to Her Majesty the Queen or, to put it another way, from one Parliament to another Parliament. When the matter is finally resolved, it will
reflect the will of the Parliament of Canada; it will not reflect the will of the Crown per se. It will not reflect the will of the cabinet of this country per se. It will not reflect the will of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) or any member of cabinet holding a position in the executive of our country. It is an address which will be sent from the Parliament of Canada to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.
I want to begin with that very basic premise, because it is important to understand the nature of the legislation we are dealing with and its important consequences for the operation of Parliament, of which the House of Commons is a part. This address is not a request for action by the Prime Minister or the executive. It is a request which has been sent directly from the House of Commons and the Senate; from the Parliament of Canada, directly to Her Majesty the Queen.
Having stated that very basic premise, I now want to refer to some of the actions which the Prime Minister and the members of the executive of this country have taken, and indeed some of the activities and statements made on the floor of the House of Commons.
I refer to Hansard of March 31, 1981, to give examples of the intended and the actual actions of the Prime Minister of this country. During the course of the question period, in response to questions as to how this address to the Parliament of the United Kingdom would be handled, the Prime Minister said, as reported at page 8786:
If the hon. members opposite do not want to improve the resolution another way, my offer will still stand; that we get a resolution to the Supreme Court of Canada in return for which the government would certainly undertake-
The following words are important:
-not to press the United Kingdom to pass the resolution until it has seen the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada-
Further on, on that same page, in referring to this resolution he said:
-then we will undertake not to press its passage in the United Kingdom until after the Supreme Court of Canada has judged.
The Prime Minister again returned to this matter on that same page:
I repeat, if the Supreme Court should judge against it, we will of course not press the United Kingdom to pass it in all stages . .. but will merely ask the United Kingdom to continue its passage.
In response to a question from my colleague the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), in referring to the intention of the government vis-a-vis this resolution to be sent to the United Kingdom Parliament, the Minister of Justice said, as reported at page 8787:
-we will wait for the decision of the Supreme Court before deciding to press the matter in England-
The point I suppose I wanted to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I do have to interrupt the hon. member, in all reasonableness. I understand from his argumentation that he does not particularly appreciate the process through which this resolution is being carried.
April 2, 1981



He has the right to do so.

That is his own prerogative. But he must speak about privilege. How is his privilege affected by the fact that one process has been chosen rather than another? Who has the liberty of choosing the process? Certainly the Chair cannot decide that.


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. Once again, I am sorry. In view of what you mentioned this afternoon, I believe that the hon. member opposite has not been able to show in five minutes that he had anything new to say about the question of privilege. I believe that the more the hon. member opposite goes on, the more what he says is similar to what others have said on other questions of privilege.
I therefore believe, Madam Speaker, that you would be justified in cutting off the hon. member and recognizing someone else.


Madam Speaker:: According to the decision of which I have already informed the House, the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) is somewhat different from the others which were worded in nearly the same terms and to which I applied a five minute limit. For the information of the House, I want to point out that the question raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West is somewhat different. I shall now read it, but I find it is rather vague. I could not understand exactly to what the hon. member was referring. Since he started speaking, I have not been able to understand either how his privileges are affected, but I shall read the question to the House.

The hon. member states that the privileges of all hon. members are affected by the, and I quote:
-actual interference and intrusion of the Prime Minister as head of the Executive between the will of the Parliament of Canada represented by the Joint Resolution on the Constitution now before the House and the parliament of the United Kingdom and Northern Ireland.

That is the wording of the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Saskatoon West. It is different from that of the seven or eight other questions of privilege I received on this subject. That is why I have not applied the five-minute rule, however, I must warn him that I shall not give him too much time because I still have other questions of privilege to hear.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I appreciate that admonition, Madam Speaker.
As I say, this is a new and quite different question of privilege from the ones which have been raised before. I want
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
to get through it as quickly as possible, but I have citations to quote to substantiate the point I want to make. Perhaps the hon. member for Longueuil (Mr. Olivier) could get his apartment mate, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde), to explain it to him after hours.


Madam Speaker:: I see that the hon. member is going to quote Erskine May to me.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: I want to see where the hon. member's privilege is breached. I know Erskine May nearly by heart on this particular point. Would the hon. member please resume his seat.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I am sorry.


Madam Speaker:: There is a limit. It is not a matter of my patience; I will have patience until the end. I know I am here till the end of the session, so whether it is one hon. member speaking or another, it does not affect me personally. But there has to be some kind of credibility to the office of the Speaker and the Chair, and the Chair should not be subjected to listening to arguments which do not at all relate to breaches of privilege. I know Erskine May practically by heart on this particular matter of privilege. The hon. member has spoken since 4.40.1 would like him to tell me in what way his privilege is breached. That is what I need to know.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, Erskine May deals specifically with the question of privilege I am going to raise. I indicated to Your Honour in my letter that when the House does pass on this constitutional resolution addressed to Her Majesty the Queen and the parliament of the United Kingdom, there is absolutely no provision for-in fact there is adequate and some detailed prohibition against-interference with the parliamentary process. It does not lie upon the Prime Minister or any member of the executive to hold the address in his or her back pocket or to determine whether this resolution shall pass at any particular time. It is a matter for the two parliaments to determine exactly when that matter will appear on the legislative order paper of the House of Commons in the United Kingdom. Any interference-


Joseph Mario Jacques Olivier: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I fully agree that hon. members are entitled to raise questions of privilege. The member opposite is launching a debate rather than raising a question of privilege. In addition, he is holding your authority up to ridicule by failing to respect the decision you have made this afternoon. That member, Madam Speaker, is challenging your authority in the House through his decision to initiate a debate in spite of the warnings you gave him.


Madam Speaker:: I have to take into consideration that particular point of order. The hon. member is discussing something which has not yet happened. It is hypothetical, and

April 2, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Hnatyshyn
I cannot decide a question of privilege based on a hypothetical situation. The hon. member's privilege must have been breached-right now-and I want him to tell me how. I think the hon. member is pointing to something which is becoming increasingly clear. The Chair cannot be put in a position indefinitely to hear questions of privilege which are not really questions of privilege. The credibility of the Chair and hon. members is involved, and I will preserve that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I take this matter very seriously; as you do, I appreciate. The point is that there is a very serious instrusion on and interference with the rights of every member of this House of Commons. There is no speculation; there is no hypothesis; I refer to the words from the mouth of the Prime Minister who sits across the aisle from me. By his own admission he intends to hold the address in his hip pocket. That is not hypothetical. He has said that is what he will do. He will step between the two parliaments. He has indicated his intention. He has gone to the United Kingdom on a number of occasions-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The point I made to the hon. member is the following: the Right Hon. Prime Minister does not have an address at this point in time in his hip pocket. That has to be quite clear and it cannot be debated as the basis for a question of privilege. The Prime Minister has no address and no resolution. He has nothing.


Mr. Blackburn:: Recognize someone else.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I want to refer, if I might, to Erskine May at page 115 with respect to the whole question of the position of the House of Commons on any resolution or motion passed by the House of Commons. I will read the last sentence on page 115. I am referring to a request of the House through the Speaker with respect to decisions made by the House in which the Speaker is, in effect, deferential to Her Majesty. The sentence reads as follows:
But now the request is little more than formal courtesy; as the proceedings of the House are guarded against any interference, on the part of the Crown, not authorized by the laws and constitution of the country; and as by the law and custom of Parliament the Queen cannot take notice of anything said or done in the House, but by the report of the House itself.
I am not by any means saying that our privileges are impinged upon if we pass this resolution. The Prime Minister has stood in this House. I must accept his word as to what he intends to do. I read the resolution. The Prime Minister tells the House of Commons very seriously what his intention is; he is going to delay.


Mr. Fleming:: That is hypothetical.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: He has referred in this House to the fact that he is going to do that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, may I have order in this House? There is a systematic attempt on the part of the government to prevent us from bringing matters before this House. The Prime Minister has not hypothecated. He has said what he intends to do, that is not hypothecation.
The point I make is that there is adequate authority for this proposition. The Prime Minister is infringing on our rights. He is intimidating members of this House of Commons by his actions. He has no authority to threaten us with holding back a resolution. He tells us, on the one hand, that we are to pass this particular resolution, and then he says that once the resolution of this Parliament has been passed, he will interfere. I say that that threat is an intimidation.
Your Honour will be aware of the fact, having read the proposed resolution, that there is no provision by which there can be any delay. There is no provision authorizing or vesting in the Prime Minister to step between the two parliaments and to tell the United Kingdom parliament to delay passage. Yet if I may be permitted to say so, that threat is now on the floor of the House of Commons.
I would like to call it five o'clock, Madam Speaker.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki)-The Constitution-Effect of charter of rights on abortion provisions in Criminal Code; the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)- Health care-Extra billing by doctors-Co-operation of Ontario in banning practice; the hon. member for Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands (Mr. Manly)-Combines-Recommendation to prohibit ownership of pipelines by oil companies.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. May I ask whether the House would be prepared to give me unanimous consent to table a petition?


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member to table a petition?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


An hon. Member:: No.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, it is a petition from Saskatchewan senior citizens.
April 2, 1981


Madam Speaker:: I might ask for consent again, but I did hear a "no". Is there unanimous consent for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to table a petition?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Erik Nielsen: Madame Speaker, I know nothing of this. It takes me completely by surprise. It will not hurt to delay the matter for three hours. If the hon. member can tell me what he wants to do and show me what he has, then I might be able to give unanimous consent at eight o'clock.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, that is fine. I can even delay it until tomorrow if I have to do so.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business, as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions, papers, private bills and public bills.



PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS


[Stage Direction]
On the Order: Private Members' Public Bills:
May 2, 1980-Second reading and reference to the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works of Bill C-290, an act to provide for the establishment of a Nuclear Electricity Export Authority.-Mr. Watson.
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I seek the unanimous consent of the House to withdraw Bill C-290, which stands in my name on the Order Paper. It was the intention of the proposed bill to encourage the export of blocks of electricity from Canada to the United States. After further study, it seems clear to me that the establishment of a federal authority for this purpose would be an unwarranted interference by Parliament into a provincial jurisdiction. Therefore, it would be counterproductive.
I will seek to advance my objective by other means.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Does the hon. member for Chateauguay (Mr. Watson) have unanimous consent to withdraw his bill and discharge the order?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.
Order discharged and bill withdrawn.
Application of Federal Laws



PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS

[Stage Direction]
Motions Nos. 22, 5, 4, 28, 35 and 33 allowed to stand by unanimous consent.

Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil) moved:: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, studies and other communications of the Department of Justice relating to the comparison of the application by the various provincial courts of federal laws.
He said: It was approximately four weeks ago, on March 2, 1981, that I had the opportunity to speak in this House on another motion dealing with the equality of minority language rights. I was happy to speak at that time because the motion dealt with a subject I considered of interest in the midst of this constitutional debate. In fact, I had the opportunity on that occasion to speak for approximately 20 minutes on a subject in which I have taken a considerable interest. When it became apparent that this motion for the production of papers would probably be called this afternoon, I was pleased because it, too, is a matter of some concern in this current constitutional debate.
The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development (Mr. Irwin), in reply to the motion, as reported in Hansard for February 18, 1981 at page 7433 said:
-the Department of Justice has none of the documents which the member is asking for in motion No. 32.
First, may I outline why I asked for these documents and why I believe that some documents must exist somewhere in the Department of Justice. It is true that when we are dealing with variations in the application of justice in the provinces we do have certain acts and bills in which regional variations are recorded. I will cite one or two examples. The first one concerns Section 150 of the Prisons and Reformatories Act. This is a federal act. Where a person under 22 has been convicted in British Columbia of an offence punishable by imprisonment for at least three months, that person may be sentenced to imprisonment for a term not less than three months; but he can be imprisoned for a period up to two years minus one day. Once sentenced under these circumstances, instead of going to jail the individuals are sent to certain correctional institutions.
In a proclamation under the Juvenile Delinquents Act, to give another example, a "child" means in the province of Alberta a girl under the age of 18 and a boy under the age of 16. Thus, there are provisions for treating people differently in different provinces. These variations have been ruled upon as not being discriminatory.
One can then ask if the constitutional proposal, when adopted as the Constitution of our land, will have any effect on these

April 2, 1981
Application of Federal Laws
laws. In the case of family law, many women have expressed strenuous objection to a proposed transfer which would see the federal government passing jurisdictional responsibility to the provinces. The federal government has indicated its willingness to hand over these powers, and at least the two provinces of Quebec and Ontario have indicated their desire to take over this responsibility.
As the law applies to divorce, this could create a wide variation in treatment from province to province. Even today, with only the one federal law, there is room for a great deal of variation. It is not clear just how much variation there has been because no attempt has been made to quantify cases on a provincial basis.
Although our judges are guided by a doctrine of precedents, consistency is generally maintained only within a given jurisdiction. No province is bound by the case law of another province.
The difference in the manner in which a province proceeds in certain cases can accentuate the difference in treatment between provinces of what are essentially similar cases. The interpretation of the Divorce Act is an example. First, there has to be a case in order to be able to proceed. The making of a case often requires the co-operation and assistance of provincial law enforcement authorities. The degree of willingness of the provincial police forces to allocate personnel will, therefore, be a factor in the ability of a person to establish a reasonable case in court.
At the present time discussions are continuing in an effort to regulate some disagreement in the various provinces which use the Royal Canadian Mounted Police as their police force. At least in those provinces, there is one police force which, presumably, acts in a reasonably consistent fashion. Of course, each of the two largest provinces of Ontario and Quebec, which contain two-thirds of the population of this country, has its own provincial police force. Each of those two police forces is under the control of the provincial authority in those respective provinces.
We must not forget that expenditure of money is almost always necessary in order to proceed by legal process. Once again, the willingness or unwillingness of the provincial authorities to allocate funds at the political level has a big influence on the ratio of successful cases, certainly for poorer persons. Apparently the differing attitudes of the provincial governments toward their responsibility for law enforcement will establish a variety of standards of enforcement, prosecution and sentencing from coast to coast in Canada.
Let me be clear. I am not arguing against variations of provincial treatment. Likewise, I am not arguing for regional variations. I am only pointing out this afternoon that they do exist, are not tabulated-at least according to the response I got to my motion-and most surely should be considered in the formulation of federal legislation.
This week, for example, proposed changes to the Narcotic Control Act have been reported in the press. Apparently
introduction of an amending bill was delayed until after the March 19 Ontario provincial election because of fears the Conservative government might turn it into a campaign issue. The only strong opposition to reduction of penalties has come from the Ontario government.
Under the Narcotic Control Act a person can get a maximum seven-year sentence if possession is treated as an indictable offence. Most of the 27,000 individuals convicted of possession in 1979 were given absolute or conditional discharges or light fines. Jail sentences are still imposed occasionally. Note that in the case of marijuana, the intention will be to limit the penalty for possession.
The federal government recognizes its responsibilities and its powers to ensure that the punishment for a transgression can be limited. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the subject matter and its handling, there is an inherent feature of equalization in this measure in that it would establish a far more moderate maximum penalty. The argument cannot, however, be applied to the minimum penalty with the same assurance of equality of treatment.
If I can speak briefly on the abortion issue as an example of inequality of application of federal legislation, it is abundantly apparent that in the province of Quebec the attitude of the Quebec government towards abortion on demand can be cited as very liberal, many will say far too liberal.
One can argue that it is a problem caused by the refusal of hospitals to establish abortion committees. However, that does not, or at least theoretically should not, give provincial law enforcement authorities the permission or the right to shut their eyes to what many people believe to be widespread illegal activity.
Let me reiterate that the raising of this particular issue is not an attempt by me to argue in this debate the pros and cons of the abortion issue, but simply to point out that one piece of federal legislation is viewed and treated in a completely different fashion in two neighbouring provinces. Such variation in treatment was never envisaged in the original legislation.
It is also appropriate to cite as an example today the decision of the dissenting provinces to proceed first in the Manitoba court. This had nothing whatever to do with its central location. It was, however, believed to be the court most likely to produce a favourable decision for the provinces that were fighting the constitutional proposal.
Then the dissenting provinces chose to proceed in Newfoundland and achieved a result which they would readily admit, I am sure, might not apply in the other provincial courts. Once again, what is accented is regional disparity in the administration of justice. I should reiterate, and I think it is important to keep saying this, that I am not arguing for or against such regional disparity. I am only asking in this motion that these differences, which I am trying to illustrate do exist, should be quantified.
A provincial prosecutor has certain discretion to decide whether to charge, at what level to charge and, in the event of conviction, to suggest to the judge conditional release, a fine or
April 2, 1981

imprisonment. Without identifying cases, which I believe would be an abuse of my privilege to speak freely in this House, the requested incarceration, in more than one example of what some refer to as a political crime, has been lenient to the point of being questionable. There is at least the suggestion of political manipulation.
Law reports are devoted to sentencing and judges meet to discuss these reports. In many cases, the judiciary may already find itself limited because of what has transpired in the decision on how and where to prosecute.
In England, a study has been completed on discretion in prosecution. I have been told that the Law Reform Commission is conducting a study. Possibly it deals with the problem under discussion. However, I find it hard to believe that the officials in the Ministry of Justice have not at any time discussed, studied or written any communication dealing with a comparison of the application by the various provincial courts of federal laws.
Before this motion returns to the House for conclusion of the debate, I trust that a more serious examination will be made of departmental records. I hope to hear on some occasion that some studies, documents or papers have been found in the Ministry of Justice dealing with the subject which I find of importance, if only that I honestly find it difficult to concede that we can introduce certain types of bills in this House without first recognizing the manner in which they are likely to be treated in the various provincial courts.
I presume this debate will continue for the full hour this afternoon and that in some weeks ahead this motion may return for its concluding 40 minutes. I hope that before its return to the House there will have been a more thorough examination of the records of the Department of Justice, and that some of the documents to which I have referred and of which I have requested copies will be produced.


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Mr. Speaker, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) in motion No. 32 asks:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, studies and other communications of the Department of Justice relating to the comparison of the application by the various provincial courts of federal laws.
On February 18 I responded that there were no such documents which fitted that particular description. I commend the hon. member for Vaudreuil for bringing this matter to the attention of the House because variation in the application of justice and the laws of Canada is a serious problem which is continuously under debate and discussion.
I think the hon. member does understand, but I would remind him, that part of the problem goes directly to the British North America Act and the division of powers. For instance, under Section 91(27) the federal government is responsible for criminal law. This reads:
Application of Federal Laws
The criminal law, except the constitution of courts of criminal jurisdiction, but including the procedure in criminal matters.
That jurisdiction belongs to the federal government.
Penitentiaries, dealt with in the next part, fall within the scope and jurisdiction of the federal government. It states:
The establishment, maintenance and management of penitentiaries.
On the other hand, the provinces have the administration of justice under Section 92(14), which states:
The administration of justice in the province, including the constitution, maintenance, and organization of provincial courts, both of civil and of criminal jurisdiction, and including procedure in civil matters in those courts.
As far as incarceration is concerned, under Section 92(6) the province is responsible for:
The Establishment, Maintenance and Management of Public and Reformatory Prisons in and for the Province.
What it means, and I do not know how this was developed historically, is for terms of imprisonment over two years the federal government is responsible, and for terms of imprisonment under two years the province is responsible.
While the historical documentation surrounding the development of the division of powers at the time of confederation is not clear, there is a general consensus to the effect that the fundamental distinction of constitutional jurisdiction in the field of criminal justice was aimed at developing, on the one hand, a consistent and nationally applicable set of laws and, on the other hand, allowing for the application of those laws in a way sensitive to the variation of conditions in the provinces and regions.
Besides this constitutional distinction there is a distinction periodically in substance and a distinction periodically in procedure. On substance, if I might through you, Mr. Speaker, give an example to the hon. member, in the criminal law on obscenity we refer to what is called the "community standard". Community standards vary from community to community across this country, and if not from community to community, certainly from region to region. Let me give an example in respect of procedure. The use of the grand jury varies from province to province.
As much as we want uniformity, for example, in sentencing, there is a wide discretion on the individual judge, and I suggest rightly so. What happens is that in most sections there is a maximum term in the Criminal Code and the sentencing judge has a discretion to look at the nature of the offence, whether there is a chance of rehabilitation and what should be the deterrent, and then decide whether there should be a conditional discharge, an absolute discharge, a fine, incarceration or several other different types of sentences now under consideration and being actively pursued.
There are certain crimes which are more prevalent in one area than another. This is evident from the month-end reviews by provincial court judges in Ontario. Provincial court judges will indicate that in a particular area there have been so many thefts, so many impaired drivers, and the number varies from region to region. A judge may want to have a specific deterrent in a particular area, so there should be some flexibility.

April 2, 1981
Application of Federal Laws
Some jurisdictions in the United States have tried this. They have imposed with some considerable success guidelines which restrict the police, the prosecution, the nature of the sentence and the nature of the correctional institutions. While there may be a great deal to be said about the need to subject the exercise of discretion to such guidelines-and I understand considerable attention is being paid to this in Canada now and has been in recent months and years-I am not certain we would wish to endorse without restraint this type of rigidity in criminal justice in Canada. This has not been the traditional stance of governments or of Canadians since 1867. I think we must respect growth in criminal justice because it was built on true trial and error.
On the other hand, if you look at the new Constitution and the consistency and uniformity of rights that will be applied, I think you will see that many of the things the hon. member for Vaudreuil has suggested will be incorporated. For instance, if this Constitution is passed there will be certain uniformity because no province or federal government can on its own take away certain basic rights. We are talking about legal rights specifically and most of them are in the proposed sections starting with Section 7.
I will briefly give some examples. In Section 7 there is a right to life, liberty and security of a person, and this right is to be applied uniformly across the country. By Section 8 there is a right of security against unreasonable search and seizure, and this is also applied uniformly across the country. Under Section 9 the legislatures are prohibited from passing laws that would provide for arbitrary detention or imprisonment. Under Section 10, on arrest or detention there is a right to be informed promptly, given the reason, the right to retain and instruct counsel, the right to be informed of that right, and the right of habeas corpus. Section 11 involves the uniform right across the country to be informed properly of an offence, the right not to self-incriminate and the right to be presumed innocent. Section 12 deals with cruel and unusual treatment or punishment, about which the hon. member is talking. Section 13 deals with self-incrimination and the protection of witnesses. Section 14 provides a uniform right across the country to assistance through interpreters. Section 15 basically is a leveller; it gives uniform rights across the country. It says in essence there cannot be a provincial or federal law that will discriminate because of race, national or ethnic origin, colour, religion, sex, age or mental or physical disabilities.
Later on there is a right to have a jury. That is not to sugget that there is a provincial right or a federal right to a jury; rather, there is a Canadian right to a jury.
Let me take this opportunity to remind some of the opposition members that these particular rights are included in this proposed Constitution. Maybe they have not read it and maybe they are not aware of them, but, as the saying goes, if a lack of knowledge will not hurt you, the Progressive Conservative Party is practically invulnerable. Members of that party say we should wait for the decision of the Manitoba Court of Appeal and the Newfoundland Court of Appeal; wait for this premier and that premier. They are waiting for their ship to
come in. They have waited so long I suggest their pier has collapsed.
What have we heard from them? We heard one hon. member raise a point of order on the tabling of documents, another hon. member on the use of the initials "MP", another hon. member on misleading answers, another hon. member on unparliamentary remarks, another hon. member-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. I would like to remind the Hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) that we are debating a motion which reads as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, minutes of meetings, studies and other communications of the Department of Justice relating to the comparison of the application by the various provincial courts of federal law.
I would ask the hon. parliamentary secretary to relate his remarks to the motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ron Irwin: It is good to hear the opposition wake up, all four of them. They sit there unloved and unneeded, like a Greek chorus wanting to foretell doom.


Mr. Hawkes:: I think sometimes the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice is carried away. He has insulted the Greek people of this and other nations and I wonder if he might like to withdraw those remarks.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: Order, please. May I ask hon. members to come back to the motion at present before the House and relate their remarks to that motion.


Ron Irwin: The point I wish to make is that the entrenchment of the rights is being proposed by the government and yet-


An hon. Member:: They are already there.


Ron Irwin: The hon. member has said they are already there. These rights are not already there, they are not enshrined, and I am surprised that he does not realize that.


An hon. Member:: We already have them; you are giving us nothing.


Ron Irwin: We want to achieve a uniformity that would protect all Canadians in these specific areas, and yet we are prevented from doing so by debate about whether we should have bells ringing in the West Block.
In 1976, the provincial attorneys general established a national task force on the administration of justice and they were asked:
1.	To examine existing justice services in Canada;
2.	To gather data relating to the cost of the delivery of these services including both operating and projected and capital costs; and
April 2, 1981

3.	To recommend minimum standards for justice services in order to provide governments with the appropriate criteria to improve existing services according to their specific needs and resources.
Now, there was a report in June of 1978 and the principle was twofold. The provincial ministers of justice wanted "continuing efforts to minimize disparity which now exists in administration of justice from province to province". And they stated that it is essential that a flexible approach be taken on this question since justice administration lies in provincial hands and must be suited to provincial circumstances. Now, the odd part about this report is the finding regarding the spending of money. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) says: Let us spend more money and we will get better results. After extensive study they found this not to be the case, stated as follows:
They found that, on a per capita basis, expenditures by all levels of government for justice services was $110 in 1977-78. This average figure varied from a low of $64.26 in Newfoundland to a high of $118.21 in British Columbia.
It continues:
On an average, 62 per cent of those sentenced to correctional services in Canada were sentenced to provincial or territorial jails or prisons. This figure varied, however, from a high of 80 per cent in Prince Edward Island to a low of 35 per cent in British Columbia. By the same token, 35 per cent of those sentenced to correctional services nationally, were given sentences of probation; but this figure varied from a high of 63 per cent in British Columbia to a low of 15 per cent in Quebec. The national average of those sentenced to correctional services who were given sentences of two years or more and therefore had to serve those sentences in federal penitentiaries was 2.5 per cent. This varied from a high of 7 per cent of all those sentenced in Quebec, to a low of 1.2 per cent in Ontario, and
0.7 per cent in the Yukon.
And they found that although more money was spent per capita in western Canada, there was a higher degree of criminal behaviour there than in Atlantic Canada. So, money spent does not seem to be the criterion.
I would like to point out that a simple concentration of the differential interpretation of federal statutes by provincial courts does not allow us to see the full picture. It is much broader and more complicated. There are regional differences. We must concentrate instead on all the elements of the system, all of the complex social, economic and cultural factors which affect it. I hope that I have shown that the federal and provincial governments in all spheres and responsibilities under the Constitution are very much aware of the concerns which underlie the motion of the hon. member. Through joint efforts of federal and provincial committees and ministers responsible for criminal justice, the work of co-operative efforts, such as the national task force on the administration of justice, and the commissioners of uniform law who meet annually, and through the encouragement of studies in this area, both levels of government are making efforts to eliminate the distinction between justifiable discretion and unjustifiable discrepancy, and therefore eliminate unfairness and injustice in Canada.
Finally, Mr. Speaker, on uniformity in the protection of rights, a very august board of lawyers, the Canadian Bar Association, came before the joint committee and asked for entrenchment of certain basic rights in a charter to protect Canadians and give them this uniformity. The Canadian Jewish Congress also appeared and said the same thing.
Application of Federal Laws
Numerous individuals from across Canada came before the committee and petitioned members to do specifically what the hon. member for Vaudreuil is complaining about today, namely, to give protection from demagogic governments, to give protection before the law which is not dependent on provincial or federal whim but applies equally to every Canadian citizen.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the government spokesman as he began his remarks by assuring each and every one of us that the uniform administration of justice was a very important priority of the government. The member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) simply asked for copies of correspondence, minutes of meetings and studies that relate to this particular issue, and the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Irwin) stands there and says: we have no correspondence, no minutes of meetings, no studies. How can he retain his credibility in this House when, in his first few words, he tells us it is important, and then tells us there have been no meetings, no correspondence and no studies. I think he suffers from a fairly severe credibility gap.
He then moves on to talk about the importance of the uniformity of rights. He is the great protector of rights. On two occasions in this House, and I have been trying for ten days to raise it again, I brought up the fact that secretaries who live in Ontario and Quebec are eligible to work in Canada's diplomatic missions but if they live in one of the eight other provinces or the territories, they are not. The second time I brought up that issue, Mr. Speaker, the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. MacGuigan) sent me a letter saying that he is sorry that they have that policy but they will correct it in late summer or early fall, five to seven months from now. Then I come to this House this afternoon and listen to the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice talking to us about the need for uniformity of rights and of the commitment of the members of the Liberal Party to rights. I remember very clearly our discussions about a mobility rights clause in the constitutional committee. That is a clause which purports to extend a uniform right to every Canadian to work anywhere in this country. I find that the government has a policy that deliberately says that unless you live in the province of Ontario or the province of Quebec you are not eligible to be a secretary in the Department of External Affairs. I ask myself whether we should accept the rhetoric of a belief in rights or whether we should look behind the rhetoric and into the actions of the ministers of this government. They tell us that the administration of justice is uniformly very important. But in the very next breath they tell us they have never had a meeting, they have no correspondence and no studies. There is a credibility gap related to justice and to what the parliamentary secretary would have us believe about the government's commitment to rights.
Let us examine the principle of uniformity of rights. To use an analogy, Mr. Speaker, it is easy for us all to have an equal

April 2, 1981
Application of Federal Laws
amount of food when none of us have any. When none of us have any, we all have an equal amount. By the concept of uniformity, I am wondering if the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Justice would have us all come to some common minimal definition of rights. Would be have us all believe that uniformity is more important than the maximization of rights?
I wonder if the parliamentary secretary has considered the reality of what the Supreme Court is and what it is all about. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the ministers of the government would have us ignore the Supreme Court of this country and attempt to have us deal in this legislature with something the court has ruled illegal. I think that shows their contempt for the legal rulings which exist in this country today, April 2, 1981. They want us to ignore that legal ruling and continue to deal with an illegal act by this Parliament. They would then have us believe that they will give us this marvellous charter which they will then turn over to a body where five out of nine people will rule on it. The government must surely recognize that those nine people are real people. It must recognize that there are a limited number of hours in any given day that they have to devote to their function. It must surely realize that they can only deal with the principles in that new Constitution, in the broadest possible way, to provide us with a common denominator.
The parliamentary secretary brought up the subject of the obscenity and pornography laws in this country. Today he told us that one of the important parts of the definition of those laws relates to community standards. What is the principle of community standards? It simply means that in our communities in this country we call Canada we can determine, collectively and freely, what the standards should be for the community. As we travel, we encounter those differences from community to community. I think Members of Parliament are fortunate to be able to travel perhaps more than most Canadians. I received the impression from the parliamentary secretary that he valued those community differences and that they were important. Yet in the next breath he started to defend what he called the "uniformity" of rights. He defended what his government wants to do in this chamber, which is to move those standards through the medium of the court system to some principle of uniformity, to obliterate that principle of community determination of its standards with respect to subjects such as obscenity and pornography.
I can think of many small communities in western Canada which do not want to have the same standards as those which apply to large cities such as Montreal and Toronto. They are small communities and they want to retain their bylaws. They want the capacity to set their standards in areas such as this so that people can live in those communities in the fashion which they have determined. Yet the parliamentary secretary is really promoting a system which would take that possibility away from us.
He also brought up the topic of rigidities. I think that when one reads Hansard some time in the future, it will be seen that the parliamentary secretary was trying to tell us that rigidity is
bad. I ask him to look to our neighbour to the south. In fact, he brought up the matter of there being jurisdictions in the United States which are trying to create rigidities across jurisdictions. He indicated that they were bad, yet he brings to this House in his speech today an undying passion-he demonstrated it before the committee-for what the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) has said. In whatever way the minister says the government will vote, he will vote. That is a type of rigid system. He consistently voted to bring forward a system which would allow very little variation, which would give us a system where all kinds of matters in our lives would be determined by a small group of people sitting in Ottawa. Because of the limited time they have to consider matters, they would have to paint with a broad and rigid brush to eradicate some of these differences.
I heard the parliamentary secretary indicate in committee, as I heard him indicate here today, that one of the concerns of the government was to set a body above the Parliament, above the democratically elected people, to rule on their behaviour. There is a certain amount of intuitive appeal to that concept which is abroad in this land. I say to the people in my riding that they can relate to that principle, but I ask them to read the fine print and see if that is really being done. When the fine print is read, it will be found that in some cases that is what is being done and in other cases the words are clearly and unequivocally designed to place Parliament above all other considerations. I ask members opposite and the parliamentary secretary, as I asked the Minister of Justice in committee, to reread Clause 16 in its entirety. It says that nothing in the charter shall limit the authority of a legislature. That is what I call a boss clause. What is its content? Look back at the original resolution and look at the difference between it and what we have today. Nothing in this charter shall limit the authority of a parliament or a legislature. That is going in. I ask hon. members of this House to read the resource clauses, that brand new material brought to us by the red rump on the left. I ask them to consider whether that is a clause which does, in its entirety, exactly what the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) told us was in his head when he was proposing it, that is, to set governments over the people so as to make it impossible for people who own mineral rights to resist the government, to seek fairness and equity and compensation when their property is taken away for the common good. They should ask themselves whether that clause, the way it is worded in its entirety, is not a clause dedicated to putting governments over the people in this country.
Let us come back to the mobility rights clause and ask the government what it has done about Clause 6(3)(b) which makes it really obligatory-that is not the way it is worded, but the wording has the effect of making it obligatory- throughout our social service system for governments to have a residency requirement. If they do not think that is what it will do, they should put themselves in the position of someone who believes that a social service should not be available to the
April 2, 1981

newcomers to the province that welfare, education, or whatever we might define as public expenditure on social services should not be made available to them. One should ask, if one happens to be the kind of a taxpayer who does not believe that public money should be spent on these people who have just moved into one's province, even though the elected representatives said they could benefit from social services whether those newcomers would take their case to the courts, provincial courts, or the Supreme Court of Canada, which would declare the decision of those publicly elected people to serve the newcomers to be invalid. To what extent is this government determined to hand that kind of power to those who have the resources and the wealth to successfully follow through the chain of courts to the Supreme Court of Canada on the basis of a principle in which they might believe but which runs counter to the common good?
When those rulings are made that the expenditure of public money cannot be spent on social services of one kind or another, for newcomers-people who just move from province to province-then there will be uniformity, that broad brush I referred to.
However, I really wonder if those are the types of things we want in this country, and are we determined to ram this through in the face of a court judgment which says that we are dealing with an illegal bill? I suspect that most of us on a public platform would feel, in trying to serve the best interests of our constituencies, a great deal more comfortable if the pressure were removed and we could engage in real dialogue on the kind of wording we really want to express the principles which would serve the people of this country well.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. David Berger (Laurier):: Mr. Speaker, the motion we have before us today put forward by the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) calls for some documents to be produced relating to the comparison of the application of federal laws by the various provincial courts. He is concerned about the uniformity in the application of laws, particularly as it relates to criminal justice. The parliamentary secretary who preceded me in speaking for our party mentioned how the charter of rights would accomplish many of the things that the hon. member for Vaudreuil is seeking. He referred to two rights and spoke of how a charter of rights would make the rights of Canadians from coast to coast more secure. They could go before a court of law and ensure that their rights, as they are expressed in the charter, are enforced.
I think this is true, and it is perhaps a corollary, that it is fine that rights should be equal across the country. For example, the same rights should exist with regard to minority language education in Alberta or in British Columbia as they exist in Quebec or in New Brunswick, or anywhere across the country. To use an example cited by the parliamentary secretary, the right to be secure against unreasonable search and seizure should be the same in every province across the country.
Business of the House
However, where I take issue with the hon. member for Vaudreuil is in the application of criminal justice. There must be a certain difference from province to province and from community to community because, as has been mentioned- with regard to the obscenity rule, for example-community standards are different depending on the community in which one lives. I think there is a difference between rights, which should be equal across the country, and sentences, because there may be different violations of the criminal law from city to city.
What I really resent is how the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) takes one matter, confuses it with another and then comes up with a statement suggesting that many matters which concern us would be controlled by a small group of people sitting in Ottawa who would try to suppress our differences. He attempts to conjure up visions of "Big Brother" sitting in Ottawa, saying that community standards relating to obscenity laws would be enforced from a central point in the country. This is not true at all. It is really an indication of the types of misconceptions and deceitfulness which hon. members opposite have been trying to perpetrate in this debate as some sort of scare tactic against the people in small towns and people from one end of the country to the other.
I would like to repeat that rights of individuals should be the same from one end of the country to the other. However, the application of criminal justice is completely different from community to community.
I have an example which I would like to give, but as it is approaching six o'clock, I think that I will allow you, Mr. Speaker, to call it six o'clock.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Corbin):: The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the Chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. There have been discussions amongst House leaders with respect to the order of business for this evening.
It is the desire of the government to proceed this evening with the borrowing authority motion under Standing Order 75c in order to permit the House of Commons to get on to the economic business of the country' which has been our desire all along. The hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnaty-shyn), who had the floor with respect to a question of privilege, is prepared to defer further argument on that question of

April 2, 1981
Business of the House
privilege now for the purposes of facilitating the business of the House.
My understanding as well is that other hon. members of the House are prepared to do that so that we can take up the question for the remaining time on the motion standing in the name of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). We are prepared to allow that to happen. In any event, we are prepared to have a vote on that motion tonight at ten o'clock, and we would be agreeable to having it made a House order to clarify the situation.
The understanding we have reached is that one day will be spent on the report stage, and that it be tomorrow, Friday. If a recorded division is required on Friday, we will agree not to proceed with it on Friday. It will be deferred until Monday at three o'clock.
The government House leader has also agreed with us that he will be calling-it is part of our understanding-the third reading stage of the borrowing bill on Monday and that votes will be taken on Monday night to dispose-whichever way it is done-of the borrowing authority bill.
I emphasize that this arrangement has been agreed to. We as a party are prepared for a House order with respect to that so that we can proceed with the important business of the country, which it is our wish to do. I have discussed this with the government House leader, and I have set it out clearly for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), who is here. I hope he will be agreeable to that proposal.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, yes, there have been these discussions. They have taken place in stages, but the statement just made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton represents what we were discussing, and we agree with all of the proposals for a House order as he has outlined it.
Perhaps I should make it clear, however, that when the vote is called on the motion under Standing Order 75c, we shall be voting against it.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, what has been outlined by the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party and confirmed by the1 House leader of the New Democratic Party corresponds to the offer which I made this afternoon. We have negotiated, and they have indeed replied in the affirmative to the suggestion which I put to them, and I believe that this, especially as far as the Progressive Conservative Party is concerned, is a way to be consistent with their commitment to the effect that if the motion to allocate a time period for the constitutional debate was withdrawn from the Order Paper, they would stop their filibuster. In these circumstances, I am pleased that my offer has been accepted, and the terms of the order of the House have been well stated by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, and I believe that his comments may be used for the order of the House so that we may dispose of the bill on the borrowing power today, tomorrow and next Monday.
Madam Speaker, in the event that a vote were to be called tomorrow, Friday, it would be automatically deferred to 3 p.m. on Monday.


Madam Speaker:: I believe that there is unanimous consent of the House concerning this proposal. I simply want to know if the House wishes to proceed immediately with the motion or go on to routine proceedings.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there are some questions on the order paper which, I understand, the government wishes to answer. That is agreeable. If Your Honour would make what we have outlined a House order, then I think we could go through the proceedings and very quickly reach the subject matter.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Is it agreed that I should go through the proceedings until we reach the motion?


Walter David Baker: No, Madam Speaker. This is to be a House order with respect to the motion under Standing Order 75c. I think it would be agreeable to all of us if it was made now in accordance with the terms which have been discussed among the House leaders.


Madam Speaker:: Is the understanding agreed to unanimously by the House?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I have the honour to table this evening, on behalf of the Minister of State for Small Businesses and Tourism (Mr. Lapointe), copies in both official languages of the seventh report of the Metric Commission of Canada.
April 2, 1981


PETITION
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, now that we are on routine proceedings, may I present a petition?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, that is in order.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I have the honour on behalf of the Saskatchewan Senior Citizens Action Now Association to present a petition to the House of Commons of Canada in Parliament assembled signed by 6,123 Canadians praying for certain improvements with regard to senior citizens and asking in particular that steps be taken to provide an income equal to at least 70 per cent to 75 per cent of the average industrial wage in Canada for persons 65 years of age and over.


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if hon. members will bear with me, there are a number of questions in view of the delay over recent days. The	following questions will be
answered: Nos. 168, 1,522, 1,544,	1,693,	1,726,	1,751,	1,842,1,895, 1,942, 1,967, 1,968, 2,000,	2,001,	2,040,	2,079,	2,080,2,089, 2,092, 2,097, 2,130, 2,149,	2,173,	2,186,	2,187,	2,199,
2,212 and 2,215.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Does the government have any plans for the two Cadillacs formerly used by the Prime Minister up until May 22, 1979 and, if so, what are they?
2.	Did the vehicles cost $80,000 or more in taxpayers funds?
3.	Will the Prime Minister continue to make use of either one of them at any time and, if not, what are all the reasons for such a change in the government's policy since prior to May 22, 1979?
4.	Will one of the vehicles be disposed of to recover public money spent?
5.	What was the date of purchase of each vehicle and what is the present mileage on its odometer?
6.	Are the vehicles necessary for Prime Ministerial safety and, if not, for what reason were they necessary prior to May 22, 1979?
7.	What is the average mile obtained per gallon in the case of each vehicle?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1.	(a) One vehicle is presently used by "A" Division, (northeastern Ontario) RCM Police, to provide security to visiting heads of state, heads of government, foreign ministers, etc.
(b)	The other vehicle is being utilized by "O" Division (southern Ontario) RCM Police, to provide security
Order Paper Questions
to visiting heads of state, heads of government, foreign ministers, etc.
2.	(a) The 1973 Cadillac (Special limousine) cost $76,408.
(b)	The 1974 Cadillac (Special limousine) cost $83,530.94.
3.	The Prime Minister will continue to use the Cadillac in "A" Division, upon recommendation of the RCMP, if and when a threat should surface indicating the need.
4.	No.
5.	(a) The date of purchase of the 1973 Cadillac was
March 18, 1973. In relation to the question, the odometer reading is 38,218 miles.
(b) The date of purchase of the 1974 Cadillac was October 15, 1974. In relation to the question, the odometer reading is 37,228 miles.
6.	Yes; the Prime Minister will continue to use the Cadillacs, upon recommendation of the RCMP, if and when a threat should surface indicating the need.
7.	(a) The average miles per gallon obtained for the 1973
Cadillac is 12.
(b) The average miles per gallon obtained for the 1974 Cadillac is eight.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the RCMP request from the United States Immigration Service on or about April 13, 1980, licence numbers on Canadian pleasure boats tied up at Morristown, N.Y. docks or anywhere within a reasonable distance of the area and, if so, for what reason and specifically, was it because of the alleged failure of certain Canadians, stopping for dinner in the United States while cruising the river, to report to Canadian Customs on return to Canada and, if so, how many Canadians were assessed penalties by the RCMP in the area of Brockville, Ontario for such an offence and was the penalty $50 in each case?
2.	Is the government aware that the U.S. government has a system whereby Americans can obtain a seasonal permit for similar crossings to the Canadian side of the border without reporting in on return unless they have goods to declare and specifically, will the government consider the institution of a similar permit system for Canadians in order to eliminate the present problem?
3.	(a) In regard to this particular type of matter, is RCMP action taken under the Canada Customs Act and, if so (i) for what reason does the RCMP not have to offer evidence against a person before a penalty is levied (ii) is a person considered guilty until they can prove their innocence (b) will the government consider amendments to the Canada Customs Act to provide seasonal permits and to permit persons to be considered innocent until proven guilty by a court?


David Michael Collenette: I am informed by the Ministry of the Solicitor General and the Department of National Revenue as follows: 1. The RCMP have had no contact with the U.S. Immigration Service concerning licence numbers of Canadian boats in U.S. waters.
As a result of complaints by Canadian Customs officers that Canadians travelling via boat to the U.S.A. were not reporting to customs on their return to Canada, RCMP members contacted U.S. Customs officials on or about April 13, 1980, requesting licence numbers of Canadian boats found in U.S. ports. The reason for the request was to confirm inward report

April 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
to Canadian Customs. A total of 19 Canadians were assessed penalties by the RCMP in the area of Brockville, Ontario for such an offence and the penalty was $50 in each case.
2.	It is understood that United States regulations have the following requirements. All pleasure boats, regardless of size, need not report to U.S. Immigration when arriving with only U.S. citizens on board. However, all vessels must comply with customs reporting and entry requirements. In this regard, an American pleasure boat owned by a U.S. citizen must report arrival from a foreign area to customs within 24 hours. The report may be made by any means of communication, and if inspection is required, customs will direct the vessel to an inspection area.
Under the Canadian system, all persons arriving in Canada are also required to report to customs. The reporting mechanism varies from region to region according to the traffic volume, distances between offices, and availability of customs personnel. In some areas, officers are on duty at all locations during the season to process marine traffic, while in other areas, the system is complemented by the use of telephone reporting procedures. In areas where telephone procedures are used, residents of Canada may pre-register with Canada Customs before travelling on international waters. In all cases, however, a customs report is required in respect of each trip. As with the U.S. system, the traveller may be given a verbal clearance by customs and issued a clearance number, or may be required to wait on board pending inspection by a customs officer.
3.	(a) The action taken by the RCMP was under the
provisions of the Customs Act.
(i)	The RCMP officers offered evidence to the above mentioned 19 persons that a Customs Act violation was believed to have taken place. All persons admitted being in the U.S.A. and not reporting to customs.
(ii)	Under section 248 of the Customs Act, burden of proof lies on the person whose duty it was to comply with the act. However, RCMP investigators must have sufficient grounds to prove the offence has taken place before taking any action.
(b) The Department of National Revenue will consider amendments to the Customs Act to ensure the latitude exists for the establishment of various reporting procedures according to the circumstances and conditions in each region.
It is a cornerstone of our legal system that a person charged with a crime is presumed to be innocent until proven guilty and this principle will not be changed. However, it is important to realize that the question of guilt or innocence only arises under the Customs Act when criminal charges have been laid. In most instances where action is taken under the Customs Act, civil proceedings are involved. In these cases, it is the goods in Canada which have not been reported to customs that are in violation of the law, and action is directed
against the goods in question and not the person in possession of them. The action is considered to be "in rem". The innocence or guilt of the person involved does not therefore arise in such cases.


Mr. Cossitt: Did Sgt. Tom Hardiman inform, at any time, employees of the security clearance Section at RCMP headquarters, that none of them would lose their jobs when computers were introduced and, if so (a) was he enunciating government or departmental policy (b) has the situation been changed and, if so, for what reason?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Sgt. Hardiman did inform the employees of No. 2 section, "F" operations, that no lay-offs would take place due to the utilization of computers. He advised that staff reduction would take place through attrition and lateral transfer options.
(a)	He was enunciating departmental policy.
(b)	As those involved had not pursued lateral transfers, the date of December 31, 1980, was given as the target date when conceivably lay-offs might have to occur. No lay-offs have occurred and six of the original 35 positions remain to be accommodated, if possible, in the same manner as the others.


Mr. Benjamin: 1.	Was the government informed that the CPR had ballasted a 90-mile stretch of line in the Quebec eastern townships with rock containing asbestos ore or tailings from the mining or refining of asbestos and, if so (a) on what date (b) was action taken in response and, if so, what was such action?
2.	Was the (a) government (b) Canadian Transport Commission informed of any other lines so ballasted and, if so (i) which lines were reported (ii) how were the reports followed up (iii) were any tests conducted on reported lines to determine the composition of ballast and, if so, what were the results?
3.	What were the results of the inquiry that the Minister of Transport referred to on June 2, 1980, at page 1627 of Hansard?
4.	Did the (a) government (b) Canadian Transport Commission ask the railway companies to provide a list of the rail lines which have been ballasted with tailings from the mining or refining of asbestos or rock containing asbestos ore and, if so (i) what was the response (ii) which lines did the railway companies identify as being so ballasted and on what dates were they ballasted?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows:
1.	(a) The government was made aware on December 13,
1978,	that the CPR had ballasted a stretch of line in the Quebec eastern townships with a type of rock that contained asbestos Fibres.
(b) A meeting of officials of the federal government and the Canadian Pacific Railway was held on March 9,
1979,	to discuss whether this ballast posed a health hazard. As a result of the meeting, the Environmental Health Directorate of the Health Protection Branch, Health and Welfare Canada, in collabora-
April 2, 1981

tion with CP Rail undertook to establish whether or not an environmental hazard existed.
2.	No. Neither the government nor the Canadian Transport Commission has been informed of any other lines so ballasted.
3.	There were two investigations referred to on June 2, 1980: the first was initiated by the Department of the Environment in 1979. During its investigative process, it was decided, after consultation with the Department of Health and Welfare, that the latter would conduct a scientific study of the air and water quality in the vicinity of the rail line. The study was made and a report submitted in February, 1980. The report concluded that the effect of using ballast containing asbestos fibres on the quality of the drinking water and the ambient air in the area tested was negligible.
The second investigation was conducted by the Canadian Transport Commission. It revealed that CP Rail was in the process of retaining an independent research group to undertake a study of the environmental effects of using asbestosbearing crushed rock as ballast and, that the railway had discontinued the use of this type of ballast until the results of its study are known and evaluated.
4.	(a) and (b) No. The Canadian National draws its ballast from other sources and CP Rail has changed its source of ballast to the Hilton Iron Mines.


Mr. Cossitt: Did the government allot contracts or make payments during the period January 1, 1978, to November 1, 1980, to the public affairs consultant firm G.L. Kristianson Ltd., 26 Bastion Square, Victoria, or to Mr. Kristianson and, if so (a) how many and on what dates (b) for what purpose (c) will all reports, studies, etc. by the firm be tabled in the House (d) what was the cost of each study and the total cost of all studies?


David Michael Collenette: All departments and agencies have no information on this subject.


Mr. Stevens: For the current fiscal year, what are the estimated expenditures of the Department of National Health and Welfare for (a) advertising (b) free or subsidized publications (c) other information conveyed to the public?


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: The 1980-81 projected expenditures are: (a) media advertising $3,715,000, (b) free or subsidized publications $3,711,745, (c) other information $727,200.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the CBC recently conduct further tests of the CBC FM French and English radio transmitter at Maitland, Ontario and, if so (a) was it found that interference with television and radio reception in the surrounding area was as bad or worse as during previous testings (b) was an attempt made by the CBC to install adapters or other forms of devices on individual television sets, etc. and, if
Order Paper Questions
so, did this result in some improvement (c) were the transmitters once again shut down and, if so, on what date?
2.	(a) Has the CBC reached the conclusion that nothing can be done to rectify the situation and, if so, what does it plan to do with the existing transmitters (b) will they be moved to another location and, if so, on what date?
3.	What was the total cost to date of all installations, testing, etc. conducted by CBC since construction began at Maitland, Ontario?


Mr. Peter Stollery (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: I am advised by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1. The CBC conducted tests on November 24 and 25, 1980.
(a)	Interference previously measured was confirmed. These tests further indicated that not all the problems can be solved by changes to equipment owned by listeners.
(b)	The CBC installed filters, traps and pre-amplifiers on a number of individual sets, but some TV and most FM channels remained impaired.
(c)	The transmitters have not been operated since these tests.
2.	(a) The CBC concluded that a change in the licensed
parameters of the English-language FM station will be necessary to provide service to the Brockville area while not restricting the viewing and listening habits of the Maitland area residents. Further tests are to be conducted with the English-language FM transmitter operating at reduced power to try to eliminate the problem.
(b) If the tests referred to in 2(a) are successful, the corporation will prepare an application for a permanent operation with a lower-powered transmitter at the present site. The French-language transmitter will be used as currently licensed and the present English-language transmitter equipment would be used elsewhere.
3.	$519,000-total cost for English-language and French-language services.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	In (a) 1975 (b) 1976 (c) 1977 (d) 1978 (e) 1979 (f) 1980, what amount did the government advance, through CIDA or any other agency, to the government of Grenada?
2.	Does the government have a program for advancing funds to Grenada during 1980 and 1981?
3.	Did the government act on the complaints of owners of Levera Beach home sites in Grenada, particularly the complaints Filed with the Canadian High Commissioner's office in Bridgetown, Barbados, by E. W. Anderson, 1190 Clarington Road, Mississauga, Ontario, L5E 3C5?


Mark R. MacGuigan: I am informed by the Canadian International Development Agency and the Secretariat for External Affairs as follows:
1.	Disbursements made by CIDA in the form of grants for bilateral development assistance to Grenada during the years in question were as follows:

April 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
1974-75	$ 243,900
1975-76	1,178,500
1976-77	1,816,900
1977-78	594,300
1978-79	292,400
1979-80	66,500
2.	Planned expenditures in the form of grants for approved projects in Grenada during 1980-81 are $116,800.
3.	Mr. E. W. Anderson visited the Canadian High Commission in October, 1979, to discuss the complaints of owners of Levera Beach home sites in Grenada. Our High Commission has informed us that Mr. Anderson did not request the High Commission to approach the Grenada authorities at that time, and the High Commission has no record of having received any correspondence from him subsequent to his visit.
Nonetheless, in the case of another Canadian owner of a home site in the Levera Development Properties, our High Commission did approach the Grenadian authorities concerning the sale of such property to another Canadian. Our mission also inquired of the Grenadian government if there had been new legislation affecting the sale of property in Grenada. We were informed by the Grenadian authorities that there had been no change in the legislation pertaining to the sale of property to aliens and that applications to sell property are considered by cabinet on an individual basis.
Our High Commission in Bridgetown has noted that the Grenadian land sale legislation is not aimed at the Levera Beach holdings but applies generally to limit land transfers between foreigners and was patterned, at least in part, on legislation in Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	What are the names of all persons who have had access in any way whatsoever to the papers of the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker since the papers were placed in the Public Archives and, in each case, what was their job designation and what was the reason for such access?
2.	Was any consultation held with the trustees of the papers regarding persons selected to work on them?
3.	Were any "leaks" of the contents of the papers discovered and, if so, what action was taken to maintain proper privacy?
4.	Is Miss Karen Teeple one of those working on the papers and, if so, was her competency and ability to maintain confidentiality etc. thoroughly investigated before she was permitted to perform such tasks?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Public Archives that the reply to the above question is as follows: 1. The names of all persons who have had access to the papers of the late Right Hon. John G. Diefenbaker while they have been stored at the Public Archives since 1963 are as follows:
Name	Job Designation	Reason for AccessD. Lee McDonald	Archivist-Post confederation Section, PAC	Archivist responsible for the Diefenbaker papers.R.S. Gordon	Director-Manuscript Division, PAC	Archivist responsible for the Diefenbaker papersCarman Carroll	Head-Prime Ministers Section, PAC	Responsible for the section which housed the papersJean Dryden and	Archivists-Prime	Seconded to assist inRoy Maddocks	Ministers Section, PAC	the research for "One Canada"Maureen Hoogenraad	Archivist-Prime Ministers Section, PAC	Helped in the first rough sorting of the papersPaulette Dozois	Archivist-Prime Ministers Section, PAC	Helped in the first rough sorting of the papersWilliam Smith	Archivist-Prime Ministers Section, PAC	Helped in the first rough sorting of the papersDave Walden	Contract worker with the University of Saskatchewan	Organized portions of the papersGiselle Pidek	Member of the PAC Microfilming Unit	Microfilmed the first two parts of the papersGail Devlin Yuri Daschko and Shaun Munro	Research assistants	Aided Mr. John Munro in his research. (See John Munro listed below)Professors William	One-time biographers	Prepared some researchNeville, Denis Smith and Colin Wright	of Mr. Diefenbaker	for a proposed biography which was abandoned.Thomas Van Dusen	Former Executive Assistant to Mr. Diefenbaker	Assisted in researching some areas of the papers for Mr. Diefenbaker's autobiographyNorman Hilliker	Historian-External Affairs	Examined External Affairs material in the papersArchie McQueen	Mr. Diefenbaker's Assistant	Searched the papers for material requested by Mr. DiefenbakerScott Munro	Writer/Director for CBC	Granted access to copy some photographs in the papers for a CBC documentary on Mr. Diefenbaker*Ian McClymont	Chief-Prime Ministers Section, PAC	Responsible for co-ordination of Archives and University of Saskatchewan employees working on the Diefenbaker project*Doug Whyte	Archivist-Prime Ministers Section, PAC (Formerly a contract worker with the University of Saskatchewan)	Responsible for the Diefenbaker project. Organized portions of the papers*Karen Teeple	Contract worker with the University of Saskatchewan	Assisted in the organization of the papers
April 2, 1981

Name	Job Designation	Reason for Access'Elizabeth Timlin and Colleen Dempsey	Clerks-Prime Ministers Section, PAC	Aided in the organization of material'John Munro	Director-Diefenbaker Centre	Screened the papers for memorabilia and to select material for display at the Diefenbaker CentreJohn Munro	Editor and researcher for "One Canada", employed by Mr. Diefenbaker	Conducted research for the autobiography "One Canada"'Joel Aldred	Executor of Mr. Diefenbaker's Estate	Searched the papers for documents concerning the financial aspects of the estate'Kenneth Binks and his assistants	Solicitor for the estate of Mr. Diefenbaker	Examined papers to aid in the disposition of the estate
Note: Only those indicated (*) and the executors of Mr. Diefenbaker's estate presently have access.
2.	The University of Saskatchewan, as owner of the Right Hon. John George Diefenbaker Papers, consults with the Public Archives of Canada prior to the hiring of individuals to work on the Diefenbaker Papers.
3.	The Public Archives is not aware of any "leaks" of the contents of the papers.
4.	Karen Teeple is a contract employee of the University of Saskatchewan. The university has expressed its confidence in her competence as an archivist and in her integrity. The Public Archives shares this confidence in Ms. Teeple's competence and integrity.


Mr. Blenkarn: 1.	Is Mr. William Burchett identified as a journalist on CBC program "The Ten Thousand Day War" a Canadian citizen?
2.	Was Mr. Burchett employed by CBC and, if so, on what basis?
3.	Is Mr. Burchett the same William Burchett who was involved with the North Korean Forces during the Korean War?
4.	Is Mr. Burchett the same William Burchett who served with the Vietcong Forces in the Vietnam conflict?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: 1, 3 and 4. "The Ten Thousand Day War" is a production of T.D.W. Productions Ltd., and was purchased for showing on the CBC network. The CBC has no direct knowledge of whether William Burchett is a Canadian citizen or of his affiliation during the Vietnam and Korean wars.
2.	William Burchett's services were used by the CBC during the war, when he was one of the very few English-speaking journalists who had access to North Vietnam. His services have not been used since the Vietnam war ended.
Order Paper Questions


Mr. Cossitt: What are the latest statistics in the possession of CBC showing the percentage of viewers of CBOT, Ottawa, compared to CJOH, Ottawa and, in particular, what is the percentage breakdown of the viewing audience for both stations' news programs beginning at 6 p.m. nightly?


Peter A. Stollery: I am informed by the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation as follows: the performance of news and public affairs programs varies substantially from city to city and is dependent on numerous factors, the most obvious being the number of competing television stations in a given city. In Ottawa, for example, nine TV stations have a reportable share of the audience, while a number of others account for too little viewing for reporting purposes. According to survey figures for the fall of 1980, the most recent period for which audience data are available for the metropolitan area of Ottawa-Hull, in the Monday to Friday 6.00-7.00 p.m. slot, CBOT had a 12 per cent share of the audience. CBOT also carries a late evening local news program, for which it receives an approximately 36 per cent share of the audience. Since the information requested on non-CBC-network stations is provided by a syndicated ratings firm, the Bureau of Broadcast Measurement, statistics required on CJOH-TV should be requested from the station itself.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 162 which states in part, that the "Ministerial Referral System" will be one of the means by which persons employed in the upcoming census are selected, what is a full description of the term "Ministerial Referral System"?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: the "Ministerial Referral System" is based on the authority in Section 5(1) the Statistics Act, as follows:
"Temporary
employees" "5. (1) The Minister may employ from time to time, in the manner authorized by law, such commissioners, enumerators, agents or other persons as are necessary to collect for Statistics Canada such statistics and information as he deems useful and in the public interest relating to such commercial, industrial, financial, social, economic and other activities as he may determine, and the duties of such commissioners, enumerators, agents or other persons shall be those duties prescribed by the Minister."
A description of the implementation, at the minister's discretion, of the Ministerial Referral System is as follows: the office of the minister responsible for Statistics Canada provides Statistics Canada with the name of a contact for each federal electoral district. Contacts are briefed by regional office personnel on the requirements of the position of census

April 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
commissioner, (essential and desirable qualifications, duties, salary, time commitments, etc.) and they are requested to provide the names of two prospective candidates for each census commissioner district. Those individuals whose names are referred as candidates are required to write an examination and to submit to an interview to determine their personal suitability for such a position. This examination and interview are administered by Statistics Canada regional office census staff hired under the Public Service Employment Act, and results are submitted to the regional directors for review and recommendations. Names are then submitted to the minister for decision.


Mr. Cossitt: With reference to the answer to question No. 162 which states in part, that opposition Members of Parliament will be allowed to make nominations for those who will be employed in the upcoming census, is it the policy of the government that such nominations will be accepted on the basis of their merit or will they be rejected unless they are supporters of the Liberal Party?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Statistics Canada reports: candidates for census commissioner positions are carefully assessed through an objective process. The results of this process are weighed by the minister before the selection is made. Candidates' names may be obtained from several sources and the same selection criteria are applied to all such candidates.


[Stage Direction]
See definitions below.
Definitions
Domiciliary Care
"Domiciliary Care", as used in DVA, equates to federal types I and II care. A domiciliary care patient is reasonably well and ambulatory; is capable of looking after his or her own needs; is able to get up, get dressed and go to the dining room; requires a minimum of either nursing or medical care or other assistance, and is essentially being provided with board and quarters.
Chronic Care
Chronic Care, which is federal type III care, is that required by a person who is chronically ill and/or has a functional disability (physical or mental) whose acute phase of illness is over, whose initial processes may or may not be stable, whose potential for rehabilitation may be limited, and who requires a range of therapeutic services, medical management and skilled nursing care plus provision for meeting psycho-social needs. The period of time during which care is required is unpredictable, but usually consists of a matter of months or years.
Mr. Halliday: What is the federal sales tax on (a) lumber (b) cement (c) steel products (d) masonry products such as bricks, shingles and other roofing materials (e) plumbing materials (0 electrical and wiring materials (g) paints (h) wallboards?

Question No. 2,040-Mr. McKenzie:
What is the estimated number of additional beds that will be required for the domiciliary care of chronically ill veterans in (a) 1981 (b) 1982 (c) 1983 (d)
1984 (e) 1985?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: The department is not now in a position to forecast the bed requirement; however, it is generally accepted that there will be an increasing need for chronic care beds in the years ahead.
It was this fact, coupled with our desire to better serve Canada's veterans, that led to the development of the "Aging Veterans Program" I announced in November, 1980. Implementation of this new program will commence on April 1,
1981, and its main thrust is directed at enabling aging veterans to remain in their homes and communities, rather than be institutionalized as has often been the case in the past. The Aging Veterans Program entails the provision of a range of personal and home care services designed to maintain the independence and self-sufficiency of the elderly veteran. This new initiative provides eligibility to disability pensioners initially; however, it is hoped to extend it to War Veterans (e) Allowance recipients after a reasonable time during which we will gain needed experience in providing the new services. The effect that this program will have in reducing bed requirements cannot be estimated at this time.


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: (a)	5 per cent.
(b)	5 per cent.
(c)	Structural metal and fabricated metal for buildings and other structures.
Other goods including firegrates, flagpoles, metal furniture, metal shelving and steel forms for concrete.
(d)	Bricks and shingles.
Tar, asphalt, roofing materials and components including eavestroughing and downspouts.
Other goods including roof repair kits and sheet metal for roofing without further fabrication.
Shower baths, bathtubs, basins, faucets, closets, lavatories, urinals, sinks, laundry tubs and parts for the foregoing.	5 per cent
Other goods including towel rings, whirlpool bath units and soap dishes.	9 per cent
5 per cent
9 per cent 5 per cent
5 per cent
9 per cent
April 2, 1981

(f)	Electrical conducting and telecommunications wire and cable, transformers, circuit-breakers and related electrical equipment designed for permanent installation in a system for the supply of
electricity.	5	per	cent
Other goods including doorbells, lightbulbs,
extension cords and lighting fixtures.	9	per	cent
(g)	5 per cent.
(h)	Plasterboards, fibreboards, wall panels, building paper, wallpaper and materials for ceilings, walls, insulation for acoustical
purposes.	5	per	cent
Other goods including portable or free
standing room dividers, ornamental panels,
and particle board faced with melamine.	9 per cent


Mr. Halliday: 1.	Is a general formula in use for calculating the amount of federal sales tax remission on building materials, for example, new schools and hospitals and, if so, what is it?
2.	What are the guidelines or regulations pertaining to the rebate of federal sales taxes in Part 1 ?


Claude Tessier: 1. A general formula or simplified method, as mentioned below, may be used to compute the refund of federal sales tax on materials used exclusively in the construction of a building for a hospital or a school.
2. Hospitals
An institution certified as a bona fide public hospital by the Department of National Health and Welfare claims sales tax exemption at the time of purchase or importation of building materials for its own use and not for sale. Accordingly, a hospital making direct purchases for a building construction program can obtain materials tax exempt and make the goods available to the general contractor or subcontractor. Or, the hospital may grant the contractor or subcontractor or both authority to purchase materials exempt on its behalf. A contractor or subcontractor who has not been appointed the hospital's purchasing agent is required to pay tax at the time of purchase and claim a refund from the Department of National Revenue. The refund may be computed either by claiming the exact amount of sales tax as substantiated by suppliers' invoices or by using a simplified method and calculating the tax as 2.25 per cent of the total contract payments.
Schools
Unlike a hospital, a school must pay sales tax when purchasing or importing materials for use in the construction of a building. However, the school may obtain reimbursement of the tax by filing for a refund based on either the exact amount of sales tax as substantiated by suppliers' invoices or by using a simplified method. In
Order Paper Questions
this instance the tax factor is 1.5 per cent of the total contract payments less an allowance for provincial tax (in Ontario .0315 per cent) for a net of 1.4685 per cent.
The tax factor is lower for a school than for a hospital because a hospital is entitled to an exemption on all goods it purchases whereas a school is entitled to a refund only on materials for use in the construction of a building. For instance, a fence around a school is subject to sales tax.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what amount did the Canadian International Development Agency give to the Overseas Book Centre and on what basis was the amount determined?
2.	What are the objectives of the Overseas Book Centre and who are the beneficiaries?


Mark R. MacGuigan: 1. CIDA's contributions to the Overseas Book Centre over the last five years were as follows:
1980-81:	$647,939;
1979-80:	592,939;
1978-79:	684,857;
1977-78:	449,000;
1976-77:	329,000.
CIDA's contributions were given on a matching ratio. In 1980-81 CIDA gave the Overseas Book Centre three dollars for every dollar the centre raised from the Canadian public. These contributions were given after a detailed review of the Overseas Book Centre's administrative capabilities and procedures, its fund-raising capacity and the value of the books and equipment collected from the Canadian public being sent to developing countries. Also considered was the strong indication from both Overseas and Canadian non-governmental organizations of the value of OBC's services. The estimated value of the goods supplied to Third World countries by OBC in 1980-81 is $4 million.
2. The Overseas Book Centre is a charitable, overseas aid organization working in the field of education. OBC has two main areas of activity:
(1)	The book program, whereby school textbooks, reference materials, library books, and encyclopaedias which are donated to the OBC by publishers, school boards, libraries, and private donors, are shipped overseas to needy recipient institutions. Special emphasis is placed on supplying books and materials for students in teacher colleges, nursing schools, agricultural colleges, and technical institutes. Last year OBC sent more than 200 tons of books to over 1300 institutions in 80 different countries.
(2)	Special projects, wherein support is provided for functional adult literacy programs, especially in conjunction with instruction in health and hygiene, nutrition, simple skills training and the like, as well as indigenous pub-
8918

April 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
lishing of educational materials, especially "non-formal" materials aimed at the most in need.
Project assistance can take the form of small cash grants for the supply of paper and simple printing equipment.


Mr. Cook: 1.	During the 1980 Thanksgiving weekend, what was the number of (a) cars and passengers (b) buses and passengers that passed through the Douglas Crossing on the King George VI Highway, Surrey, British Columbia?
2.	During the same weekend, what was the number of customs officers on duty on a shift-by-shift basis serving on the crossing?
3.	What is the number of customs officers on duty on a two day weekend on a shift-by-shift basis on the crossing?
4.	Are extra customs offices available on an immediate basis if border points become clogged?
5.	Are extra customs officers available to inspect convoys of tour buses?


Claude Tessier: 1. (a) and (b) During the 1980 Thanksgiving weekend the following traffic was cleared through the port of Douglas, B.C.:
Saturday	4,163 cars	9,519 passengersSunday	4,512 cars	9,943 passengersMonday	5,318 cars	13,139 passengers
In addition, on Saturday, four freight trains, on Sunday, two freight trains and on Monday, three freight trains plus one passenger train were cleared by Douglas officers. The train clearance point is 'h mile west of Douglas.
Buses do not enter through Douglas but through the Port of Pacific Highway one mile east of Douglas. The following traffic was cleared through Pacific Highway on the Thanksgiving weekend:
Saturday	1,254 cars	2,844 passengers
	28 buses	1,074 passengers
Sunday	2,339 cars	5,394 passengers
	18 buses	596 passengers
Monday	2,369 cars	5,225 passengers
	17 buses	481 passengers
2. The number of officers on duty per shift was as follows:
Douglas	Saturday	A.M. 7	P.M. 9	Midnight 3Sunday	9	10	3Monday	10	8	3
Please note that the Monday p.m. shift of eight officers includes two held over on
overtime from a.m. shift and two part-time officers called in. These were necessary because of absence due to illness.		
A.M.	P.M.	MidnightPacific Highway Saturday 5	4	2Sunday 4	5	2Monday 5	7	2
Please note that on Monday, two officers scheduled for the p.m. shift were called in at noon, raising the number of officers to seven for the period from noon to 1600 hours.
3.	The usual number of officers on duty at Douglas during a normal weekend is:
A.M.	P.M.	MidnightSaturday	7	9	3Sunday	9	10	34.	At the beginning of each shift all officers are assigned to various duties, there is no reserve. If a superintendent sees traffic building up or anticipates it, he usually telephones the afternoon shift officers and arranges for some to come in around noon. If the p.m. superintendent at the beginning of his shift has a backlog of traffic he will ask members of the morning shift to stay over until traffic eases off. No officers are available on an immediate basis for relief. The two crossings of Douglas and Pacific Highway are one mile apart, and if the traffic is heavy at one port it is usually heavy at the other port also, hence relief cannot normally be sent from one port to the other.5.	Greyhound scheduled buses arrive at Pacific Highway between 1500 and 2100 hours daily. While tour buses have been advised to avoid the above time period, they are all competitive and frequently arrive at the border in groups and are often mixed in with the Greyhound buses. There are no extra officers available to inspect these tour buses.


Mr. McGrath: 1.	Does the government intend to eliminate the harvest of offshore capelin within Canada's 200-mile economic zone?
2.	How much offshore caplin were caught in 1980 and by whom?


Roméo LeBlanc: 1. Offshore capelin stocks are currently at low levels. Until offshore capelin stocks have recovered sufficiently, no licensing will be permitted for either domestic or foreign offshore vessels. To aid in the scientific research of the northern capelin stocks an exploratory permit has been granted to the U.S.S.R. to allow 650 MT catch in sub-areas 2+ 3K (the Labrador and northeast Newfoundland waters within the 200-mile economic zone).
2. In 1980, the only commercial offshore fishing effort in the capelin fishery was by the U.S.S.R. under an exploratory permit of 5,000 MT. An actual catch of 4,818 MT was recorded.


Mr. Howie: 1.	Since January 1, 1980, were studies conducted by the Department of Transport concerning the location of a site for a liquefied natural gas terminal and, if so, what site or sites were recommended?
2.	(a) Was any site in New Brunswick considered (b) was a site recommended and was it rejected and, if so, for what reason?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Transport Canada has not on its own initiative conducted any studies since January 1, 1980, con-
April 2, 1981

cerning the location of a site for a liquefied natural gas terminal. Transport Canada is in the process of assessing several submissions from companies proposing such terminals. In assessing these proposals, under an assessment system called TERMPOL, the department's Coast Guard, Ship Safety Branch, reviews the ship accessibility, terminal construction and environmental risk factors, and recommends to the proponent any restrictions, constraints or changes that might be necessary in the interest of safety. The assessments do not produce recommendations for one site over another, but rather an evaluation of the perceived problems or constraints that would arise at each of the sites submitted by a proponent.
2. (a) and (b) Submissions made by the Arctic Pilot Project Consortium in respect of the proposed Canso (Melfort Point) LNG site, indicate the proponent had considered and rejected other Nova Scotia and New Brunswick sites. Transport Canada has only been requested to assess two sites, the one at Canso and another at Gros Cacou-na, Quebec. An earlier proposal by the same consortium for an LNG port at Saint John, New Brunswick (Lorneville) was withdrawn before the TERMPOL assessment began.


Mr. Korchinski: 1.	For each airport in Canada, how many reports of pilfering of baggage were received in each of the past three years and, in each case, how many persons were apprehended or was action taken against?
2.	In each case, how many employees were suspended or was court action taken against?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: 1. Security of baggage is the responsibility of the air carriers who report pilferage and theft to the police force having primary criminal jurisdiction. The police force is responsible for apprehension and court action. Transport Canada is not normally informed of these occurrences.
2. None.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	What amount was written off as non-collectable by the Federal Business Development Bank?
2.	What is the total amount presently outstanding on which repayment is in arrears?


Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: In so far as the
Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce is concerned, the Federal Business Development Bank advises as follows:
1. Fiscal Year 1979 (March 31)	$13,240,660.
Fiscal Year 1980 (March 31)	$ 19,439,88 5.
2.	As at February 28, 1981	$372,150,903.
Order Paper Questions MRS. PAT JORDAN-CUSTOMS DECLARATION


Mr. Riis: 1.	Upon her return to Canada from the Orient in the summer of 1980, did British Columbia tourist minister, Mrs. Pat Jordan file a customs declaration identifying two shipments, one containing jade, the other containing furniture, as personal goods acquired abroad and that they would be subsequently shipped to British Columbia.
2.	Were the shipments addressed to Mrs. Jordan personally or addressed to the government of British Columbia?
3.	Did Mrs. Jordan pay duty on the shipments and, if so, did she pay it when she made the declaration or on some subsequent date?
4.	Were any events and/or actions taken by Canada Customs to bring about a payment of duty tax on the shipments and, if so, what were they?


Claude Tessier: 1. Upon her return from the Orient, Mrs. Jordan did file a customs declaration which included two shipments of goods to follow, namely a rug and a carton of miscellaneous souvenirs.
2.	The shipments were addressed to Mrs. Jordan and not the British Columbia government.
3.	At the time of her arrival, Mrs. Jordan paid duties and taxes on these goods in her possession which were in excess of her tourist exemption. She subsequently cleared the goods to follow upon their arrival. The rug was cleared at Vancouver airport, the box of souvenirs, including some inexpensive jade pieces, was cleared at Victoria.
4.	When the goods to follow arrived in Canada, Mrs. Jordan was advised of their arrival in the normal manner and duty and taxes were collected as applicable.


Mr. Flis: How much does it cost the government to process a family allowance cheque for the minimum amount of $22 per month?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: The
cost to the government to process a family allowance cheque per month is 60.3 cents. This is a composite total for the administrative processes within Health and Welfare Canada and Supply and Services Canada. It includes overhead costs and postage.


Mr. Herbert: 1.	How many Canadian railway cars are presently believed to be in the United States and how many have been out of Canada for a period exceeding one month?
2.	Has there been any appreciable change in the past Five years in the number of the cars that are in the United States and in the type of cars that are sent across the border?


Robert Theodore Bockstael: The Canadian Transport Commission advises as follows: 1. There were 21,227 Canadian railway cars

April 2, 1981
Order Paper Questions
in the United States as of February 28, 1981, with less than 5 per cent exceeding a period of 30 days out of Canada.
2. There has been no appreciable change in the past five years in the number of cars that are in the United States. Records reveal that there has been a slight reduction in the number of covered hopper, flat, open-top gondola and hopper cars in the U.S. with a slight increase in the number of boxcars moving to the United States.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Did the Department of Supply and Services receive numerous complaints regarding alleged slowness of the payroll section in making adjustments to the pay of the public servants over and above the usual routine salary payments?
2.	Have many employees waited months for severance pay and, if so, what is being done to correct the situation?
3.	How soon is it estimated that the service will be considered adequate?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Over the past year, the impact of a major systems modification, an increase in the volume and complexity of contract settlements, as well as the impact of the CR labour disruption, have all affected the level of service provided by the Department of Supply and Services. In particular, the loss of service experienced during the CR labour disruption inevitably created a substantial backlog of work. The backlog in turn led to delays in the processing of all pay changes (such as promotional increases, transfers, terminations, as well as other adjustments to pay). This disruption in our normal turnaround times subsequently resulted in an unusually large volume of inquiries received during the months of November, December, January and February.
2.	The turnaround time taken to process severance pay was similarly affected by the events illustrated in No. 1. In order to minimize any delays relating to the processing of pay, the Department of Supply and Services is presently devoting all efforts to clearing up the backlog as quickly as possible. In fact, the backlog has been reduced significantly over the past month.
3.	The pay service has been restored to a normal level as of the end of February, 1981, in all but one pay office. This office will be current by the end of March, 1981.


Mr. Cossitt: What was the name and job designation of each person employed at the St. Lawrence Islands National Park during 1980?


Mr. Roger Simmons (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: See list below.
Name	Job Designation
D.	Warner	Acting SuperintendentE.	Poole	Finance & Administration
Officer
W. Shipman	Works Officer
A. Corrigal	Chief Park Warden
D. Ross	Chief Park Naturalist
G. Williams	Personnel Clerk
S. Birtch	Finance Clerk
D. Gipson	Clerk/ Receptionist
J. Cassidy	Storeman
P. L. Gates	Maintenance Supervisor
R. Hunt	Mechanic
L. Vien	Park Warden
D. Moore	Park Warden
H. Warren	Labourer / Foreman
D. Cirtwell	Labourer
M. Ferguson	Labourer
R. Hansen	Labourer
R. Phillips	Labourer
D. Kirkby	Labourer
D. Cross	Labourer
L. Warren	Labourer
L. Poole	Gate Attendant
S. Hunt	Gate Attendant
N. Pinon	Gate Attendant
S. Brown	Revenue Collector
D. Webb	Revenue Collector
K. Williams	Revenue Collector
H. Doctor	Naturalist
D. Sutherland	Naturalist
G. Vipond	Naturalist
C. Gouchie	Naturalist
B. Turner	Visitor Services Supervisor
S. Boutin	Interpreter Guide
R. Prosper	Park Warden
S. Killen	Labourer
G. Birtch	Labourer
S. Gibson	Clerk
L. Sutterlin	Naturalist
R. Huntley	Carpenter
F. Ferguson	Equipment Operator
K. Robinson	Interpreter Specialist
N. J. Lamb	Interpreter Clerk
A. Carl	Equipment Operator
A. W. Farn	Painter
A. Hein	Sewage Plant Operator
C. Kail	Park Warden
R. A. Andress	Park Warden
April 2, 1981

F.	Fitzsimons W. L. Saunder
G.	Price
H.	Tanney R. Trickey J. Christie R. Kelly T. Burton


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if questions Nos. 681, 759, 1,462, 2,057 (revised) and 2,102 could be made orders for returns, those returns would be tabled immediately.


Mr. Taylor: 1.	During the years 1974 to 1979, what was the subject and purpose of all studies carried out under the authority of Parks Canada or any offices of Parks Canada involving Banff National Park or any aspect of the Park and, in each case (a) who carried out the study (b) on what date was it (i) started (ii) completed (c) what was its cost?
2.	Were all the studies put to tender and, if not, what method was used to select the person, persons or firm that carried out each study?
3.	Did the staff of Parks Canada carry out studies on the same or similar topics and, if so, in each case (a) what is an outline of the topic (b) how long did it take (c) what was its cost?
Return tabled.


Mr. Shields: Since August 1, 1978, how many (a) administrative (b) policy consultants were under contract to the Department of the Solicitor General and/or any Boards, Commissions or Corporations reporting to the Minister and, in each case, what amount was paid to them?
Return tabled.


Mr. Deans: 1.	From 1965 to June 1980, how many orders in council were issued affecting International Harvester and its subsidiaries operating in Canada and what was the actual wording of each order in council?
2.	What amount of customs duty was remitted for each order submitted concerning International Harvester and its subsidiaries?
3.	What were the commitments from International Harvester and its subsidiaries in exchange for remitting each customs duty?
4.	Did International Harvester and its subsidiaries meet each commitment?
Time Limitation
Return tabled.


[Stage Direction]
Question No. 2,057 (Revised)-Mr. McKinnon:
1.	In 1980, how many contracts were placed by the Department of National Defence for electron tubes and (a) to which companies were contracts awarded (b) what was the amount of each contract?
2.	Where were the electron tubes, specified in each contract, manufactured?
Return tabled.
Mr. Herbert: Was any amount budgeted for sports in the fiscal year (a) 1978-79 (b) 1979-80 (c) 1980-81 and, if so (i) what was the amount (ii) in each case, which association or group received a grant and in what amount?
Return tabled.


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


Madam Speaker:: Shall the remaining questions stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from March 31, 1981, consideration of the motion of the Minister of State (Finance) (Mr. Bussieres):
That, in relation to Bill C-59, an act to provide supplementary borrowing authority, one sitting day shall be allotted to the consideration of each of the report stage and the third reading stage of the bill; and
That, at fifteen minutes before the expiry of the time provided for government business on those days, any proceedings before the House shall be interrupted, if required, for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Mr. Speaker, when I spoke at the commencement of this debate a couple of days ago, I had three or four minutes left. I was pointing out to this House, as was pointed out by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) that today during question period the government still has $6.4 billion available in the bank. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) said the government had only $4.8 billion available. But I remind hon. members of this House that the government still has more than the $11 billion in the till, or $8 billion borrowing authority, as suggested by this party. That is all the government needs for this year. The government has no need for any more money than provided in the amendment at report stage. If the government accepts the
Boat Operator/Foreman
Boat Operator/Foreman
Boat Operator/Foreman
Labourer
Labourer
Labourer
Labourer
Park Warden


April 2, 1981
Time Limitation
amendment, it would have enough money. This is a blank cheque government. I said that the other night.
Let us now go on to the question of time allocation. This is a time allocation debate. A government which comes to the House of Commons with a time allocation debate must say (a) there is an emergency or (b) that the government has been filibustered to death. On this matter, we have had one day's debate. Three speakers from this party have spoken. It was a Friday afternoon. But that is all we have had. There is no Filibuster, there is no delay, there is no waste of time. There is no reason for Standing Order 75c to be imposed.
This debate is about whether this House of Commons should now employ a method of time allocation that involves Standing Order 75c.
The Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) tells us there is an emergency. On the face of it, there is no emergency. The government has lots of money. The government has more money than it has ever had in years and years and years. The government has money coming out of its ears. Why does the government need the government borrowing authority bill? It does not need the money. There is no emergency. The government wants to limit the discussion by members of Parliament talking on behalf of their constituents about the economic concerns of Canada. That is why the government want to limit debate. It is not a matter of a national emergency. The government does not need the money, it has lots of it. The question is one of limiting debate.
The government does not want a debate on its inept performance as a government. I do not blame the government. It is the worst government this country has ever had. It is no wonder the government does not want to debate this issue. If the government did debate this issue, all of a sudden the people of Canada would rally together and say yes, this is the most inept government this country has ever had.
This debate is a total misuse and abuse of the rules of this House. This government has talked for the last few days about our party misusing the rules of Parliament. Here is a case where the government is abusing the rules of this Parliament. This government is bringing closure under Standing Order 75c to limit the debate to two days when there has been how much debate? There has been but a half day's debate on a Friday afternoon. That is misuse of the rules. That is misuse and abuse of the rules of Parliament.
Surely a government which claims to run by the rule of law would not want to misuse the rule of law. That is what it is doing, though.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allocated to him has expired.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. When Standing Order 75c was imposed on this House of Commons-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I want to say this and I make this point of order, and I do have respect for the Chair. There was a suggestion by the government that this rule would never be imposed until there has been debate for three, four or five days.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: No, Mr. Speaker, when this rule is imposed with one day's debate-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The time allocated to the hon. member has expired. It is in order for the Chair to recognize the next speaker. The hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart).


Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Mr. Speaker, I rise in the discussion on Bill C-59 and the billions of dollars-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) rising on a point of order?


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, Mr. Speaker, I was rising to take part in the debate.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Simcoe South caught my eye and I recognized him. Bearing in mind the normal courtesies of the House, I hope that it will be possible to extend recognition to the hon. member for Simcoe South.


Mr. Beatty:: Is this a filibuster?


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to strain the agreement that has been made unduly, but the custom is to alternate between the opposition and the government. I have been seeking the floor to participate in this debate, not on a point of order, and that is the reason I have been jumping up and down.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I have recognized the hon. member for Simcoe South. I will take due note of the usual practices in the House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Mr. Speaker, with all due respect to the Chair, I accept your decision.
As has just been pointed out by my colleague to the left, Bill C-59 will give borrowing authority for billions of dollars that are not needed. Then we come to Standing Order 75c, which really is closure. It is the muzzling of debate in this House in which a member who seeks the floor wishes to take part, we hope, in all good faith.
Time allocation is terrible. The constitutional debate in which we have engaged has run into a problem of legality. All of this takes the form of closure. But worse than that, we are not getting on with the real problems which are facing this country. All my constituents tell me these problems are tantamount to disaster if things go on the way they are, with
April 2, 1981

inflation the way it is, with own unemployment and the real economic woes we face.
Canada's record in every economic indicator is appalling. The rate of inflation has passed 12 per cent. The rate of unemployment is almost at the double-digit stage. It has been chronically high for the past decade. The Canadian dollar has never been lower in comparison to the United States. Some of the most important elements of Canada's manufacturing plants continue to experience staggering trade deficits. In the plastics industry, with a total annual production of about $4 billion, there is a $1 billion deficit. The only people who are successful in the plastics industry are the people who are using R and D and up-to-date technology, such as our friends in Japan, in order to keep pace. One such plant happens to be in my constituency of Simcoe South. It is called Moldex. It manufactures toilet seats. The owner has kept up with inflation.


Mr. Evans:: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, I would ask you to rule on the question of relevance. This debate is on Bill C-59, the borrowing authority, but the hon. member is talking about toilet seats.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Inflation is so bad you can't buy them any more.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hon. member for Simcoe South has the floor.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: The point is that we are on the borrowing authority and we are borrowing billions of dollars.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: And they are flushing them down.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: Look at the plastics industry. The fact is the government has about $4 billion available and a $1 billion deficit. Is that not borrowing? I was trying to say that in this particular manufacturing industry, we can be proud because it is a successful industry in this country. It has made use of robots as they do in Japan-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: So does the Liberal caucus.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: -if hon. members will take the time to go there and check. There is a little slogan that says "born in Barrie and raised everywhere" and it is very successful. In the case of computer hardware, the deficit has grown from $274 million in 1976 to more than half a billion in 1979. It is still growing and we are still borrowing. Even in mining and construction, the equipment area where Canada is recognized as a world leader, there is a deficit just under a billion dollars annually. When we talk about borrowing, it is about time we started to call a spade a shovel.


John Leslie Evans: Hey, that's good.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: This country is in an economic mess. That is because of borrowing. Canadians possess a piece of real estate on this planet that is the envy of the world, and they are not making any more real estate.
Time Limitation


Gordon Edward Taylor: That's for sure.


Ronald Alexander Stewart: We have all the ingredients we need to be self-sufficient and we have the human and physical resources to achieve greatness in the world community of nations, but not by borrowing. We have access to petroleum reserves and every known mineral in the world, many of them in abundance. We have rich farmland, the fisheries, all the wherewithal to meet our domestic requirements and then some, if we stop borrowing. We have the capacity to become one of the manufacturing giants of the world. We have the capacity to become one of the world's great exporting nations. Instead, we have not begun to exploit our enormous potential.
We are still hewers of wood and drawers of water. Much of our export trade is raw or semi-processed resources. We find ourselves in the ludicrous position of exporting our raw resources to other countries and then ending up buying them back in the form of fully finished manufactured or processed products. It is being done by borrowing.
For a decade the government has paid lip service to industrial strategy and research and development. With this government, if I may paraphrase Lewis Carroll in "Through the Looking Glass", it is always "jam yesterday and jam tomorrow but never jam today".
Let us just look for a minute at expenditures on research and development. My colleague in the House of Commons and my party's spokesman for research and development, the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist), has just issued a special report on R and D. We currently spend less than 1 per cent, .94 per cent to be exact, of the gross national product on research and development. We borrow to do everything else. My colleague's expert sources tell him that for every one half of 1 per cent of the gross national product spent on research, 400,000 jobs are created. That is what we are talking about: jobs, inflation, the economy, not borrowing. That expenditure by the government would cut unemployment by 50 per cent in this country.
Research and development investment increases of 1.5 per cent or 2 per cent could eliminate unemployment. I am a businessman. I operate a small wholesale business in Barrie, Ontario, which has been in business since 1892. Our annual sales are in excess of $15 million. I will tell you, as a businessman, I am appalled at the way the government is mismanaging this country. We are running harder to stand still. Our manufacturing sector is overtaxed, overregulated and is not in a position to compete with the industrial plants of other nations. Those are the hard facts and it is getting worse and worse as we continue this borrowing madness.
We can turn it all around. The idea is not to be negative but positive. But the longer the government keeps its head in the sand, the longer it will take us to catch up with the rest of the world. We should never have been placed in the position of playing catch-up ball by a huge deficit and by more and more borrowing.
Look at what is happening in the rest of the world. Last year I had the good fortune of visiting Japan. In 1980, Japan

April 2, 1981
Time Limitation
produced ten million more watches than Switzerland. That may seem a ludicrous statement, but think about the transition that has happened in that country and how they did it. They did not do it by borrowing. The Japanese have long since overtaken and passed the United States in television and radio production. Japanese steel plants have the same capacity as the United States and almost as much as the European Common Market.
Three years ago, Japanese investment in new plant and equipment equalled that of the United States, but listen to this-with half the population, the per capita investment was twice that of the United States, and this did not happen by borrowing. In the early eighties, Japan will surpass the United States in total research and development.
Very soon Japan will be a world leader in computers, motorcycles, machine tools, copying machines and snowmobiles. Does anyone in this House think there is any reason why Canada could not do the same with our economy if we stopped borrowing?
I see my time is almost up. Let me conclude by saying that if we were to obtain large quantities of investment dollars, Canada would have to employ the same techniques that are used in other countries. We could do that with a lot of other vehicles, such as profit sharing.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. Before recognizing the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), the Chair would like to call to the attention of the House the provisions of Standing Order 40(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.
It is anticipated that the adjournment proceedings will be suspended this evening.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, under rule 75c we are limited to speeches of ten minutes each. It is not my purpose to take the ten minutes tonight. I made it clear when, on behalf of our party, I agreed to this being the business for tonight that we would be voting against the motion that is before us under rule 75c.
I have said on many occasions that in my view, every time the government uses this rule as a way out of a time problem, it puts off the day when we come up with something better. I have contended many times that there are other ways to plan the business of the House to avoid impasses and get the business done, but we do not seem to get around to that.
As I say, every time this rule is used, that puts off for another month, or another year, who knows, some sensible planning of the work of the House of Commons. Therefore, we are still opposed to the use of this rule. We oppose it in particular being applied to a borrowing authority bill of the magnitude of this bill.
Some of my colleagues will have something to say about the bill itself, its merits or demerits, when we get to the report
stage tomorrow and the third reading debate on Monday, but for now may I simply indicate quite clearly and forcefully that when the vote comes tonight at 9.45 or ten o'clock, the New Democratic Party will be voting no.


Mr. David Smith (Don Valley East):: Mr. Speaker, I think the motion we have before us tonight is one none of us enjoys. It is something which simply has to be moved. We have to govern this country in an orderly and reasonable fashion. What has happened in recent days is well known. The legislative timetable of parliament has, in fact, ground to a halt. We have lost week after week after week because of unnecessary delay, filibustering and outright opposition to the Constitution. At some point there are other things which have to be dealt with and we would like to deal with them. What we are talking about here is not closure but, in fact, time allocation.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) made a very good point when he said that perhaps it is about time the rules were revamped so as not to have to go the 75c route. I agree with that. I think the House leader of our party agrees with it, and I certainly hope that during the life of this Parliament we can come to grips with it. In the meantime we have not been able to come to grips with anything for some weeks. We must set a reasonable time limit so as to be able to come to grips with this bill and borrow the money which is in fact necessary to keep the government going.
I was interested in the comments of the hon. member for Simcoe South (Mr. Stewart) who was talking about borrowing, how he is opposed to borrowing, does not like it and thinks we should not be doing it. I am not sure anybody is wild about it, but the fact of the matter is that when his party was in power briefly, the deficit was not decreased. We heard a lot of predictions prior to that party assuming power, that in fact when it got into office the deficit would decrease immediately. That did not happen. I remember the day when the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) said he had come to the conclusion, in fact, that the deficit would perhaps have to go up but this would be a short-term measure and, hopefully, after a reasonable period of time they would be able to turn things around and start a shrinking deficit, reducing the requirement for borrowing. That certainly was what was supposed to happen in terms of an increased deficit in the budget of the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie). That is exactly what did happen.
It is not as though suddenly you can somehow push a button, wave a magic wand and the need for borrowing disappears. There are some facts of life, and one of them is that before we are in a position to eliminate borrowing, we will have to continue to borrow if in fact the process of government is to continue. That is what we have to do. It is with regret we are in the position where we have no choice but to use the provisions of 75c to bring this to a head and get on with it, but that is the position we are in.
In the last few days, since March 24, there have been well over 100 points of order and questions of privilege, virtually all
April 2, 1981

of which have been frivolous and spurious. In fact, the House leader of the official opposition indicated they were prepared to waste the time of Parliament. I was sitting opposite when he used that phrase. I sort of had the feeling he immediately knew he has said something like C. D. Howe when he said, "what's a million", or something like Walter Harris when he said, "the six-buck boys". It just gets out and you wish somehow you could pull that word back in or that you had not used it. He did say that. He said they were prepared to deliberately waste the time of Parliament. If there is one thing on which I am prepared to congratulate the opposition House leader it is his honesty on that occasion. He was very honest because that is what they have been doing for some time, and, regrettably, that is what they continue to do.
I sense a better mood in the House today. I hope we may be reaching the point where we can come to some agreement on the impasse which has held Parliament up to ransom. "Hijacked Parliament" is a phrase that has been used, and I think that is accurate. It is unfortunate we are in this situation, but we have to get on with the governing of the country. We must pass this borrowing bill, and we are using Standing Order 75c, not in any improper way, as was suggested a few minutes ago, but in accordance with the Standing Orders in a quite proper, reasonable and legitimate way. This is a custom which has developed in recent years. I do not believe we forced the government of that party opposite to do that when we were in opposition, but it is something that has become the custom in recent years. Until we are able to revamp the rules, it may well be that this custom will continue.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I thank you for correcting the speaking order which was thrown out of line a little bit. I would like to participate in this particular debate to deal with two aspects of the motion before us. The first is the procedural aspect, and the second is the financial aspect dealing with Bill C-59.
My friend, the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith), I think outlined rather well the reasons the government is acting in this manner. I think I should amplify his comments, especially for those people who are watching this debate in their homes across the nation.
Very often members on the other side, and I know the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) was hinting at this, give the impression that what we are doing is closing off debate, again denying the right of members to speak. Anyone who has sat here for the last week and a half and talked about the denial of the right of Members of Parliament to speak, really could not have been paying much attention to what has been going on. If there is eagerness tonight on the part of members on this side to participate in this debate, it is simply that we have been sitting here patiently for the last six or seven working days watching members of the official opposition rise on points of order and questions of privilege, engaging in debate that we have labelled as obstruction. I do not particularly want to get into the troubles of the last few days, but I would-
Time Limitation


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. May I call to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) that the debate before us relates to borrowing authority.


David Michael Collenette: With all due respect, Mr. Speaker, what is before us is the motion under Standing Order 75c in relation to the borrowing authority bill. I think it is quite within my right to discuss procedural matters in connection with Bill C-59, the borrowing authority. That is the reason I was making the comments I was making, following on the comments by the hon. member for Don Valley East and my colleague, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. This is a procedural motion. It does not necessarily deal with the substance of the borrowing bill. What we have to explain to the people out there, members of the House and those who read Hansard, is why the government is limiting debate at this particular stage.
I was about to say that the reason we are doing this is that the affairs of the nation must be conducted in fairness, yes, but with some expediency. The government has an obligation, and I know members on the other side decry this. This government was elected to govern the country. It was elected to put before Parliament legislation to deal with the governing of this nation. It is an obligation of the government to see that its legislative program gets through Parliament using, of course, the proper parliamentary means at its disposal. The motion under 75a, b and c was developed about 11 or 12 years ago as a means to speed up debate. We in this country have almost a gun-shyness about using any allocation of time motion. We are faced today with the fact that our rules are somewhat archaic, but in today's modern society when fast decisions are required, when inflation, unemployment, and exchange problems all face Canadians, Parliament must act as best it can.
I submit that we need a major overhaul of our rules. One of those overhauls took place 11 or 12 years ago and the development of the time allocation motion which is now before us this evening was adopted. It is a means on which agreement cannot be achieved. And agreement could not be achieved in this case. I was present at those meetings, as is called for in the Standing Orders, when agreement under Standing Order 75a and 75c was not possible on report stage and third reading of Bill C-59. Therefore, it is perfectly within the rights of the government to proceed in this fashion.
Now, in Great Britain, the Mother of all Parliaments, Westminster-which has been cited this week as a substantial basis for the positions of those arguing points of order concerning the constitutional debate-is much more efficient than we are. Second reading of a bill passes within one sitting. That sitting may last until six o'clock in the morning, but it is of one day's duration. Mr. Speaker, how much debate is required to state whether one or one's party is or is not in favour of a piece of legislation before the House? So I think that the use of the time allocation rule 75c is quite defensible.

April 2, 1981
Time Limitation
I draw your attention, as I have in other debates since we used this rule on Bill C-30 earlier in Parliament and Bill C-48 in January, to the fact that we have used it three times in this Parliament-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You use it quite often.


David Michael Collenette: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) says we use it quite often; 1 make no apology for that, Mr. Speaker. If this government is to discharge its obligations to the people of Canada to govern, then it has to get its legislative program through Parliament with efficiency and with fairness. And this is fair because tomorrow we will be debating at report stage, on Monday, we will be debating on third reading, and we have had other days of debate, second reading and committee deliberations. Therefore, what we are doing tonight really does not deny the rights of any Member of Parliament to participate. That is what is going on in the next hour or so.
I would draw your attention to Hansard of December 5, 1979. My good friend, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) rose in this House to move a motion under Standing Order 75c on Bill C-20, which was the infamous Conservative property tax credit then before the House. I believe it was at Committee of the Whole stage. He talked in terms of this not being closure, of it being time allocation, a far gentler measure. And he said, quite rightly so because he was in government at the time, that the government has a certain responsibility when all positions have been made known, when everybody has expressed their opinion, to actually force the debate to an end and force the question.
I do not want to stray because I know that tempers have perhaps flared in the past few days, but I submit there is an analogy between the time allocation we are proposing on this borrowing bill and the time allocation discussion on the Constitution. I will not belabour that point, but I want our friends in the country watching us tonight, and members on the other side, to realize that this is no nefarious scheme to gag Parliament, this is purely a fair and efficient manner of disposing of the government's legislative program. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) stated earlier this year that he was not embarrassed to use the time allocation motion, and I quite agree with him. I think my colleagues on this side agree. It is up to the Canadian public to actually make the final decision as to whether or not the government is indeed cutting off debate and doing it in an unfair manner.
When this was done in 1956, the government of the day fell because, with all due respect to the fact that it was a Liberal government, Standing Order 43, which is not what is applied tonight, was used, but not in the most judicious manner. So it is not the rule that matters but how it is applied, whether there is not only a semblance and appearance but actual fairness in any debate terminated, whether by time allocation or by closure. I hate to mention that because closure is almost a four letter word, it is almost unparliamentary. This is not closure this evening, Mr. Speaker, this is time allocation; this is putting reasonable order to the debate before us.


An hon. Member:: A rose by any other name.


David Michael Collenette: I had hoped to talk a little bit in depth about the substantive aspect of Bill C-59, but the parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) is here and is far more qualified than I to deal with that. All I will say is that what we have in this bill is the government seeking authority to borrow some $14 billion, $3 billion of which would, in a sense, be insurance against unusual delays in approval of the authority to borrow. Frankly, Mr. Speaker, with what has gone on the last few days, I think it is very prudent indeed for the government to take steps to get that kind of insurance because, as the President of the Privy Council stated earlier, Bill C-59 should have been passed yesterday. There is an urgent need for it. And I say with all respect, I am glad the members of the official opposition have terminated their dislocation and disorder in this House to allow us to get this measure through Parliament today and tomorrow. One must give credit where it is due, and for that I thank them very much.


John Carnell Crosbie: Mr. Speaker, what we are now debating is another motion by a closure-crazy government to close debate. To close debate on what? On a bill that provides this government with authority to borrow $14 billion in addition to the $12 billion they were authorized to borrow just last July. This bill has been discussed at report stage for only one day and the government brings in closure to choke off debate and assigns two more days to debate the issues on this bill.
What does the bill provide, in addition to giving the government authority to borrow $14 billion? It has a new twist. It also gives them the authority to carry on with borrowing authority up to $3 billion beyond March 31, 1982. And when we ask them why they want the authority to do that, which has not been the practice in this House, they say it is because of contingencies, that there might be some kind of contingency that will require them to have $3 billion extra borrowing authority beyond the end of next year.
What about closure, Mr. Speaker? We have just seen this government attempt to hijack the whole Canadian nation, not Parliament but our whole country, destroy the very consensus on which it is based by using their majority in this House to do things they were not authorized to do by the public. They never had the guts and gumption to put this to the public, and that is why we on this side of the House have resisted, and we are going to continue to resist right to the last. They are not a legitimate government when they attempt to change the very nature of Canada from a federal state to something different, without the public having been asked to approve it before they attempt to do it.
So we have seen the spectacle for the last several weeks, Mr. Speaker, of the government deciding what business this House will consider. And we have had a government which does not want to consider anything but changes to the very Constitution of this country that will change its fundamental nature and that they and they alone have decided to bring the work of this
April 2, 1981

Parliament to a halt while they try to pursue that objective. So it has been the government's choice. They are not interested in the fact that the cost of living in Canada is up 12.2 per cent, they are not interested in the fact that we have 928,000 unemployed, not interested in any of the economic conditions bothering the Canadian people. The government is interested in only one thing, and that is the Constitution. We have had a Constitution for 114 years, and the world's most perfect constitution would not bring us one iota closer to solving any of the economic problems that the people of this country are now suffering from.


An hon. Member:: Speak to the motion.


John Carnell Crosbie: I am speaking to the motion. The government wants $14 billion, it is imposing closure on this Parliament to get it, and with that $14 billion they are going to have a deficit of $13.7 billion. They have no anti-inflation program, no program to help the ordinary people of this country; all they are interested in is to carry on with the fetish of the one person who leads them and leads them by the nose. Not only leads them by the nose but says that over in England Members of Parliament there have to hold their noses while they put forward whatever dog's breakfast the government opposite sends over to them. That is why we are resisting on this side of the House. That is why any kind of resistance we put forward is legitimate. It is proper. It is to save this country and to preserve it.
The parliamentary assistant to the House leader says that the House leader is not embarrassed by using the closure motion. We know that. Nothing embarrasses the House leader for the government. He is not embarrassed at using closure. He has used it frequently since we came back 13 months ago. He is even prepared to use it on attempts to change the fundamental character of this nation, changes that the government never had the guts to go to the electorate with. The government deceived the people of Quebec about it last May and it now uses closure again. We know he is not embarrassed. There is nothing that would embarrass that hon. gentleman.
The parliamentary assistant to the House leader says that there is an urgent need for this bill. We had information today from the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) that the government has $4.8 billion cash right in the bank at this moment-the minister has $4.8 billion in his hip pocket. He does not need any borrowing authority whatsoever for the month of April. I doubt that he needs any borrowing authority for the month of May either. He could not give us a reason today why he needs it. All he said was that he wants the bill passed so that an orderly approach to the bond markets can be made. That, Mr. Speaker, to put it very simply, is complete and utter twaddle.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I say twaddle. I am using a polite word because I am always parliamentary when I speak here. I have
Time Limitation
great respect for you, Mr. Speaker, and I like to keep my words parliamentary. That is why I use the word twaddle instead of what it would be called on the outside.
There is no urgent need for this bill. Even if this bill does not pass the House until the end of May. The government has enough cash in the bank to carry on its operations. We even heard some suggestions the other day that the government would not be able to pay its bills, pay the RCMP, pay the poor widows and the poor people of Canada who receive social transfer payments, if this measure were not passed. And it was not passed, but everyone is still being paid. That is how much attention we must pay to members opposite.
I think that the parliamentary assistant to the House leader said that we have had dislocation and disorder in this House in the last several weeks.


An hon. Member:: Absolutely!


John Carnell Crosbie: We are saving Canada from dislocation and disorder. To do that, if we need a bit of dislocation in this House, that is what we will get-dislocation-until the government comes to its sense. We have begged it to go to the electorate to put these matters to the test and it dare not do that.
What is the record of the government opposite and of the gentleman who wanted the authority to borrow another $14 billion? By the way, Mr. Speaker, that does not include the borrowing that will be done for their Crown Corporations this year. In 1979-80, the Crown corporations for which the government is responsible borrowed $2.6 billion. Last year the figure was up another $1.6 billion. There will be several billions of dollars borrowed this year by Crown corporations for which the government is directly responsible, which has nothing to do with this bill. What is the government doing to try to restrain its own expenditures and set a good example to the nation?
The Minister of Finance is advising the people of this country, whose real wages have gone down 6 per cent in the last three or four years, since they have not been able to keep up with the cost of living increases, to hold tight, hold on to their belts and tighten them up, not go for wage and salary increases. The Minister of Finance is advising the wage earners of this nation not to expect wage increases which meet the rise in the cost of living this year, not to try to catch up. He is advising them to restrain themselves. What example is he giving to the people of the nation? He will have a deficit this year of $13.7 billion-that is just what he admits to. It will be considerably in excess of that. Last year it was $14.2 billion, which was a record for Canada. In the last ten years, it was $77.1 billion, if we include the year we are now in. In the last nine years, it was $63.4 billion. This is a Trudeau record. This is the record that he is leaving the Canadian people to pay. We have a total debt of $137 billion. The interest charges on this Trudeau debt-


Some hon. Members:: Order!

April 2, 1981
Time Limitation


John Carnell Crosbie: -this Prime Ministerial debt, this legacy that he is leaving behind, amounts to $12,350 million this year. The interest charges alone in this present year exceed the entire budget of the Government of Canada in the first year that Mr. Trudeau took power-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Carnell Crosbie: -in 1968-69. Order, yes! If there was order in this country he would not be Prime Minister any longer, and he will not be if he accepts our challenge to go to the people now.
The whole budget of Canada was under $12,350 million when the present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) started his career. In this year, 19.1 cents of every dollar the government spends will be spent on interest-19.1 cents out of every dollar that the taxpayers of Canada are paying. Those people are watching tonight. Out of every dollar they pay in taxes to this government this year, one of every four is going to pay interest on the debt that the Prime Minister has racked up for them over the last ten years. The cost to the average taxpayer this year is $795, up $2.1 billion over last year. And the parliamentary assistant claims that it is urgent for us to pass this bill so that they can go on in this course of action. You know, Mr. Speaker, there is no spending restraint. In the area of the cost of services to the government-services which it has done for itself, consultants, lawyers, Liberal this and Liberal that, and little Grits here, little Grits there, here a Grit, there a Grit, everywhere a Grit-Grit-expenditures have gone up 17 per cent. The cost of services for the government last year was $4 billion. This year it is $4.7 billion-another $700 million thrown out to little Grits here and there, chartered accountants, lawyers-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I regret to interrupt the hon. member but the time allotted to him has expired.


John Carnell Crosbie: I regret that also, Mr. Speaker. I will vote against this bill.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Miss Aideen Nicholson (Trinity):: Mr. Speaker, with your permission, my comments will be about the use of Standing Order 75c and the need to reform the rules of the House rather than about the bill in respect of which the order is being used.
During the Thirtieth Parliament, the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization studied the question of reform of the rules of the House. Unfortunately, there was no action at the time in spite of much good will and hard work by members on all sides of the House. One particular proposition which received a good deal of attention at that time was the suggestion that, at the second reading stage, which is approval in principle, the debate be limited to one day and that the major debate on a bill should occur at third reading, after the committee has made whatever amendments seem appropriate following the hearing of witnesses. This is a proposal which I hope will be considered again and, perhaps, acted on shortly in this session.
What happens now at second reading stage is that we tend to have lengthy speeches. A long speech is not necessarily designed to be persuasive, to advance an argument or increase understanding. We have long speeches at second reading. We have the same points discussed in committee, again at report stage and again at third reading. I think members on all sides of the House suffer from this process because when fewer members can participate, both supporters of the government and members of the opposition feel frustrated. They do not feel the same sense of commitment toward dealing with the business of the House in an orderly fashion.
In the case of the bill before us, the borrowing authority, there were five days of debate at second reading before 75c was introduced, since it was not possible to reach an agreement to limit debate in any way. We then had another two days of debate after 75c was moved. This is a practice which seems to be taking place so often with our bills.
Recently I came across a definition of "nation" in St. Augustine's "the City of God" which read as follows:
A nation is an association of reasonable beings united in a peaceful sharing of the things they cherish.
I know many members of the opposition share that view. Very often when we work on committee, we are able to subordinate our partisan differences and work in a constructive fashion. We can expose our differences, but we do it with the intention of arriving at some common ground. Certainly as Canadians, when an all-party delegation goes abroad, usually we are able to agree among ourselves that we will present honestly our differences of opinion based on our different ideologies, but also, in the national interest, we try to present a reasonable picture of the things upon which we agree as Canadians.
What has been happening to the nation's business in recent days has been dispiriting. There has been a lot of name-calling which has been unsophisticated and unseemly. These have not been the highest days in the history of Parliament. While structural changes such as changes in the rules of the House will not solve all these problems, I think they would assist. With shorter speeches, with more work done in committee, with more opportunities for all of us to participate, we could reduce a lot of the unnecessary irritants in the House. We will always have differences of principle and differences of opinion, but it is urgent that we try to reduce some of the unnecessary irritants.
The eighteenth century definition that the role of opposition is "to oppose" is surely very old-fashioned for us. Surely, what is needed in our time is much more opportunity for members of the opposition and supporters of the government to work constructively together, recognizing some basic differences, and to be prepared occasionally to make more than a normal effort to find middle ground.
One of the big changes I should like to see, whenever we get around to discussing the rules of the House seriously, is a change in the rules of question period. In Westminster, sup-
April 2, 1981

porters of the government can ask questions, just as members of the opposition can. In this House there has been a tradition that question period is the prerogative of the opposition. I think three Speakers have held that supporters of the government are able to get information in other ways. This is true, but I think our constituents have a right to see us representing their interests publicly; they should not always have to depend on faith and assume that we are pursuing their interests in caucus. It should be possible for those who have elected supporters of the government to see us expressing our concern for the interests of our constituents in exactly the same manner as members of the opposition can.
So, these are some of the issues which I trust will be addressed soon in Parliament. I know all members of the House would like to see some changes in the rules of the House which would enable us all to do our jobs more effectively and hopefully would reduce the number of occasions when Standing Order 75c or similar motions would have to be called into play.


Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Mr. Speaker, I appreciate the opportunity to participate in the debate on this closure motion. First, I should like to deal with a few comments of the parliamentary secretary to the House leader in his presentation when he indicated that they were elected to govern the nation and to bring forward policies, which is one of the reasons they brought on closure.
I hesitate to say it, but my friends opposite should examine their own consciences. If ever a party was elected to govern a nation and then became such great hypocrites, it is my friends opposite. They should examine upon what platform they were elected. They criticized my party for 18-cent gasoline. When we look at their record, in their short term we find it has risen some 41.5 cents per gallon. I will deal with that in more depth in a moment. They did not campaign on the constitutional issue; they did not say one word on the constitutional issue. Yet, they are willing to ram it down the throats of Canadians when the majority of the population is bitterly opposed to this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Thomas Gordon Towers: They are a bunch of hypocrites.


Peter Elzinga: I am talking to the closure motion, my friends. If the truth hurts, please squeal. Canadians wish you would squeal and back off on this very important issue.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Address the Chair.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair calls the attention of the hon. member to the fact that what is before us is a time allocation motion dealing with the borrowing authority bill. I recognize there are some difficulties in the rule of relevance, but I would ask the hon. member to consider it.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is all tied together.
Time Limitation


Peter Elzinga: Perhaps I could seek Mr. Speaker's clarification before continuing. Am I allowed to deal with the motion upon which closure has been introduced in regard to Bill C-59? May I touch on that bill?


David Michael Collenette: It is not closure; it is time allocation.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Obviously Bill C-59 is relevant to the discussion, and a measure to allocate time in regard to the debate is before the House.


Peter Elzinga: In dealing with Bill C-59, it is noteworthy at this time to share with members of the House that we have introduced an amendment to reduce the borrowing authority to some $8 billion rather than $14 billion. It was interesting to hear the hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) indicate that they were opposed to closure. It is obvious in the actions of that party that basically in their hearts they support this measure, even though they will vote against it. I wish they would be more forward with their positions as far as the Canadian public is concerned.
I should like to go through the economic record of the government, since this bill pertains to borrowing authority of some $14 billion. When we look at the record of hon. members opposite, we find it is a record of which they cannot be very proud. They should examine the record. As far as government spending is concerned, they have set records as far as the spending of government money is concerned which in reality is taxpayers' money.
As far as budgetary deficits are concerned, during the last election campaign, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) gave a commitment that he would not increase government spending in relation to the gross national product. We find that is not, in fact, happening. I cannot say what is happening in reality because it is unparliamentary, but he has not lived up to that commitment.
As far as unemployment is concerned, we now have the highest level we have experienced for many years. As far as taxation rates are concerned, again record levels have been set in Canada. There is double-digit inflation; it is out of control simply because the government cannot bring its own spending under control. Interest rates are another example of government mismanagement. Mismanagement is why you had to bring in closure on this issue, as you will have to do with the constitutional issue. You people do not know how to run the affairs of the nation.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Order!


Peter Elzinga: Obviously these are not records of which to be proud, yet hon. members opposite come forward with the constitutional issue in the hopes that Canadians will not realize the sad economic situation existing in Canada today. As the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger) indicated, there have been 15 bankruptcies in the Nisku Industrial Park because of the government's National Energy Program. Is that a record to be proud of? Hon. members opposite are destroying the small business sector in this country. I could share with

April 2, 1981
Time Limitation
them articles which have appeared in numerous magazines which show that total bankruptcies in Canada are up some 17.3 per cent in 1980 as compared with 1979 because of their economic mismanagement.
I do not enjoy being bitter, but it is sad when we see individuals who have contributed much to this society going down the tube because of the lack of foresight which exists among hon. members opposite. It breaks my heart to see that happen in our nation, a nation which has an abundance of potential in natural resources, and an even more abundant potential in human resources.
It is sad when we look at what we had hoped to implement, but I want to share it again with hon. members opposite, who are blind to what we attempted to do in the short time we were in government. We had given an indication that we would reduce government spending. The minister of finance under our administration reduced government spending, yet his budget was termed as the most progressive budget in the last ten years. We did not hurt individuals who required help from the government, yet we were doing away with a great deal of the waste which exists again with respect to government spending today. We began to bring down budgetary deficits, which are a direct cause of inflation today. My friend, the hon. member for Ottawa Centre (Mr. Evans), is the Member of Parliament in whose constituency I live while I am in Ottawa. He claims he is an economist. He might have practised the art of economics, but he has not practised the science of economics, and there is a big difference.
We took a number of positive measures to reduce high interest rates. The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) indicated that when we were in government, his party filibustered one positive measure, our mortgage interest deductibility program. Hon. members opposite filibustered that measure, which we hoped to bring in to assist individuals attempting to purchase homes. Hon. members opposite are proud they filibustered a bill which would have helped home owners. They do not wish individuals to own homes. They do not wish individuals to own property. They will not even include property rights in the Constitution. They are nothing but a bunch of socialists.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: They are obsessed with following one man, our present Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), and he is going to ruin this country.
We also introduced relief for the farming population with respect to capital gains. I am encouraged to see that my hon. friends opposite did accept portions of our budget. One measure which is good is for deductibility with respect to working spouses in family businesses or on family farms. Ours was the party which initiated the Small Business Development Bond. Ours was the party which pushed for the extension of that bond, and we are delighted to see that hon. members opposite had the insight to accept and implement that program.
I could deal with a number of issues. We were in government for a short period of time, but we were taking steps.
My time is almost up.


Thomas Gordon Towers: You haven't even started.


Peter Elzinga: I was hoping to have the opportunity to share with hon. members opposite the submission of the Alberta Chamber of Commerce. That submission illustrates how money coming to Alberta through increased oil prices would benefit all Canadians because of spin-off benefits. I hope when hon. members opposite received this submission some weeks ago they read it, because all of us as Canadians will benefit from an increase in price for petroleum products.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I regret to interrupt the hon. member, but the time allotted to him has expired.


Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Mr. Speaker, I am torn between a feeling of satisfaction and a feeling of bitterness. That satisfaction stems from the fact that we in the House can talk with so much ease and abandon about billions of dollars without giving the odd thought to the fact that there are people in our country who have hardly a few cents to live or survive.
That satisfaction is due, of course, to the possibility we as, Canadians have to own huge untapped resources which make it possible for us to use that borrowing power almost at will. But using that borrowing authority does involve some risks. Indeed we must never forget that we ought to show a lot more moderation when borrowing because we have to keep in mind that the money we borrow will sooner or later be paid back by the people, by the taxpayers and, especially, by the workers.
Mr. Speaker, I think I am speaking for the workers in my riding as well as others throughout the country when I say that taxes now weigh heavily on that class of citizens who never miss an opportunity to tell us that their pay cheque has a long list of deductions and precious little left in the way of income. I think that the debate this evening should make us pause for a moment, because if in today's world we have made commitments toward our people and must respect them by adopting the bill before us, we must still think about the future and ask ourselves how one day we will have to use more sparingly the money we can get so easily.
I was saying, Mr. Speaker, that I had mixed feelings of both satisfaction and bitterness. My bitterness stems from the atmosphere in this House. I have a feeling that every time the government introduces a bill, the speakers almost always feel obliged to attack, in a way that strikes me as exaggerated, the hon. members who try to represent as best they can the interests of the taxpayers.
I feel our hon. friends opposite should realize that we are not borrowing such enormous amounts for the fun of it. We have obligations to meet. We also have people who are entitled to a
April 2, 1981

minimum of comfort, and we must protect the interests of the underprivileged in our society. When I see what language is too often used in this House by some hon. members, I wonder if we are aware of the example we should set for the population as a whole, namely, that of parliamentarians who are eager to work for the good of all the people rather than for the promotion of a political and partisan philosophy.
Mr. Speaker, I listened very closely to the speeches that were made and I must say that my comments do not apply to all parliamentarians; but it does seem to me that we should be mature enough and wise enough in debates of this type, when we discuss before the whole nation matters as important as those before the House this evening, to address our remarks to the real issues instead of attacking the persons who either defend or oppose them. I believe I echo the statements of several hon. members when I deplore the fact that we have to resort to setting time limits for our debates. And I have no intention of saying that the opposition is solely responsible for this situation, even if it contributes to it. I believe, Mr. Speaker, that if we, as parliamentarians, want to convince the population that politicians are able to disregard party lines in their search for real solutions to our problems, if we want to convince the population that parliamentarians and politicians are mature people as they claim to be, then it becomes more and more necessary to find solutions which will allow us to schedule the proceedings of this House so as to discuss a bit more calmly such important questions which affect the wellbeing of our fellow citizens.
Mr. Speaker, when we talk about billions of dollars in this House, we are often tempted to forget that the real problem is not the borrowing itself, but rather how the money will be used to benefit those who really need it. The wish I express this evening, Mr. Speaker, is that when these sums are voted, we take greater care to ensure that they are used for the benefit of those who need it most. We are too much inclined to believe, Mr. Speaker, that everyone in Canada is wealthy and well off, while the facts show that this is not so, Mr. Speaker, and that even in a country with as many dynamic and able people as ours, there are also poor people who are often ignored and who would require the co-operation and the assistance of parliamentarians.
This evening, Mr. Speaker, I would like to appeal to all my colleagues on both sides of the House to spare a thought, while dealing with all those millions of dollars, for the poor, for the disadvantaged, and for those who expect us to make a conciliatory gesture of support and assistance. I trust, Mr. Speaker, that the funds which we shall agree to spend in the next few months and weeks will be used for the benefit of those who need it most.


Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Mr. Speaker, I cannot recall in the eight and a half years I have been here how many
Time Limitation
times I have been called upon to contribute to a debate and vote upon a motion on closure under Standing Order 75c-


An hon. Member:: Time allocation.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Time allocation, call it whatever you like, it is all the same thing.
I heard the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) speaking about process and change when he was contributing to this debate earlier tonight.
I suppose he was referring to the substitution of time allocation under Standing Order 75c for Standing Order 33, the absolute closure motion. It is like substituting a ball-peen hammer for a sledge hammer. If hon. members read Standing Order 75c, and I suppose this is the way rule 75c was eventually passed, it provides that a minister can give his intention and, in part, we read:
-may propose a motion for the purpose of allotting a specified number of days or hours for the consideration and disposal of proceedings at that stage; provided that the time allotted for any stage is not to be less than one sitting day-
We have the motion before us and the absolute minimum has been chosen, namely one sitting day for each stage.
If we had had rule 33 imposed, we would have been voting at one o'clock in the morning. I suppose that does not suit members opposite because one o'clock in the morning is not a good time for them to be voting. However, the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council also talked about the obligation of the party in power to govern. I say to members opposite there must also be an obligation on the part of Parliament to hear debate. But the party opposite seems to have forgotten all about that obligation. It does not care about hearing debate any more, it just wants to get things through any way it can and as quickly as it can.
I spoke on Bill C-59, the bill on which we are imposing closure, at second reading. It was not so long ago. In fact, it was February 16, 1981. Since that time, which is a month and a half ago, this bill has been to committee and it has come back. It could have come back to Parliament at any time during the last month or so. However, during this time, the government was insisting on presenting its debate on the constitutional amendment. We had made it clear earlier that whenever the government wanted to bring back normal parliamentary business, we would be willing to hear it. The governe-ment resisted so long that now it feels compelled to impose closure on the borrowing bill because it is running out of money. Is the government runing out of money? When one hears about the government running out of money and that it is going to go bankrupt, we might have some sympathy. After all, taxpayers need their pensions and the government must operate. We would not want the government to go bankrupt. Therefore, we would look with sympathy on the government whenever it would have this problem. But today in this House, I think it was the member from Mississauga South who asked the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) how short the government was of cash. The Minister of Finance indicated quite clearly to the House that there were billions in the till

April 2, 1981
Time Limitation
and there was no shortage of time or money from the government's point of view at this moment.
On the use of closure, where would we be in Canada if closure had been imposed on Bill C-42, the post office bill? We would have had an awful bill. During committee, the government and the opposition parties introduced many amendments to that bill. If the government had felt inclined to invoke closure on a bill like that, the post office bill would have been a terrible piece of legislation. We may get a terrible piece of legislation anyway, but closure would not have helped the bill; it would have hindered it.
We are now all familiar with the current debate on the constitutional resolution. The government would like to invoke closure on that too. Fortunately, there are some in this House who are adamantly opposed to closure being presented on that resolution. But the number of times when the government could have invoked closure and did not is innumerable. If it had, the end product would have been a very poor bill.
As I said at the outset, we have used closure on countless occasions since I have been here. I cannot remember them all now.


Mr. Malone:: Twice a year.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: My colleague from Alberta tells me twice a year. But the point is the government has used closure in debates recently with the same kind of frequency that members of the opposition, or maybe a Speaker, might use aspirin.
This rule was put into the Standing Orders with a great deal of trouble. I have heard from historians who were here at the time-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Hear, hear!


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: -but for it to be abused now is the same as popping a pill. This is a very wrong procedure for the government to use and it will come back to haunt it. I hope it does not come back to haunt this institution. I will not delay the debate any further, but I want to add my voice to those who will vote no as strongly as we can against this kind of abuse of Parliament.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Mr. Speaker, I will stick as best I can to the matter before us, the implementation of the use of 75c. Tomorrow I hope to deal with the bill itself, Bill C-59. As the House leader for this party said, we will oppose that, as we will oppose the imposition of this time allocation.
I apologize in advance. When I speak about House rules, I tend to think back to my previous experiences. In the years that I spent in the Ontario legislature, I cannot recall an occasion, although there might have been one, when there was a need to impose any kind of time allocation or closure motion. The reason was that the members of that assembly knew fairly well in advance what the business of the government was to be. The House leaders, together with the whips, sat down and
carefully scheduled the activities in order to allow for an adequate period of time for debate while making sure that the business of the House progressed with some degree of consistency.
I do not mean that it was not possible for the opposition to embark upon a procedure that would delay the government's attempts to push its legislation through from time to time on matters of considerable and obvious importance. I want to suggest that, drawing on my experience, I cannot understand why my colleagues in this House, given that they are intelligent and understanding, cannot sit together and make some reasonable decisions about the amount of time necessary to deal with various and sundry pieces of legislation.
That would require, on the one hand, the government to be much more open about what they propose to put before Parliament. The government would have to be prepared to sit down at the beginning of the session and map out in a general way the legislative proposals they propose to put before Parliament and to allow for the kind of allocation of time in a co-operative sense that ought to take place.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: They wouldn't do that.


Ian Deans: The hon. member says they would not do that. I might say the events of the last week, justified though they may be in the eyes of the Conservative Party, will not lead us to that kind of co-operation in the long run. I am not going to argue the merits of the opposition of that party. I am only saying that kind of activity will lead to more restrictive rules and regulations rather than to more openness which we ought to have here.
It worries me when we are required to have time allocation brought in. Call it time allocation, call it closure, it does not matter. They mean the same. The debate will end at a time predetermined by the government. It flies in the face of parliamentary tradition, as I understand and like to think of it. Parliamentary tradition tells me that the government will propose to Parliament the legislation that it hopes to pass and that Parliament will dispose of that legislation having reasoned it through, offered its suggestions, and ultimately will support or defeat it. In that kind of co-operative House, time allocation measures such as this would never be necessary.
I think there is a misunderstanding here of the roles. The government has a right to expect to be given the latitude and leeway it requires in order to govern, but it does not have the right to muzzle the opposition whenever it feels so inclined. I want to suggest that the behaviour of the opposition from time to time arouses the passions and the anger of the government, and it will respond, just as the behaviour of the government will arouse the passions and anger of the opposition and it will respond. However, those occasions must never be allowed to become the main feature of the parliamentary system and the main impetus for negative change to the rules.
I am sure that when people sent us here, they believed we had reached a stage of adult growth, a degree of native intelligence, an understanding of the process, a commitment to the country and that we were capable of representing the many
April 2, 1981

and diverse interests of the constituencies, the provinces and the country as a whole. I wonder what they must think of us when they discover the government has to bring in a motion to stop debate on a matter as important as this.
We cannot afford to wait much longer to set up a working group within this House to come to grips with the problems of the rules. If nothing else, there has to be an informal working group sitting together on a regular basis to look at the rules, consult with the Speaker, Deputy Speaker and Acting Speakers, consult with the Table officers and the House leaders, to try and come up with a comprehensive program for change which will allow Parliament to work and enable us to have the kind of timetabling procedures without being faced with the time-wasting procedures which this motion in fact is. Tonight we have taken-and I have contributed, and I hope directly to the point-two hours which could well have been spent debating the merits of the bill rather than debating the merits of closure and perhaps other things as well.
Rather than take up the time of the House debating these matters over and over again, let us get on with the business, talk about the things that are important and get on with dealing with what matters to the people of Canada and let us stop being so damned silly.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, I listened with great interest to the words of my friend for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans). He is right that we have to learn to work together much more co-operatively in this House. We have not done so, especially not in the last little while. We must not try to fool the people. However, there are certainly some political games which are played in this House of Commons. Your Honour knows that as well as I.
With regard to the time allocation motion, there are many times when my friends and colleagues on the other side of the House have told us clearly that if we do not bring in time allocation, we will not get the bill because they gain political advantage from making the government bring in time allocation. They then have two hours to stand up and rail against the government.


An hon. Member:: Tell the truth.


John Leslie Evans: That is the truth of the matter. That is what happened in this case. We have talked about this bill for a good period of time. It came in around the middle of January. Second reading debate went on for a good length of time. It then went to committee where it was talked about and witnesses were heard. It is now back before the House.
We tried to get agreement with hon. members on a limitation of debate to see how long it would take, whether two days or three days would be enough. We could not get agreement. I can understand the political motivation that some members opposite might have, saying they are not going to let us have an agreement, that they are going to make us bring in rule 75c
Time Limitation
so that they have a chance to get up and say what a terrible government we are for bringing in time allocation. Those are the facts.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: You know you are.


John Leslie Evans: My hon. friend, the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) is becoming a little incensed over there, but I think he has to agree with me that the truth is the truth.
Having regard to this particular Bill C-59-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


John Leslie Evans: I am not sure I can be heard over my friends on the other side.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I recognize the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields) on a point of order.


Jack Wendele Shields: Mr. Speaker, I seek your guidance on this point of order. I hate to admit this but the hon. member opposite is my Member of Parliament representing the area in which I live. Should I be sitting here listening to this trivia that he is-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Finance (Mr. Evans) has the floor.


John Leslie Evans: Mr. Speaker, all of us have constituents of which we are ashamed. Luckily I have very few. Perhaps I might say a few words in respect of what the hon. member for St. John's West (Mr. Crosbie) said earlier this evening. I am rather interested in this.
He said the bill we brought in, C-59, has a new twist never before used. I think those were his words and I will check Hansard tomorrow. He said that what was never used before in the House of Commons in respect of borrowing authority was the non-lapsing feature. Those were his words.
Prior to 1979 and his budget, the non-lapsing aspect of the borrowing authority was commonplace. In fact, the hon. member for St. John's West could not have run the financial side of the Conservative government had it not been for the non-lapsing part of the borrowing authority brought in by the previous Liberal government, and that is the fact. The hon. member's memory might not be very good, but certainly it is short. Without that non-lapsing borrowing authority, the Conservative government could not have gone as long as it did without calling Parliament because it would have required a borrowing authority bill to carry on its fiscal responsibilities at the time. I know the hon. member for St. John's West was dramatically affected when the rug was pulled out from under his mukluks, but it certainly could not have affected his memory so badly he would forget the very fact that his financial responsibilities in the Conservative government were carried on for seven months with the non-lapsing borrowing

April 2, 1981
Time Limitation
authority of the previous government. I personally think the non-lapsing aspect is a good aspect.
In this particular borrowing authority bill, C-59, presently before the House, in respect of which we are debating a motion under Standing Order 75c, we are asking for $14 billion, $11 billion of which is provided for in the budget and in the estimates as expenditures and financial requirements to cover that expenditure, with $3 billion, as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) have explained, provided for the possibility of contingency, but mainly for non-lapsing flexibility. It might be that the government could run into another situation such as we have seen in the last few days. I think we are all unhappy about that situation on both sides of the House.


An hon. Member:: We are not.


John Leslie Evans: I hear an hon. member opposite saying they are not unhappy about it. I am sorry about that because I assumed we would all be unhappy with this situation and the wasting of the time of the House, but apparently not.
We could run into this again and the government could be in bad financial straits and have to delay a borrowing authority bill into a fiscal year for which there was no borrowing authority. I think the $3 billion non-lapsing flexibility is the kind of thing which should be provided for automatically, especially if we move to a new budgetary cycle. I suggest we should do that. The Minister of Finance has indicated that is what he would like to do. I refer to a fall budgetary cycle, bringing the budget forward in the fall. This would mean that the borrowing authority bill could not be brought in until probably December, or perhaps January. This makes a relatively tight legislative time frame within which to bring forward a borrowing authority bill, get it through second reading, into committee, back for report stage, third reading and royal assent after going through the Senate as well. We are talking about a very tight fiscal time-frame in which to get the borrowing authority bill through.
It makes sense to have a fall budgetary cycle for many reasons. One is that having your budgets in the late fall would allow the provinces to see what the federal fiscal framework will look like and, therefore, plan their budgets more effectively, and, typically, they come in the spring. In fact, we have had very good reaction from the provinces in respect of that kind of a suggestion at the December meeting of finance ministers. We were discussing when they would like to see a federal budget and the kind of consultation and interaction they would like between the two levels of government in order that budgetary cycles of all governments could be more closely integrated with better co-ordination than we have now. I think that is a good process.
In doing this, as I said, it does place the federal government in a rather peculiar situation, having a very short time-span from the point at which the budget is brought down to the fiscal year end when new borrowing authority has to be implemented. As a result, this non-lapsing component of the
current borrowing authority bill gives us flexibility if contingencies occur so the bill cannot be brought forward, as in the event of an election, for example, which was the case on February 18, 1980. That did not allow the fiscal framework and borrowing authority bill to be brought in immediately. Last year we had to go in fact until June or July before we could bring in a borrowing authority bill. For all these reasons I think it is a good thing for the government.
I think if the government changed, hon. members opposite would say exactly the same thing. They were very happy, I am sure, to have had that non-lapsing borrowing authority provided for in the previous budget so they could carry on the fiscal operations of government without having to call Parliament, rush a borrowing authority bill through before having a notion as to what their fiscal requirements were to be and what kind of financial plans they wanted to make. I think that non-lapsing authority is an extremely valuable component of a borrowing authority bill.
Also in respect of the bill we are bringing forward I would like to say a few more words. The hon. member for Mississauga South and the hon. member for St. John's West indicated some things about the current cash balances of the government. 1 see that I do not have time, so I will bring this forward tomorrow when I speak.


Mr. Bill Wright (Calgary North):: Mr. Speaker, I rise to discuss this important motion before the House under Standing Order 75c. This government is attempting to tell us that this is simply an allocation of time, that it is not closure motion and was never intended to be such. In actual fact, if one reads what the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) said when he moved this motion, he will see the motion, as reported at page 8830 of Hansard for March 31 states the following:
-for the purpose of this order and, in turn, every question then necessary in order to dispose of the stage of the bill then under consideration shall be put forthwith and successively, without further debate or amendment.
The "Oxford Illustrated Dictionary" defines closure in Parliament as a decision by vote of the House of Commons to put a question without further debate.
Members of the government are attempting to tell us that this is simply an allocation of time. Like many other things that happen in the House, they say one thing and do another.
I should like to take you back to the 1969 debate when Mr. Blair, who was in charge of the committee which brought in 75c stated, as reported at page 10957 of Hansard for July 8:
I would like to say first of all with reference to Standing Order 75c that it cannot be invoked unilaterally by the government.
I should like to know how it is being invoked if it is not being invoked unilaterally. It is binding on our side and not binding on the government. Only the government can bring it
in.
Now, Mr. Speaker, they are telling us it is an allocation of time. But here we have a bill for $14 billion which the
April 2, 1981

government wishes to pass, and they want to allocate the minimum amount of time for debate. I would like to quote Mr. Blair, the chairman of that committee in 1969 when he said:
I think what I have said is clearly on record.
There will be at least ten days of time in this debate. Well, Mr. Speaker, there has not been ten days of time in this debate. He also said that there would be at least three days of debate in committee, and there were only two days of debate in committee. We can go on and on, but this is not allocation of time, it is just another method of closure.
What do they really want to do? They want to borrow $14 billion when we know that as of March 26 they had $6.4 billion. The Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) admitted that they still had $4.8 billion, which means they spent $1.6 billion in one week. The Minister of Finance admitted in committee that the government needs approximately $1 billion a month more than they receive. Why do they need to borrow $14 billion when they have $4.8 billion left? And at the rate at which they admitted they were spending more than they were taking in, they only need $1 billion. So it is quite obvious that this government does not know what they are spending.
I would like to quote the Minister of Finance further. He said five months ago that inflation was going to be 10 per cent, and admitted last week that it was 12.2 per cent. When did he have that revelation? Obviously he did not know five months ago, yet the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada admitted in committee that they are able to define inflation six months ahead. How come the Bank of Canada knew we were going to have 12 per cent inflation but the Minister of Finance did not? He still does not know. He does not know what inflation is going to be next month.
This government does not need the $14 billion it wishes to borrow; it is a sham. If it needed the money, we would be more than happy to pass it the bill, but it is quite obvious that the minister admitted they did not yet need to borrow the money. But, he says, one of these days they will.
In conclusion, there is no need to impose Standing Order 75c. This government brought it in in 1969 to limit debate and it is just another way that this government is going to close off debate, and that is why over the last week we have been attempting to bring this government to order so that they will be responsible for what they are doing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Frederick William Wright: And we are not going to allow this government to get away with spending money irrationally, we are not going to allow them to get away with imposing on this country an illegal and irrational resolution to the British Parliament. And we are going to continue to stand and speak against this government on bill after bill until they get sick and tired of trying to impose closure, whether it be Standing Order 75c or Standing Order 33. We do not intend to let this government get away with it any more. We have reached the point where we are not going to allow this government to run roughshod over the opposition.
Time Limitation


Mr. Pierre  Gimai@: Mr. Speaker, it is always with great pleasure and honour that I rise to speak in this House, all the more so because the subject we are debating tonight is very important for our country. As it has been done regularly over the past few years, we have to borrow billions of dollars for the day to day affairs of the state. Oftentimes that money goes to the poorest Canadians, those who benefit from the redistribution of wealth. It is precisely because they need it without delay that we are here debating this bill tonight.
I should like to be more specific and refer to the fact that we had to set a limit on this debate. It is true that when Canada borrows $13 billion for its regular budget the people are entitled to know why and, normally, it is a good subject for debate. But there has been an allocation of time for this debate; the reasons for that are not all that complicated and I can explain in a few words. This time allocation is due to the fact that over the past two weeks the Progressive Conservative party has resorted to all kinds of tricks, a sort of organized disorder of nothing but points of order and questions of privilege in the House with the result that we have been unable to do our job in the last 15 days. That is why we set a limit on the debate.
Organized disorder cannot be tolerated in a rink when people play hockey, or on a football field, and much less in the House, and in such a situation, we have to hurry in the last minutes to accomplish what we have to do. That is what is happening now. Still, no matter how bad things are, there is always a positive aspect. It is true that since we have been witnessing this organized disorder, we have seen a lot more Progressive Conservative members across the floor, a very rare event. I can say that it does change the panorama, for instead of seeing five or ten of our colleagues we can now see 50 of them or even more at the same time. I would not say it is an honour, but it is a more pleasing sight than empty benches.
In that same line of thought, I would like to point out that when our government borrows $13 billion, there are people who talk about blank cheques or what have you, but that is not what is happening at all. The simple fact is that because Canada collects taxes at specific times of the year, the government sometimes does not have enough money to carry on its routine business, to redistribute wealth in the country so that those most disadvantaged are a little less unfortunate and at least keep their human dignity.
This is precisely what we are doing with this borrowing. We are simply getting the money that the government needs to fulfil the commitments made by its predecessors, whether they were Progressive Conservatives or Liberals, to the citizens of this country. Obviously, when we can have the co-operation of the official opposition, this becomes much easier and can be accomplished in better conditions. We have been living in the last two weeks in the organized disorder of a party which should be progressive, but seems to be increasingly conserva-
8936____________________________________________COMMON!
Time Limitation
tive. Since we have been living in these conditions, we have had to take the bull by the horns, as we often say in the Lake Saint-Jean area, and limit the duration of this debate. Those who benefit most from this will obviously be the Canadian people because the Government of Canada, which is their government, will be able to meet its commitments to them and continue to help them develop their resources in this vast and beautiful country which is very important for all of us. It is in this context that we are taking this action. I hope that our friends in the Progressive Conservative Party will understand why we are limiting this debate. I also hope that they will acquire some wisdom in the process, which will be useful in another important debate which has been going on for sometime in the House, a wisdom which is quite Canadian, very little conservative, extremely progressive, which goes beyond narrow partisanship, strictly inspired by political motives. May the Divine Light guide them very strongly so that they will understand-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. It being ten o'clock, the two hours provided for the consideration of the motion now before the House have expired.
The question is on the motion of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Call in the members.


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion carried.			
It being ten	o'clock, the House	stands adjourned until	
tomorrow at 11 a.m.			
At L0.30 p.m.	the House adjourned, without question put,		
pursuant to Standing Order.			||| |
			**2

Friday, April 3, 1981