1981-03-26

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Given that the latest Gallup Poll indicates a majority of Canadians support the return of capital punishment, and given that criminal activity is often compounded by the use of firearms, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That this House endorse the resolution recently passed by the regional municipality of Niagara and urge the Solicitor General to introduce legislation immediately whereby the minimum sentence for anyone convicted of a criminal act while carrying a firearm would be 20 years, and further that the death penalty be invoked if a police officer is killed in the line of duty, and that this matter be referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs for more study.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mr. Dan McKenzie (Winnipeg-Assiniboine):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. I have been contacted by a firm in St. Boniface, Manitoba, regarding serious inconsistencies involved in the awarding of a contract to build an arena at St. Walburg, Saskatchewan. The contract, awarded by the Saskatchewan government under unorthodox practices, did not go to the lowest bidder, Western Steel Span Buildings Ltd. of St. Boniface. As this contract involved federal government funding, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the minister responsible for CMHC withhold all federal funding for this project until the minister has completed a full investigation into the awarding of this contract.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Don Blenkarn (Mississauga South):: Madam Speaker, I rise to propose a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that many prominent Canadians, most recently the New Democratic Premier of Saskatchewan, have publicly stated that it would be improper for a joint resolution to be sent to the Parliament of the United Kingdom if the resolution was before the Supreme Court of Canada, and in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is seized with the Manitoba appeal, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen):
That this House not act upon the joint resolution until the Supreme Court has had an opportunity to rule on its constitutionality and legality.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ABORIGINAL RIGHTS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 to raise an issue of urgent and pressing necessity.
On March 19, 1981, representatives of the Yukon and Northwest Territories' governments, the Committee for Original People's Entitlement, the Dene Nation, the Inuit Tapirisat of Canada, the Council for Yukon Indians, and the Northwest Territories Metis Association met, and in an historic unanimous decision opposed Bill C-48, the Oil and Gas Act, because the legislation has totally ignored the issues related to aborigi-

March 26, 1981
5.0.	43
nal people north of 60. Representatives of these people will be appearing before a committee of this House tonight and tomorrow. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources withdraw Bill C-48 and immediately convene a conference of northern leaders to redraft the legislation and that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development be compelled to live up to his responsibilities to the Crown and appear as a witness before the present committee meetings discussing Bill C-48.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SEARCH AND RESCUE
[Stage Direction]
5.0.	43
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House recognize the daring and heroic efforts by the Canadian Armed Forces Search and Rescue specialists in their daring night mission to rescue three victims of a helicopter crash near Fort Severn, Ontario, in the past 48 hours.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Darling (Parry Sound-Muskoka):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of some urgency. It was reported in the news today that the Reagan administration, supported by members of the United States Congress, plans to change parts of the American clean air act, changes which would prevent the act from being used to reduce emissions causing acid rain.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hillsborough (Mr. McMillan):
That the Prime Minister immediately contact President Reagan to protest strongly the planned American action which would result in serious consequences, particularly in eastern Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for such a motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SMALL BUSINESS
Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent for this delayed introduction of competition bill-motion motion?	under S.O. 43


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CRIMINAL CODE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under Standing Order 43.
Whereas it is inconceivable that the mother's health was endangered warranting a legal abortion under Canadian law in the vast majority of the 65,000 abortions carried out in Canada last year, therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Grey-Simcoe (Mr. Mitges):
That the government forthwith bring in amendments to the Criminal Code to stop this murdering of unborn children.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise to move a motion under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The small business climate in Canada today is, to say the least, decidedly unhealthy resulting in part from crippling interest rates, government controls and regulations, lack of working capital and so on. Compounding these problems is the additional threat of being squeezed out by increasing monopoly mergers which further limit competition.
In view of the insensitive attitude by the Liberal government toward small business as a whole, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parry Sound-Muskoka (Mr. Darling):
That the government stop delaying the introduction and passage of a competition bill, as it has done for 13 years and, further, that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs introduce immediately an interim policy that will disallow any further potentially dangerous mergers such as the Hudson's Bay-Zellers bid prior to the perpetually forthcoming passage of stiffer competition laws.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 26, 1981


NATIONAL PRESS CLUB
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, whereas all members of this House should condemn racism wherever it exists and regardless of the political situation in which it occurs, and since all MPs are honorary members of the National Press Club, which operates in government-owned facilities, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Interlake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House support the journalists who have announced their intention to protest against the Press Club hosting a South Africa night this weekend, since such an event serves to legitimize the repressive and racist regime of that country, and further, urges the Press Club to reject any applications in the future from countries which do not accept the United Nations Declaration of Human Rights, and further, urges the Press Club to cancel this Saturday's entertainment.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRADE AND COMMERCE
Mr. Bill Vankoughnet (Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the need to foster growth, productivity, employment opportunity and prosperity of the Canadian economy, and also to ensure that Canadian business and industry in Canada survives and grows in the future with particular emphasis on the textile and clothing industry in Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That this House direct the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce to implement fully the recommendations made by the Textile and Clothing Board and to announce his decision on the board's report forthwith in order that Canada will continue to have a healthy domestic textile and clothing industry.


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, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas the rate of unemployment has reached a staggering 75 per cent for the Bigstone Indian Band in Wabasca; whereas funding for economic development has been virtually non-existent; whereas members of the Bigstone Band have been moved by their desperate situation to stage a 240-mile march from Wabasca to Manpower and Indian Affairs offices in Edmonton to draw attention to their plight, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaskiwin (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration and the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to meet with the chief and members of the Bigstone Band this week to seek an immediate and satisfactory solution to the severe economic situation facing the Bigstone Band.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, as the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) yesterday chose to address the Canada Club in London, a club which still bars women from its membership, and which is a questionable forum for sensitivity to the criticisms by Canadian women that the constitutional resolution does not guarantee their rights and freedoms, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney):
That this House deplore the hypocrisy of the government in pleading the case of the charter before sexist forums and urges the Minister of Justice to include in the charter a statement that men and women are equal, which could find acceptance on both sides of this House and from all parties.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of

March 26, 1981
Oral Questions
the fact that Japanese auto exports are continuing to rise, and that European countries are now ready to take defensive action, and given the fact the United States has begun discussions with the Japanese to review Japanese exports, it is clear that within the next six months the Japanese may feel it necessary to unload their current auto production on the Canadian market. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That the government recognize the danger to Canadian auto workers presented by the possibility of Japanese auto manufacturers dumping unsold cars on the Canadian market and to this end the Canadian government should undertake immediately discussions with Japanese officials to discuss our concerns and prepare appropriate protective measures.


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 to the Prime Minister who will know that Beauchesne holds that the reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament. And he will know that the reason for that parliamentary custom and rule is because a question cannot be considered by two public bodies at the same time. The Prime Minister will know that the Manitoba appeal of the government's constitutional position has now been accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada and that court is seized of that question.
Will the Prime Minister then follow the rules of Parliament and withdraw his constitutional proposal from this House until the Supreme Court of Canada has had the opportunity to decide the question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition argues from Beauchesne and suggests that I know certain things. I do not know about this interpretation of the rules, but I would be prepared to wager with him that when Beauchesne talks about reference, he means a reference by the Government of Canada to the Supreme Court, not an appeal to that court by any constituent of Canada.


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister indicates that he does not know the rules of this House nor the custom set out in Beauchesne's.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: What is at stake here, and what is spelled out very precisely in Beauchesne, is the fundamental-


An hon. Member:: Read it.


Charles Joseph Clark: "Read it" someone says. I shall read it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The principle reads:
The question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.
That is the reference.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What number?


Charles Joseph Clark: And the rule very clearly is that when the question is before two bodies-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: What is the rule?


Charles Joseph Clark: The reference is Citation 338. When the question is before two public bodies, and one is the Supreme Court of Canada and the other is Parliament, then it is Parliament that withdraws to allow the Supreme Court to exercise its function.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada respect the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court of Canada, will he respect the rules and customs of this House, and will he withdraw that constitutional resolution until the Supreme Court has had the opportunity to decide the question?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition suggests I do not know the rules. I suppose if there is such-


An hon. Member:: You said you did not.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -a rule he would have it open to him to raise a point of order and refer to you for judgment, Madam Speaker. However, if I can answer and express a view on the rule as I read it, I refer to Section 338, paragraph (4) of Beauchesne's, where I read these words:
The reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament.
Now, unless the Leader of the Opposition does not know what the word "reference" means, or what a "bill" means, and that is a real possibility, Madam Speaker, I would suggest that he now argue that there is a reference to the Supreme Court and that he do it by using "reference" in the sense Beauchesne meant it.
March 26, 1981


REQUEST FOR CALLING OF GENERAL ELECTION
Charles Joseph Clark: The
Prime Minister, as is his custom, has quoted selectively from the rule-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -and conveniently ignored the statement of principle that the question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time. He refuses-


An hon. Member:: Parliament is supreme.


Charles Joseph Clark: -to answer my question. Someone behind him says "Parliament is supreme." Last night in London, when his Minister of Justice was lobbying the British on a matter still before this House, the minister said that the people of Canada are supreme and, if they do not like what the government is doing with its constitutional resolution, then they can throw this government out at the next election.
The Prime Minister knows that his constitutional proposal was not discussed during the last election. He knows he has no mandate for the constitutional proposal he is trying to push through this House of Commons.
Let me ask the Prime Minister of Canada, if he believes that the people of Canada have a right to throw a government out because it pushes forward a constitutional position the people do not agree with, will the Prime Minister of Canada call an election now on the question of the constitutional resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Scrape up your courage, Pierre!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. This is quite early in the question period for my having to get up to call order constantly.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I did not think the Leader of the Opposition would use a debate on the future of the Constitution of Canada, use this device to prop up his leadership which has been withdrawn from him.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Call the election!


Mr. Andre:: Spineless!


Madam Speaker:: Order.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am glad to respond to that challenge. Let us-


An hon. Member:: Yes or no!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let us pass this bill in all stages-


An hon. Member:: No, no! Let's have it now!
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They do not want to hear this challenge.


An hon. Member:: Put it to the people first.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let us pass this bill in all stages, both Houses of Parliament, let us send it to Britain, and then let us call an election.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: After the fact.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The people will obviously be called, one day or another, to judge this action by this House. I suggest that if hon. members opposite are so sure that the people would not support this-


Harvie Andre: You place your bets before the starting gates open, not after the race is finished.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They are afraid to answer my challenge of passing this bill, and then-


An hon. Member:: You coward.


An hon. Member:: Bill Davis did it last week.


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Bill Davis won on it last week!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. members please let the Right Hon. Prime Minister finish his answer?


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: I think he is finished. He is finished now!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As to the referral to the rule, Madam Speaker, I read the end of the paragraph: "the question cannot be put before two public bodies at the same time." That is repeating my point made earlier. Who has referred a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada? If the Government of Canada had referred such a bill, then indeed it would not make much sense for the Government of Canada to press forward with this bill in front of the House. This is the obvious common sense meaning of this rule, and if the-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -if the opposition does not agree with the common sense meaning of this, let them appeal to the Speaker. She is entitled to rule on whether this bill is properly before the House or not.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister speaks about leadership. I am prepared to face votes, as he is not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister knows that he has no mandate for what he is trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 26, 1981
Oral Questions


Charles Joseph Clark: He is afraid of the views and the opinions of the people of Canada. He prefers to have Canadian questions settled in Britain. We want these Canadian questions settled here in Canada.
Why will the Prime Minister of Canada not call an election on this fundamental question so the people of Canada can speak clearly and settle our questions here in Canada?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition talks about leadership and the courage to face votes. Why will he not face a leadership convention?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


ELECTION CHALLENGE
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I should like to direct my question to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He is obviously, after his answers today, hiding behind the majority he has in the House. He is opposed by eight of the ten provinces and he is opposed by 64 per cent of the Canadian people. I ask him, if he is so brave-and he said the other day that this is no time for cowards-why he is not willing to accept the challenge of the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in the course of the debate on this resolution we have heard argument after argument from the other side that the referendum proposal in this resolution was unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Let the people decide.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And they talk about going to the people. Well, there are provisions in this resolution for going to the people.


An hon. Member:: Let's go now.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I put it to the opposition that there are other ways of getting rid of their leader than going through an election. They will just have to take their courage in their own hands.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I direct my question again to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Obviously the words of the Minister of Justice in London yesterday about an election were empty rhetoric. Today the Prime Minister's words are empty
rhetoric, and obviously his words on Monday about cowardice apply to him.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: I ask the Right Hon. Prime Minister why he is so stubborn and why he insists that he wants his package without having the people of Canada decide on it beforehand, and why he wants to leave as his legacy a divided country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member talks about cowardice. I wonder how one would describe a party that wants us to do their dirty work for them. Why do they not get rid of their own leader?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


An hon. Member:: Here comes the relief.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Here is the little red rump.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, there is nothing quite so lofty as a constitutional debate to bring dignity to Parliament, I always say.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to ask-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think there has been quite enough shouting for today. Let us call it quits for the shouting.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, 1 hear my friends to the right saying something about-


Some hon. Members:: You have no friends.


Mr. Beatty:: Your friends are over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. There are other parties in the House, besides the official opposition, that might have questions to ask.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
March 26, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Nowlan:: There is only one opposition.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Can we now hear the hon. member for Oshawa?


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I just want to say that I have read the leadership polls as they have-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: A couple of weeks ago the Minister of Finance stated the following in the House:
-there is no plan in my department to launch a program of wage controls.
Earlier this week I obtained a document from his department clearly outlining a process by which wage controls could be implemented. I would like the minister to clear up this confusion completely today by assuring the House that no wage controls in any form will be introduced in 1981.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, there is no plan in the department; I have no plan; I have brought no plan before cabinet to introduce wage and price controls.


POLICY TO COMBAT INFLATION
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I trust everyone noted that the Minister of Finance did not answer the question. He did not give us an assurance that wage controls will not be introduced this year. He knows, as well as I, that a secret document has been discussed in his department which lays out precisely a program for the implementation of wage controls, whether or not the government has yet decided to act upon it.
The same document makes clear that wages have not been the cause of inflation, but points to many other causes. Since the government has ruled out a fair prices commission, has turned down a policy which would lower interest rates-and, incidentally, they have just gone up again today-and has ruled out every other specific suggestion to control inflation made by this party and others, is he prepared to announce today one new policy to bring down the level of inflation, or is he saying to the people of Canada that they will have to sit back and take it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I want to repeat and amplify what I said earlier to the hon. member for Oshawa. I have seen no program anywhere in any document in my department for wage and price controls. I have no hesitation in telling the hon. member that no such proposal has been presented to me, that no such proposal has been approved by me, that no such proposal has been brought by me to cabinet. That is the situation. I remind the hon. member that he is asking me to say what may happen in 1981, 1982 or 1983.


John Edward Broadbent: No. This year, 1981.
Oral Questions


Allan Joseph MacEachen: It is rather irresponsible to request-


John Edward Broadbent: Oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -an assurance from me about a hypothetical possibility. If he wants a straight answer, the answer is that there is no plan whatsoever to bring in wage and price controls. If the situation changes, I assure him that in the normal course the House and the hon. member will be notified.


PRICING PRACTICES OF OIL COMPANIES-REQUEST THAT GASOLINE PRICE INCREASE BE ROLLED BACK
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. It concerns energy, about which he can do something. Twenty-two days ago in the House I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs about the six cents increase oil companies piggybacked on the most recent increase in the cost of gasoline. The Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources confirmed that rip-off.
Here is something which is visible and concrete, an antiinflationary step which the minister can take right now; he will not have to wait until 1982 or 1983. Is the minister prepared to stand up and tell the House that he will roll back that six cents increase in the price of gasoline?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, of course I am not going to stand up and say that I will roll back that price.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Why not?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Because I have no authority to do it. I remind the hon. member that this morning I picked up a newspaper and read that the Premier of Saskatchewan was saying the present policy of restraining world oil prices was insanity.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: It is not the same thing.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member must try to reconcile the various differing views which exist on the question of increases in oil prices. One thing which is clear is that at least the Premier of Saskatchewan has a view; he wants higher oil prices. The New Democratic Party has been very careful in the House to avoid any clear statement on where it stood on this very important point, except to come in from the margin and ask about six cents cost increases made by oil companies. Why don't you face the issue head on, frontally, and tell us what your policy is?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 26, 1981
8630_____________________________________
Oral Questions LABOUR RELATIONS


REQUEST BY CANADIAN LAKE CARRIERS ASSOCIATION FOR INTRODUCTION OF BACK-TO-WORK LEGISLATION
Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Would he confirm that he met with representatives of the Canadian Lake Carriers Association, that the discussion included a request by the association for back-to-work legislation, and that this occurred in the new year, prior to the commencement of labour negotiations between the association and the Canadian Marine Officers Union? Would the minister not feel that this could be prejudicial to the bargaining in good faith between those two groups?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. My recollection is that I met with representatives of the Canadian Lake Carriers Association earlier in the year. They made representations in relation to the reforms in legislation they would like to see. I do not recall them talking about any back-to-work legislation. In any event I certainly made no commitment on any of the representations they made to me at that time.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. He has already admitted to meeting with that association prior to the commencement of negotiations between the carriers association and the marine officers. They requested legislation from him regarding back-to-work rules and changes they wish to see in the contract. Does he feel that is conducive to bargaining in good faith between two parties in Canada? Will he continue to deny what the union is saying, that they feel this is bargaining in bad faith on behalf of the association?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is on one of those not so passive Sable Island ponies galloping to conclusions.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: It is better than riding the dead horse which the minister is on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: Well, the hon. member is a leading authority on dead horses, when he sees the policies of this party on the Constitution at the present time; there is no question about that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Gerald Augustine Regan: In regard to this particular dead horse, it would do him well to stop beating it. The discussion I had with the representatives of the Lake Carriers Association was the same as the discussion I have had with labour or management groups from time to time. It did not relate to any contract discussions. To the best of my knowledge, I was not asked anything about back-to-work legislation. But the hon. member should be familiar, from my previous utterances on the matter, with the fact that I believe back-to-work legislation is very
much a last resort, only when the social need of the country is so great that it is required.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Charles Mayer (Portage-Marquette):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. It has to do with the concern of many of us over the present situation with regard to the marine officers union negotiations. At two recent meetings marine officers voted unanimously to reject the company's offers. Is the minister aware of this situation? Does he have any contingency plans to see that grain moves during a possible strike? I think this is very important in view of the fact that we can have a record shipping season because, as we all know, the Seaway will be open a week early this year.


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, it is well known that I am a natural worrier; I worry about everything, and this particularly. Of course the grain situation is dependent upon the labour front. I inquired yesterday about that very subject, and I was given the impression that things were going reasonably well.
I was cheered by the settlement which was achieved at the Port of Montreal, for example. I follow the paper every night to see the good accomplishments made in terms of keeping peace on the labour front with respect to grain transportation.


CONTINGENCY PLANS FOR GRAIN SHIPPING ARRANGEMENTS
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the same minister. It also has to do with grain transportation. I think the minister will be aware that a year ago there was the distinct possibility that Canada would be short approximately a million tons in its shipping on the Great Lakes. The thing that really saved our bacon in that situation was the American embargo, which freed some American shippers.
Has the minister had a chance to have discussions with officials of the Canadian Wheat Board with respect to preventing that from happening in the future? Has he discussed such things as long-term contracting, which the Wheat Board should be considering with some of the shippers? What can the minister tell us about that situation so that we do not again get trapped into not having enough shipping available to move the grain we are capable of producing?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I will have a conversation with the minister responsible for the Wheat Board as early as I can arrange it, and I will report to the hon. member.
March 26, 1981


PUBLIC SERVICE
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, my question is for the President of the Treasury Board. Yesterday I asked him a question about the government's commitment to equal pay for work of equal value. He dismissed my allegations at that time. Since then it has come to light that the Treasury Board has tried to make a sweetheart deal with the Canadian Human Rights Commission, asking it not to accept any more complaints on the general services group of PSAC in return for a final settlement offered by the President of the Treasury Board. With that in mind can the minister confirm this to be the truth? If it is, why does he feel he is above the laws of this land?


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. member for the question. Yesterday I took the liberty of supplying him with quite a detailed analysis of this particular complaint and the efforts which have been made by the Treasury Board to resolve this problem. Unfortunately, as I indicated yesterday, the matter is one of extreme complexity and I would not like to take the time of the House during the question period to review the entire formula.
Very briefly, I would like to explain that what was done was to take the national pay level for both the female-dominated groups and the male-dominated groups to establish an average pay level in each, then to take the difference, expressed as a percentage, and increase the pay level in the female groups by that percentage. For example, that would have the effect with respect to level two in zone 11 of increasing two of the female-dominated groups above male-dominated groups. You will recall that yesterday I mentioned there are actually 22 different pay zones in Canada.
The request to the Human Rights Commission was to the effect that if an averaging formula is accepted for what would appear to be a very equitable settlement of this particular claim, then clearly no more complaints could be accepted with respect to that complaint. In other words the averaging formula would make no sense. I think that is perfectly clear. There is no attempt to avoid in any way the application of the law. In fact, every attempt is being made to comply with the spirit of the legislation.


WIDENING GAP IN PAY SCALES FOR MEN AND WOMEN
Rodney Edward Murphy: Madam Speaker, I wish I could thank the minister for his answer.
The point is that the Human Rights Commission did find the government's offer inadequate. A recent Statistics Canada study pointed out that a group of 1976 university and community college graduates working for the government are in a situation in which the women are earning $3,300 less per year than the men. This is indicative of the over-all problem of unequal pay in the public service.
Oral Questions
I would like to ask the minister whether or not he will finally take some action to stop the widening gap between men and women in the public service. If he will not take action, then will his route be to ask the Secretary of State to exempt himself and his department from the human rights legislation? Is that his way out? Or will he finally take some action to resolve the problems which exist within the public service?


Donald James Johnston: Madam Speaker, I have had the occasion to answer this question before in the House. Members of this government and myself continue to take action, and we are concerned. That is why we have an equal opportunities for women program. That is why we have introduced affirmative action pilot studies, which are moving forward very effectively. I would suggest there are a number of reasons, some systemic, which account for the differentials which were expressed in the newspaper article based upon Statistics Canada information, to which the hon. member makes reference.
I insist that any suggestion that we are not taking action is completely and totally unfounded. It is a matter of continuing consultation amongst my colleagues. I can assure the hon. member that I remain committed in every way to the affirmative action program and the equal opportunities for women program, as do all my colleagues.


INCOME TAX
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue and it concerns an injustice on the part of the Levesque-Parizeau government against 2,000 Quebec families and companies.
Two and a half years after granting a tax exemption to at least 2,000 Quebecers who had obtained a non-resident status while posted abroad, the Quebec minister of revenue has just unilaterally decided to repeal the written agreements concluded for that purpose with some 200 Quebec professional firms and companies. Since the Levesque-Parizeau government has made of those Quebecers second-class citizens and has discriminated against them in relation to their colleagues in other provinces, my question is as follows: will the Canadian government abide as a responsible government with the decision previously taken by its officials in connection with the nonresident status granted to those Quebecers and other Canadians working abroad during a certain period, that is, before the autumn of 1979?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that this government intends to keep the commitments it made to these

March 26, 1981
Oral Questions
citizens of Quebec or, indeed, of any other province of Canada, who work abroad for Canadian companies. There was a change in the regulations in 1980, whereby non-resident status was governed by a period of two years. Previous to that it was six months. But there were firms which entered into contracts abroad based on the previous ruling. We intend to keep our commitment to those firms, since the contracts were entered into in good faith. It is unfortunate if the government of Quebec takes a different view, but for our part we intend to keep our commitment to those workers.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF HON. HUGH PLANCHE, MINISTER OF ECONOMIC DEVELOPMENT OF ALBERTA
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery of the Hon. Hugh Planche, Minister of Economic Development of Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


CANADIAN BROADCASTING CORPORATION
Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Secretary of State and Minister of Communications. Last week, the CBC made the striking journalists of the French network an offer which it qualified as "final", knowing full well that some of its clauses would be rejected by the journalists, 78 per cent of whom in fact did so this week. The CBC now refuses to resume negotiations. Can the minister tell the House what steps he now intends to take in order to get the CBC back to the negotiation table?


Hon. Francis Fox (Secretary of State and Minister of Communications):: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member pointed out, I too was advised by the CBC that last week it had made the union offers which it qualified as "final". The hon. member also knows that those offers include a 20.5 per cent increase for the last two years and a 10.5 per cent year raise for the year starting March 1, 1982. Those are the figures arrived at by the CBC. Those offers, in terms of the whole period, represent an over-all increase of 33 per cent. The Corporation itself has said its offers were final.


John William Bosley: Madam Speaker, the minister is well aware, I think, that the offer provides for an increase of 30 per cent, while reducing the power of the union over non-monetary matters. Madam Speaker, the responsibility of the government
and the CBC is to make sure the Quebecers are not deprived of news coverage in French, especially now that an historic election campaign is being fought. Could the minister advise the House whether his refusal to settle this strike, as he had promised he would a few months ago, is based on his opinion that this strike should continue for reasons known only to the Liberal Party, or does he want to force the union into a position which the government could use as an excuse to adopt unjustified legislation to force these workers back to work?


Francis Fox: As the hon. member no doubt knows, Madam Speaker, the CBC management is solely responsible for its labour relations. When I referred a while ago to the final offer made by the CBC management, I failed to mention that each journalist has been offered a lump sum of $3,500.
I certainly would like to know what is the position of the official opposition on the wage issue, and especially that of the hon. member for York Peel. I wonder if he would have the government agree to a settlement in the public sector which calls for a pay raise of over 33 per cent over a three-year period.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General. World-wide publicity is being given today to a British report that when the Soviet Embassy in Ottawa was rebuilt in 1954, the Canadian intelligence authorities placed electronic eavesdropping and interception devices in the building in locations suggested by Gouzenko, in order to bug conversations by members of the KGB, but that due to leaks in the Canadian intelligence establishment, when they unsuccessfully swept the building, the KGB location was deliberately moved to a part of the building that was not bugged. The primary purpose of the exercise was thus foiled because of the leaks which originated in Ottawa in the first place. Has the minister inquired if that report is true? Can he tell the House whether the report is true or false?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, I have, of course, been following these so-called revelations and have been briefed about them. But, more than anyone else, the hon. member will know very well that it is not the practice or policy of the Solicitor General to comment on such allegations, and I have no intention of doing so.
March 26, 1981


IDENTITY OF BRITISH AGENT WHO INTERROGATED IGOR GOUZENKO
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, in a matter which so vigorously attacks the reputation of the Canadian intelligence and security establishment and community, I would expect that the minister would be concerned enough to at least inquire.
My supplementary question is to ask if the minister has inquired about the allegations that he repeated the other day, to the effect that the information given to the British MI5 interrogator by Gouzenko differed substantially from information given by that interrogator to the British government. If so, what was the result of his inquiry, and has he now established the identity of that British interrogator?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I want to repeat that I did not in any way give any information about anything that took place between Gouzenko and others. What he had said was reported to me and I was asked to comment on it. I said that I had also read that in the newspapers, but 1 certainly was not prepared, and I am not now prepared to comment on that.
I should like to tell the House that the integrity of the security service is certainly a matter of concern to the Solicitor General and that we have operational policies in place to ensure the integrity of the service. It is my responsibility to be satisfied that those policies are in force and are effective, and I am.


REQUEST FOR APPOINTMENT OF ROYAL COMMISSION-ROLE PLAYED BY CHARLES HOWARD ELLIS
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Solicitor General who is no doubt aware that Mr. Charles Howard Ellis, who was Britain's third-ranking intelligence officer at the end of World War II and who later rose to higher ranks in British intelligence, reported to have been a post-war Soviet agent and allegedly made a confession in the year 1965, which was never made public. Will the minister tell the House whether he has ordered or will order an investigation, or if he has been asked by another government to have one, about any contacts Mr. Ellis had with the Canadian security services?
More important, perhaps, is the minister prepared to recommend to the government that it follow the example of Mrs. Thatcher in England of setting up a royal commission to examine in detail what he says he wants protected, namely the integrity of the security service, and whether that integrity and security have been what they should have been from the time of the Taschereau papers to the present day?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, as to the integrity of Mr. Ellis, that obviously is a matter for the British to look into and for them to take whatever action they feel might be justified. From our point of view I can confirm that I have inquired about it. I have learned that Mr. Ellis had no direct contact with the security service and that he never
Oral Questions
came to Canada, for example, for meetings with our security service in a way which might have compromised that service.
Finally, on the question of whether a commission is justified, I do not think that anything that has happened suggests that a commission to investigate the integrity of the security service in Canada is justified. Far from it.


TASCHEREAU COMMISSION PAPERS REVIEW-TERMS OF REFERENCE
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I preface my supplementary by saying that there may be no evidence that Mr. Ellis ever came to Canada, but I would point out to the minister that people can be communicated with without coming here. There is such a thing as a telephone, and I am sure that the minister must have heard of it at some time.
Yesterday the minister confirmed, in answer to one of my questions, that a review was taking place of the approximately
6,000	pages, that still have not been made public, of the Taschereau papers, in order to decide whether such items should be made public. I think he neglected to answer the most important part of my question and I would therefore like to repeat it today. What are the terms of reference of the man who is making the review? Can the minister tell the House what those terms of reference are? I am referring to Mr. Branscombe. Will his report be tabled in this House so that it will be public property, and can the minister guarantee to the House that there will be no government interference whatsoever with the recommendations made in Mr. Branscombe's report?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I confirm that Mr. Branscombe, who is the retired public servant who is doing this work for the Privy Council office, has been asked whether disclosure of the revelations or matters contained within those papers which, as I said yesterday I have not seen, would significantly damage the reputations of any living individuals. When his recommendations are brought forward they will be reviewed by the government and decisions will be made about them. I cannot confirm now that they will be made public because if the recommendations are that the Taschereau papers not be made public, obviously the information in the report ought not to be made public either, for the same reason, that its disclosure would perhaps significantly damage the reputations of individuals who are still living.


MCDONALD ROYAL COMMISSION
Hon. Elmer M. MacKay (Central Nova):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Solicitor General. I want to ask if the McDonald commission inquiry has been given access to the record of the operation mounted by the security service, with

Oral Questions
assistance from the CIA, against a foreign embassy in Ottawa which was unfortunately interrupted by the unexpected return of the occupants of the apartment being used for that purpose. Given that the essence of such operations, commendable as they are, is that the agents not be caught, and as a result of this fact the then secretary of state for external affairs, the Hon. Mitchell Sharp, found it necessary to phone John C. Doyle, of Canadian Javelin fame, who just happened to be the owner or occupier of the apartment, when these agents were caught, could the Solicitor General tell us what ramifications, if any, flowed from this rather embarrassing incident? Is he prepared to say that the McDonald commission was given access to this for evaluation?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, let me begin by saying that I have no knowledge of that particular file, whether it exists or not, and whether it has been accurately described by the hon. member. I would certainly confirm, and it is a matter of public record, that the McDonald commission has been given full access to all the records of the security service of the RCMP and of the whole of the RCMP.


PROCEDURE FOLLOWED IN INTER-DEPARTMENTAL CONSULTATIONS
Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: Madam Speaker, I want to ask the Secretary of State for External Affairs whether, in instances like this where sensitive operations are mounted by the "E" specials or other arms of our security service against foreign embassies-in this case it was the People's Republic of China-there is any prior consultation between his officials and the officials of the department of the Solicitor General to see if these operations are properly mounted, and to give him, or his predecessors, advance warning in case something should go wrong, as was the case in this event?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, without accepting any of the premises of my hon. friend's question with respect to such operations, I can say that it is our practice, certainly, to consult fully among ourselves before taking any significant action as a government.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, I wish to direct my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration. In the last couple of days it has been announced that Algonquin College in Ottawa will probably have to cut its staff by 100 people. This cutback has been occasioned to a large extent as a result of a reduction in the number of seats which the minister's department contracts with the college, particularly for courses such as basic skill training and business. Given the very large number of people in Canada who
are functionally illiterate and need this kind of training, would the minister explain why his department is cutting back these courses at Algonquin College and whether his department is ordering similar cuts in other community colleges across Canada?


Hon. Lloyd Axworthy (Minister of Employment and Immigration):: Madam Speaker, in reply to the hon. member's question, the decision to cut back the basic skills program is a decision Algonquin College is making. It is not one that we are making. We happen to think that the investment in basic skills is a very useful one, and we want to see it continued, but that is a choice being made by Algonquin. However, I can assure the hon. member that in terms of training programs we are maintaining the assistance and the training allowance for the provinces at the same level or at a higher level in the coming year.
As the hon. member knows, each college and the curriculum of each college are determined by provincial authorities. We simply buy the places. In this case I think his question would be better directed toward provincial authorities.


David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, in each of the last five years there have been substantial reductions both in the funding and in the number of people who have been permitted to take the basic skill training or basic education programs. In every city where the parliamentary task force on employment has held hearings, we have had representations made emphasizing these programs and urging the government to increase rather than decrease the funding. Could the minister explain why this situation has occurred when he now says that it is the fault of the provincial government?


Lloyd Axworthy: Madam Speaker, as changes occur in occupational areas, there are different demands for new skills. There has been increasing demand for skills of on-the-job training, skills which can be acquired in the industrial area, not in the institutional area in the experience of our commission. If the hon. member would look at the shift in funding and in the allocation of our funds for the last several years, he will notice that the funds increasingly have been going into the development of technical and manual skills where the demand is highest. This will apply both now and in the future.
We have tried to adapt to changing labour markets instead of being struck with the status quo. That is why we are shifting the allocation of our training skills into those areas where they are most seriously needed.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Keith Penner (Cochrane-Superior):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. As the minister knows, there is a considerable amount of dismay, disappointment and anger on behalf of the
March 26, 1981

James Bay Cree and the Inuit of northern Quebec regarding the way in which the so-called James Bay agreement has been implemented. Could the minister tell us whether he has any plans to introduce a new process or mechanism whereby this important agreement, which was considered to be something of a model, could be fairly and honestly implemented? In addition to that, could the minister tell us whether he would be prepared to accept suggestions and recommendations from the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development which is now carefully studying this very serious and urgent problem?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, to answer the first part of the hon. member's question, I have spoken to my colleague, the Minister of Justice, and we are prepared to review the agreement from the point of view of the implementation aspect in terms of it being adhered to and in terms of the spirit to which the parties entered into the agreement. As far as suggestions from the committee are concerned, yes, we are prepared to entertain the suggestions as they come forward.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
[Stage Direction]
. WEEKLY STATEMENT
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, could the government House leader indicate to us precisely his intentions with respect to government business in the next day or so?
[ Translation]


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, if we do not proceed today with the debate on a motion to allocate a period of time to conclude the debate on the bill authorizing the government to borrow a certain sum of money, a bill which is very urgent and which as everyone knows the Progressive Conservative Party has prevented us from adopting within a reasonable period of time, we will proceed with that motion tomorrow or, I hope, some time next week. As for the rest concerning the normal business of the House of Commons we intend to begin today with the motion to allocate a period of time to put an end to the constitutional debate and, in the next few days, we will debate topics related to the Constitution.


STATUS OF MOTION TO EXTEND SITTINGS DURING DEBATE ON CONSTITUTION
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have a matter for clarification. I refer to Hansard for March 24, 1981. At page 8566 in the second column under "Government Orders", the words appear "Business of the House-Motion to extend sittings during debate on Constitution". Then we read: "On the order: Government Notices of Motions: March 19, 1981-The President of the Privy Council:". There appears
Business of the House
next the text of the motion which is subject, as you know, to a point of order. I raise this matter because I would like the status of the motion clarified.
When the motion was eventually called by the Table, the order was made, according to my recollection of what occurred in the House at that time, but the motion itself was not read. My recollection is that there was no request that it be dispensed with and the only reference on the floor of the House was with respect to the mention of the motion by the Clerk Assistant, and yet the motion appears in Hansard. As I have always understood it, Hansard is a verbatim account or an account of what would have occurred if something had not been dispensed with and there was no dispensation.
I raise this matter because I had a conversation with the Hansard office. That same evening I spoke, you will recall, on the point of order. When I went upstairs to the Hansard office, the person then in charge asked me whether or not that motion had been put in the House. I answered no, to my recollection it had not been put in the House, that although the first Clerk Assistant had just begun his preliminary remarks, no one had put the motion. Although I recall the conversation, I cannot recall the person's name, but in my presence that person called someone I believe in the legal branch of the House. I cannot recollect his name, but I think it is Cooke. The same question was put to him. The answer came back, as related to me, no, the motion had not been put in the House. As a result, the Hansard editor at that time took his pencil and ran it through the blues, from which this seems to be a transcription, striking out.
That becomes important from the point of view of processes which might be within the realm of the authority of the government to use so as to establish the status of the matter. I rise now to bring that to your attention, Madam Speaker. I must confess I have not looked at Votes and Proceedings because I have not yet had a chance, this having just come to my attention.
Given the importance of the subject matter, I think it is important that we have the status of this alleged motion, as it appears on the Order Paper, clarified. It may well mean you will have to consult with the officials of Hansard. There may be another explanation. However, I would like the matter clarified. Are we dealing with a motion that has been called or a motion that has been put? I put that to you, Madam Speaker, on the basis that the authorities of the House dealing with that matter on Tuesday night thought they were dealing with a motion that had only been called.


Madam Speaker:: Is the hon. member rising on the same point? I can answer his question. If the hon. member for Yukon has another question, I will entertain it.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is on the same question, Madam Speaker. You will recall I have raised on several occasions in the past the appearance in Hansard of matters that have not happened in this House, the appearance of words in Hansard that have

March 26, 1981
Business of the House
not been uttered in this House. This is simply another example, and a gross example, I might add. I attribute no responsibility or blame for it; it has happened. In my submission in support of the opposition House leader, I say it should not have happened at all.
My recollection of the events of that day were that the Clerk Assistant very briefly called the subject matter of the motion. By no means did he read it word for word as it now appears in Hansard. At that point, Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre rose, the Chair recognized him and there arose as a result of that an exchange as to the traditional practices, courtesies or whatever of the House. I moved a motion that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton be now heard, the division bells rang, the vote followed its normal course. At no time was the motion read by you, Madam Speaker.
In support of what the opposition House leader has said, not only does the fact that it appears in Hansard now as though it had been put, which it has not, affect the options which are available to the government, but it affects the submissions that the Chair is now in the process of hearing. As you know, Madam Speaker, I am next on my feet on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Depending on whether or not the House is seized of the motion is the direction in which the procedural arguments are going to go, because there are also different options available to the Chair, according to whether or not the House is seized of the motion.
In my submission, Madam Speaker, it leaves you in a much more flexible position to deal with this matter, as Mr. Speaker Michener dealt with a similar situation some years ago, if the House is not seized of the motion. In any event, I do not think there can be any doubt that the motion was not read, that the appearance of the verbatim transcript in Hansard should not be there because it did not happen in this place. I certainly submit to you, Madam Speaker, that your direction on the clarification requested by the opposition House leader should be, in view of the events that have transpired, that the motion has been called but not put.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, if I may, I should like to say a word about this matter. I do so because to my knowledge many times, perhaps scores or hundreds of times, Hansard has had to insert "On the Order:" and then whatever the subject was about. As I say, that has been done hundreds of times.
All that has happened in this case is that Hansard has put something in there so that it would be clear what we were talking about. Members do not get the floor or the right to speak if there is nothing before us; there has to be a point of order, a question of privilege, or some motion that has been moved. All that Hansard is doing in this instance is indicating that the discussion that follows is on the order of that particular motion. The motion is spelled out in Hansard so that readers of Hansard will know what we were talking about. There is no suggestion in Hansard and no suggestion in Votes and Proceedings that the motion was put or dealt with as such.


Erik Nielsen: It wasn't put.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I just said it was not put. If my hon. friends have not looked at Votes and Proceedings, it says:
The Order of the Day for Government Business No. 41 in the name of the President of the Privy Council having been called;
And the Chair having recognized the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles);
Pursuant to Standing Order 29, Mr. Nielsen, seconded by Mr. Kempling, moved,-That the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) be now heard.
The vote is there and so on. If one looks at today's Order Paper, item No. 41, it is the same as it was the other day. There is no suggestion in any of the documents-Hansard, Votes and Proceedings or the Order Paper-that that motion was proceeded with. All that you have in Hansard in the printing of the motion is an indication of what we were talking about on the point of order. I suggest that Hansard is following a practice it has followed for a great many years and that it does not deserve this criticism.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I will start with the last intervention. I would say that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre put it almost as well as I could!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: If the motion appears in Hansard, it is only there for the purpose of members knowing what we were talking about. I want to make it quite clear that the order was called. The fact that it appears in Hansard does not indicate that the question has been proposed. The motion was called. I am now hearing points of order on that motion. In no way does Hansard indicate that the Chair has proposed the motion to the House. It has been called but not proposed.


WEEKLY STATEMENT
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, on several occasions I have asked the President of the Privy Council about certain bills now on the Order Paper. He replied that they have not been called and, in effect, blamed the opposition for holding them up by debating the Constitution. I would ask if he can enlighten the House-that is, when he has time to listen to what I am asking him-whether he is prepared to call some of these other bills or whether the government is prepared to introduce further bills to deal with high interest rates and inflation, which are far more important subjects than whether the BNA Act comes back. After all, it has been in England for 114 years. Actually, it is within his power and that of the government to withdraw the Constitution resolution and proceed to other business which is far more important at this time to this country. We can go back to the other later.
Has he forgotten that people are suffering from the effects of high interest rates and inflation? What is this government going to do about the situation in this country? Does it simply want to make a hero of the Prime Minister so that he can get into the history books?
March 26, 1981


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, may I draw the hon. member's attention to the provisions of Standing Order 18(2)?


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre asked the government House leader about House business. The government House leader said something about dealing with Bill C-59, the borrowing authority bill, today or maybe tomorrow. Would he be more specific as to whether he intends to call Bill C-59 today on government orders, or is he intending to call it tomorrow? When exactly does he intend to call that bill?


Yvon Pinard: As I said earlier, Madam Speaker, there is a certain urgency in proceeding with the report stage and third reading of Bill C-59. It may be recalled that we began the report stage last Friday and that the official opposition party introduced an amendment. It has become a tradition in the House that this type of bill to authorize the government to borrow a certain sum of money has to be debated for a limited time so it can be adopted. That was done when the Progressive Conservative government was in office and that is done practically every year. We had to do that to refer the bill to committee. When we reached the report stage we thought we could have final passage last Friday. But given the circumstances where the opposition would rather bring Parliament to a standstill, we were unable to complete third reading of that bill on that day. Therefore my answer to the questions of the hon. member cannot be more precise. We have been forced to serve notice that the debate at the report stage and on third reading will be limited to two additional days, that is one day per stage, and that notice was given yesterday. We are now in a position to move a motion to that effect, which will require two hours of debate, and then two additional days will be devoted to complete the study of that bill which should normally have been adopted in a few hours had the hon. member's party given us a minimum of co-operation.
He is asking me to tell him precisely when we will proceed with that study. I can assure him that we will do so as soon as possible after the House has approved the motion to grant two additional days for debate.


Madam Speaker:: I would like to recognize only those members who rise on government business. I will recognize others later on.


Mr. Stevens:: Madam Speaker, I have no alternative but to reply to what the President of the Privy Council has just said. I spoke on that bill and I resent greatly being told that I was an obstructionist. The fact is it involves $14 billion of borrowing, yet the government House leader has the audacity to tell us
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
that two hours should be sufficient. He is talking about $7 billion an hour.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: That may have been a point of order but I doubt that it was a question on government business.


Mr. Domm:: Madam Speaker, this arises from the discussion yesterday where you said that my point was well taken but the minister was not here to respond. I would like to draw the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs' attention to the answer he gave as recorded in Hansard for March 24 and-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I asked that only those members wanting to discuss government business rise at this time because I have other matters to deal with.


PRIVILEGE
Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege involves the illegal use of government funds by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) which I submit directly affects my rights and responsibilities as a Member of Parliament and impairs my ability to carry out the duties expected of me. It has to do with a question responded to by the minister, but by no other government departments as yet, concerning the establishment of political offices in certain ridings with no sitting Liberal member.
My question appears in Hansard of March 9, 1981, at page 8026, and the relevant portion is paragraph 4(a):
4. (a) What is the rent paid for the office of the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development situated at 307 Jarvis Street in the City of Whitehorse, Yukon (b) who is the landlord of the building (c) what is the salary being paid to the so-called ministerial assistant (d) what other staff is being hired and at what salary (e) what is the purpose in establishing such an office?
Then paragraph (5) reads:
Are other similar offices being set up in other constituencies where there is no Liberal Member of Parliament?
The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) responded on the same page that the rental was $7,560 per year; the landlord was Davos Holdings Limited. Part (b) of my question was answered by saying that in so far as the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development is concerned, the salary being paid was $17,549 to $20,321. Part (d) was answered by saying no other staff was employed.
Coming to part (e), the central portion of the question which I would like the Chair to consider, it reads:
The purpose of the office in Yukon is to provide a direct communication link to the minister's office in Ottawa, to allow Yukoners the same access to the minister of IAND as is provided to other Canadians, to facilitate more consultation with Yukoners on matters that affect them and to expedite the early

March 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
resolution of concerns that may develop in respect to DIAND responsibilities in the north.
The fact is, Madam Speaker, that the Commissioner, the senior civil servant appointed by the minister, is responsible for co-ordinating the efforts of almost 3,500 federal and territorial civil servants in Yukon, as if that were not enough communication to the minister's office. If he establishes an office for the purpose of giving Yukoners the same access to the minister as other Canadians, what is the purpose of the Commissioner being appointed at all? What is he doing? He has a director of northern affairs responsible for almost 1,000 federal civil servants in Yukon, 1,000 direct links to his department, to say nothing of the director of northern affairs he appoints.
In short, Madam Speaker, the minister has established, in precedent-setting circumstances, a political office in Yukon. It is nothing less than that. It will be noted that the office was established in privately-leased premises, not in government quarters. It performs only the functions of an ordinary constituency office. This House makes a generous allowance to me, in my opinion, for the operation of a constituency office. The taxpayers have to bear that burden. It also provides a generous allowance for staffing that office. The individual who has staffed that office since its creation, I believe in 1972, has been providing a most adequate service to my constituents.
Then the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development comes along and establishes a political office for the purpose of undercutting, undermining and eroding my responsibilities. Whether it is myself or anyone else makes no difference; it is legally and morally wrong for the minister to take such a political action and use, as he has, public money to support that operation.
Search as you might in the Treasury Board guidelines for the establishment of ministerial offices, Madam Speaker-and this is something with which you are familiar-you will find no authority for ministers of the Crown to establish ministerial offices in constituencies which they do not represent.
The Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who is in his seat, knows full well, as do you, Madam Speaker, and as does the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy), that they are entitled to establish a ministerial office in their own constituencies so that they might perform their ministerial responsibilities when they are in their constituencies. Similarly, there is provision under Treasury Board guidelines for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development, if he should so choose, to establish a ministerial office in his constituency for the purpose of discharging his ministerial responsibilities, and for that purpose only. But here he has established, going beyond those Treasury Board guidelines, a ministerial office, not only in my constituency, but also one in Yellowknife, according to page 8026 of Hansard, and one in Calgary, Alberta. He now has ministerial offices in places which have literally thousands of public servants to maintain that communications link which he gives as the excuse for establishing those offices.
In my submission, that is an illegal use of public funds; but more important to me is that he is impeding my ability to perform my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament representing that constituency.
I will let the hon. member from the Northwest Territories speak for himself with respect to the Northwest Territories, and those hon. members from Calgary who are here can speak for themselves with respect to the actions of the minister in their constituencies.
I would not be stretching any imagination, nor could I be accused of exaggeration whatsoever, if I asked you, Madam Speaker, to accept the fact that those offices have been established for political purposes. The individual on staff there, who has a salary range of $17,549 to $20,321-which, incidentally, is beyond the salary range which is provided for the hon. member's own staff in that constituency office-is performing exactly the same function that my constituency office and my constituency office secretary have been performing for eight years in a very adequate fashion. It erodes my function; it erodes my effectiveness as a Member of Parliament. Indeed, it creates a political situation which is extremely undesirable.
I am sorry that this matter had to be raised, because only one person staffs that office at the moment. However, if this practice is allowed to continue, then the rights of other hon. members will be affected, as have mine.
I do not know what to propose by way of remedy. The easiest remedy would be for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development to close the office, in Whitehorse and the one in Yellowknife. Because there is no way he can convince any reasonable Member of Parliament that, with
7,000	or 8,000 public employees in the two territories combined, there is not sufficient communication linkage between himself and his departmental officials here in Ottawa. It seems to me that little purpose is served in setting up an office in the private business sectors of these communities and staffing them with individuals of his choice.
If you find, Madam Speaker, that I have an appropriate question of privilege and that the actions of the minister and his illegal use of public funds seriously impair my ability to carry out my responsibilities as a Member of Parliament, I would move the appropriate motion to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. This might be a very wise moment to allow this question to go to the standing committee, before the practice grows, so that a decision could now be made as to whether this kind of practice will be permitted to expand. If the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development can do it, and taken back-to-back with what has happened in Broadview-Green-wood and all the other Ontario and Quebec constituencies, who will be the next minister to set up so-called ministerial offices beyond Treasury Board guidelines in constituencies where no Liberal member is sitting? That, indeed, seems to be the purpose and the practice. It is a practice which, in my own personal submission, should be stopped at the earliest possible moment. Even if you do not accept that personal submission, Madam Speaker, surely the easiest and fairest way to have the
March 26, 1981

matter resolved would be to recognize that there is a question of privilege which should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that the whole matter can be reviewed, to stop at the outset what appears to be a growing and highly undesirable practice by the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have listened carefully to this question of privilege which is now being raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I will listen to a few other hon. members who I have noticed are rising to speak on the question. However, I just want to remind the hon. members of the House that I have already ruled on questions which were very similar and very close to this kind of question of privilege; namely, the erosion of the capacity of an hon. member to function in the face of someone else functioning beside him, parallel, or in some other way.
The present example which the hon. member is submitting is different, on the facts, from the examples on which I have ruled. As far as I can see from the intervention of the hon. member for Yukon, the principles involved are very much the same, and it is on those principles that 1 have previously ruled.
1 will accept that the hon. member is not commenting on a ruling, but I want to ask other hon. members who might be wanting to intervene on this matter to point out to me the privilege and not debate whether one could have an office in the constituency close by one's own. I would like them to tell me where their privilege has been breached. I remind hon. members that privilege must deal with molestation, arrest-


An hon. Member:: Or interference.


Madam Speaker:: -or violence preventing the hon. member from functioning as a member in this House. Those are the basic rules on which a question of privilege can be based.


Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, 1 will not speak for very long on this matter. It is my contention that this is a slight variation on the question upon which you ruled a few weeks ago. You have intimated that, but you are being generous with the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) in allowing further debate.
I submit that the opening of ministerial offices in any part of this country really comprises part of the administrative duties of any government. I am sure that when the hon. member for Yukon was a minister of the Crown offices of the Department of Public Works were located across the country-


An hon. Member:: Not political offices.


David Michael Collenette: -and performed work similar to that which is being done by the office-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The parliamentary secretary is way off line here. He says that I, as minister of public works, would have had ministerial offices throughout the country, and that is absolutely false. Even though I was permitted to have a ministerial office under Treasury Board guidelines, which are quite strict, in my own constituency of Yukon, I did not establish one there because I thought it would be too political to do so. I was probably the only minister in cabinet who did not establish such an office. Maybe there were others, I do not know.


Walter David Baker: I did not either.


Erik Nielsen: But when he accuses me of having ministerial offices all over the country, that is simply false.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I said I would be brief and I will. I would appreciate the courtesy of the hon. member for Yukon, having listened to his argument, rather than raising a point of order and interrupting me somewhat rudely-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


David Michael Collenette: It is my contention, Madam Speaker, that there is nothing unusual about this kind of practice. It falls within the normal ambit of the administrative duties of government. Therefore I think the hon. member for Yukon is really splitting herrings-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: He is pickling them!


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am sorry for taking licence with the English language. Perhaps I have been in the House a little too much listening to the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) putting more meaning into words than they have.
I think the argument is clear. There is no question of privilege; it is really a question of sensitivity on the part of the hon. member for Yukon. The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has special responsibilities for the Northwest Territories and Yukon which fall under the jurisdiction of the federal government.
Second, if you are going to permit further argument, I submit, Madam Speaker, that you should reserve your ruling on this case until the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development appears in the House and chooses to respond. That would be the courteous thing to do.


Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, I will be extremely brief and to the point, unlike the previous speaker. I want to make the specific point that what has happened here is that there are certain facts which are determined and established beyond question. One is that the minister in this instance has breached Treasury Board guidelines with respect to the establishment of ministerial offices. There

Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
is no question of that; it is a fact. He is doing it illegally and there can be no argument about that.
The second point, which I think is germane to the rights and privileges of individual Members of Parliament, is simply, as Your Honour will know, that it has now been established under your direction and control that MPs are allowed to maintain constituency offices for the purpose of serving their own constituents. This is a welcome development of parliamentary practice in our country. What we have here is another aspect of the situation respecting the establishment of these offices, which is also beyond question and cannot be attacked as being anything but a fact, and that is that the purpose of these offices, which are created and established by ministers for political purposes, is to undermine the ability of the member in that region from carrying out his responsibilities toward his constituents.
In other words, the government is attempting, by virtue of these offices, to sidetrack the public from going to see their Member of Parliament. While there has not been any physical molestation in the sense of battering rams or "split herrings", I suggest that what has happened in this instance is that there is an infringement of the ability of a Member of Parliament to carry out his duties. In other words, what is there to prevent a cabinet minister-we have not heard from the cabinet minister responsible for my riding for some time-from opening up an office in my riding or in the riding of my colleague, the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight), in order to undermine our ability as members to deal with our constituents and also impair our ability to represent those constituents in the House?
That is the precise and simple point I want to bring to Your Honour's attention. I think that if one looks at what is involved in this question of privilege, one finds that it consists of the infringement of the ability of a Member of Parliament to carry out his responsibilities in the House of Commons. I say that so long as these illegal political offices are maintained in our constituencies and there are no provisions under Treasury Board guidelines, no governmental decrees and no rules of the House of Commons permitting the opening of such offices because the people who are manning these ministerial offices are members of the House of Commons, they are impeding my ability and the ability of my colleague, the hon. member for Yukon, in carrying out our functions as Members of Parliament.


Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, following on what my colleague, the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn), has said, it seems to me that the question you have to decide is whether or not the various privileges which are established by the House for its members, regardless of party, have any independent value or meaning, or whether they can be undermined or eroded by virtue of the unilateral decision of the government to establish any number of ministerial offices which offer a competing service, which compete directly with the service offered by an MP. As well, there is the question whether the general services which members are encouraged to provide are, in a sense, an extension of
the function of being a Member of Parliament which is worthy of protection, or whether the government can unilaterally establish whatever institutions it chooses politically to establish, thereby rendering virtually meaningless the privileges and rights which the House has decided to establish for all its members-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think I have to ask members not to repeat the argument that there is competition in a particular constituency because a certain office has been established, that office having to be regulated by criteria emanating from the Treasury Board. First, I cannot determine whether or not the regulations of the Treasury Board have been violated, or whether or not the matter in question is illegal. So I ask hon. members not to submit this kind of argument to the Chair because the Chair is not competent to decide it.
As for the matter of competition if another office is located next to a member's office, this matter equally is one which I cannot decide. If the hon. member were able to represent to me, as I thought the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) was going to do, that some physical barrier had been put up in order to prevent his constituents from coming to his office because of the fact that this other office was in existence, perhaps I could have entertained such an argument.
However, I do ask hon. members not to play on words but to come straight to the matter that they feel constitutes a breach of privilege, not repeat arguments which I have already heard; members know that when arguments begin to be repetitive, my inclination is to feel the Chair is sufficiently informed. So I want to remind the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) that I do not believe I can entertain those arguments. If he has other arguments to submit, I will be prepared to listen to them.


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, having heard what you have to say, I do not think there is much point in my continuing my submission. I say that you have to ask yourself how far governments can go in undermining the rights of Members of Parliament by establishing other services. It is a conflict between the unlimited power of government and the rights of MPs which have been established by Parliament itself. If Madam Speaker finds that argument repetitive or unconvincing, I am sorry but there is nothing more I can add.


Mr. Jim Hawkes (Calgary West):: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to be brief. The ministerial office in the Calgary area is staffed by a cabinet minister from the other place. I suggest that the barrier to my ability to represent my constituents and to the ability of other Members of Parliament in their areas is a matter on which there is confusion. When people who reside in that community in fact approach the minister in his office, they believe they are talking with someone who is representing them in the House of Commons. Madam Speaker will know in that particular case that it is not reality. The people feel they are speaking with a member of the House of Commons who can bring their case to this House-
March 26, 1981


Madam Speaker:: I should like to ask the hon. member a question. Is it in any way indicated on the door of that office or printed somewhere else that the hon. member is from the House of Commons? If people believe he is a member of the House of Commons, that is nothing upon which I can act. But does that hon. member indicate anywhere that he is a member of the House of Commons?


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, I have no first hand knowledge of any such sign. On a number of occasions the people who work in my office and myself have been directly informed by a number of individuals that it was the understanding with which they went to the minister's office, and that it took them quite some time to discover that in fact they had talked with someone who was not able to bring their case before Parliament. It might be worthwhile to have that barrier of confusion examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, as the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) suggested.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. In answer to your question to the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), yes, there is confusion in western Canada. When they see a picture of the Hon. Bud Olson spread out and "Alberta's Man" in black letters right across the top of it, they believe that he is their representative in Ottawa.


Madam Speaker:: That was not the object of my remarks, and the hon. member knows it.
Is the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm) seeking the floor on this question of privilege?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I rise on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). The thing which is most disturbing is trying to determine in my mind what is an infringement of my rights as a Member of Parliament in performing my duty in the House and representing my constituents. I will make this intervention a very brief but very sincere one. I have risen on this same question of privilege in other areas where my rights have been infringed respecting my duties to my constituents in my riding.
Let me tell hon. members opposite that this whole matter is like poison ivy; it is spreading all across the country. What is happening in my riding directly ties in with this question of privilege. In my riding of Peterborough, there is a steady stream of correspondence and telephone calls to the acting minister responsible for my riding.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Hon. members opposite can clap and applaud, but it could be their job some day. There is an erosion of our responsibilities as Members of Parliament by this kind of action.


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


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Let me give some examples to which, perhaps, members opposite may care to listen. What happens when people come to ministers responsible for ridings which they were not elected to represent is not always good. It is bad, because these ministers who are supposed to be responsible for the riding of Peterborough lose more than they win. What has the Minister of Public Works (Mr. Cosgrove) ever done for Peterborough? He lost Parks Canada, he lost Eldorado Nuclear, he lost the de Havilland Dash-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is debating this question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: He has not yet brought forward one argument which is pertinent to the question of privilege. If he does not do so very soon, I will have to say that I have heard enough from him.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Thank you for your patience, Madam Speaker. As the matter pertains to my ability to serve my constituents, I do not feel members opposite have to run into my riding like a gestapo group and nail up a sign on my office door which says: "Do not visit the Member of Parliament for Peterborough; go down the street and visit the minister responsible." The point is: Where do we draw the line?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Members opposite are applauding. They would like to go into those ridings, so that they can win more things for them and gain those seats. In reality-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Otto John Jelinek: They are proving their point.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: They are just proving their point. Madam Speaker must be aware of the fact by now that these members are actually gloating in glory of the fact that they can walk into these ridings, gain prominence and importance, and win security in future elections. Well, they will never win any security in future elections if they lose everything when they intervene. We had more going for us when we were in government than they have ever brought to Peterborough since they started this practice.
If Madam Speaker does not see anything in this question of privilege which is eroding my responsibility to my constituents, then I suggest your Honour should review why my constituents are now writing to and telephoning directly cabinet ministers from other ridings who are responsible-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Listen, this is what is happening; it could happen in your riding. You will not always sit in government over there. You will be in the opposition some day, and you will stand up and say, "We do not want this government setting up offices in our ridings."

March 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must call the hon. member back to order for two reasons. First, he is discussing a political matter; second, as he knows he must talk in the third person. It is not easy, but he must keep to that.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, it is a very political matter. I will try to address my remarks to you directly.
The question we are discussing is whether the minister is responsible for the riding of Peterborough. I am not deviating from the subject. The minister responsible for the riding of Peterborough has been a complete disaster.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I ask you, as the Speaker of the House, to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections in order that I will be given the opportunity, as a backbencher in the House of Commons, to go before that committee to plead the case that, when constituents elect Members of Parliament, they expect those Members of Parliament to represent them here in Ottawa.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: With all due sympathy for the groans and moans of the government opposite over its concern about what it obviously feels is an infringement of our rights, I would beg Your Honour to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that we do not have to take up hours in the House of Commons arguing what is purely and simply an infringement of our rights as Members of Parliament. I cannot function and represent my people with the interference of cabinet ministers who get nothing for Peterborough. I cannot operate in my riding with the interference of ministers who are not responsible for the riding in which they are interfering.
It will not work. The sooner we get this matter before the committee so we can present our case without time limitation, as is the case in the House of Commons, the sooner Madam Speaker will satisfy hon. members of the opposition that their privileges are not being infringed by ministerial offices being opened in ridings ministers were not elected to represent, or by regional ministers representing other members' constituencies and doing a lousy job of it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) want to speak on this question?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to give you an authority.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, but I am afraid after that I will have to cut off the debate.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, if I may say so, what is really at issue here is the question of equality
among members. Any time we deal with the Standing Orders of the House, any time we deal with Parliament's traditions, precedents, or what have you, we deal with the question of the equal treatment of members in terms of their privileges-their right to speak and to represent.
This is really the issue, and it arises in a couple of ways. After a long period of effort through the work of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, the House created constituency offices, at a great deal of public expense, so that Members of Parliament for respective ridings in Canada could serve the people. I think they could serve them and represent them in accordance with all of the traditions of parliamentary democracy as we understand it. Therefore, it is not just a matter of the government dealing with an issue because it has a majority; I will be arguing a point with respect to that shortly. It is Parliament which established these offices, which set stringent rules saying, for instance, that offices could not be used for political purposes. I stress, they could not be used for political purposes.
The allegation, of course, is that ministers are in fact infringing on this whole aspect of the equality of each of us as Members of Parliament, whether ministers or private members-no one is a backbencher. Ministers are infringing on this question of privacy, whether we are dealing with matters of tradition, custom or rules of order. I think that is the principle. The fact is, rules of order are only a part of what makes Parliament work; the other parts are customs, traditions and precedents which are set forth. These are precedents which we build over a period of time, like the provision for constituency offices.
Beauchesne's fourth edition has this to say:
The principles that lie at the basis of English parliamentary law, as Bourinot so aptly says, are: 'to protect a minority and restrain the improvidence or tyranny of a majority'.
It is not sufficient to say that it is not contained in the Standing Orders of this House. That is not what Bourinot says nor is it what Beauchesne says. It is not what Erskine May talks about in his learned treatises on parliamentary democracy. We talk about customs, traditions and precedents. If you translate that document, which applies to every aspect of our lives as Members of Parliament, and apply it to what is being done, as described by the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm), the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), you see that there is an expenditure of public money and, in fact, an imposition on that aspect of equality, the aspect of the representative part of the life of a Member of Parliament. It is wrong. If it infringes on Treasury Board guidelines, as someone said, then it is more wrong than absolutely wrong. It is illegal.
I say with respect, Madam Speaker, that I cannot conceive how this could not be an appropriate subject for consideration by a committee of this House of Commons. Traditionally, that committee is the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
March 26, 1981


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: We increased the allowance.


Walter David Baker: As my hon. friend from Annapolis says, the matter of these constituency offices was before the members' services committee yesterday. Therefore, the Elouse is seized of it in the committee structure of the House of Commons. I think that is very important.
The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) at one time in the course of an argument said something which is applicable here. He said:
If any attempt is made to change the rules of this House and to do it in a manner which destroys that equality and gives the government not only the force of its majority, but the force of the rules-
The government is being given the force of the rules, since rules established a constituency office. The rights given by those rules are being affected in the sense that they are being diminished by the establishment of those offices. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre went on to say:
-we have gone completely contrary to the basic principle of parliamentary procedure on which this House relies.
Every custom, every tradition and every precedent that we have quoted here before speaks to fairness, equality and even-handedness. When the House has attempted to make that member equal in his work as a Member of Parliament, whether he is a minister, a former minister, a parliamentary secretary or a private member, then 1 suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the customs, traditions and rules-small "r" or large "R"-are being affected by this action of the government.
1 put that to you, Madam Speaker, because I felt I had to give you something to rely on from the point of view of traditions and precedents of Parliament. I think they are important. We raised this matter the other day, we have raised it today, and we may raise it later on in the debate from the point of view of the protection of those traditions and precedents. The argument I tried to make the other night applies in so many ways.
You, Madam Speaker, have the unique position of being the first Commoner to be the protector of those rights, freedoms and traditions and to take the Standing Orders and interpret them. I say that, with respect, having regard to the traditions of fairness and equality and the precedents and history of this place. Some people may say this institution is archaic, and maybe in a way it is, but those things grew up over time. They were fought for and argued about. They were gained, in an historical sense, against the wishes of people in other days who themselves thought that only the majority counted, that only power counted. This House of Commons is something else. It is not-


Madam Speaker:: I believe the hon. member is debating the question as though I had decided there was a prima facie case. The debate on that question should take place once I have decided whether there is a case of privilege or not. I would like the hon. member to restrict himself to the area in which he thinks the privilege lies.


Walter David Baker: I conclude, Madam Speaker, by referring to the history of it all, since it relates to the very
Privilege-Mr. Nielsen
issue which you are deciding. Under the rules, customs and traditions of this Parliament, the point you must decide is whether it is appropriate and fair. You cannot decide on any other basis. If custom, tradition and precedent mean anything at all, then I say, with respect, that you cannot decide on any other basis. If there is any doubt, then the doubt must be resolved in favour of Parliament, in favour of the parliamentarian, not in favour of the government. The job of this Parliament is not to be the handmaiden of the government; the job of this Parliament is to make the government accountable.
I respectfully suggest that there are usages creeping into our practice which make me think that the reverse may be true. We must look to you, Madam Speaker. On the question of fairness under the rules broadly interpreted, as I have indicated I think they should be-and I say this with respect-there is a point of privilege here. It is time this matter was examined. It is particularly important that it be examined, because of the issues being raised with respect to the ability of Members of Parliament to represent the people who sent them here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I think I can now cut off the debate on this particular question. I have heard several interveners on this matter. I will reserve on this matter since the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) is not in the House. I think he should be allowed to reply, if he so desires-and I do not know whether he does. But I must give him a chance to reply.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker, with respect to why I think this question is relevant and comes within your domain. I speak as a member of the members' services committee which yesterday approved the recommendation of the Commissioners of Internal Economy. We have approved the fourth and fifth report of that committee increasing the allowances to constituency offices by $1,000. We increased it by $1,000 from $2,500. Anyway, Madam Speaker, you know what I am talking about and I do not have the minute before me. I listened to the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen). I was not going to participate in the debate but I thought the remarks of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae)-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member have a point of order?


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: My point of order is that this matter has a very insidious aspect. I am not talking about power. I am not repeating the argument of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm). I am talking about the power of the purse.


Some hon. Members:: Order!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The order is the whole reason that this chamber was established. Something no one has mentioned yet is the power of the purse. If you marry these two things, the fundamental power of the purse is why we are here to begin with, not legislation or government-

Privilege-Mr. Friesen


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously arguing the question. I have said that I will reserve on this matter. The hon. member has told the House that the expenses allowed for constituency offices have been increased, and that is true-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: But I have not finished that sentence!


Madam Speaker:: That should be helpful to the hon. member rather than otherwise. However, the debate is closed on this particular point.
I shall now hear the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) on a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order.


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


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, in one sentence, I simply want to inform you that, because of the importance and relevance of those guidelines, I will be obtaining a copy of Treasury Board guidelines for the establishment of ministerial offices. I shall provide you with that copy so that it might be considered when you are considering the whole question.


Madam Speaker:: That might be helpful and I thank the hon. member. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta on a question of privilege.


MR. FRIESEN-USE OF CONSTITUENCY OFFICES
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which touches upon the privileges of all members of the House. I believe that when Your Honour has heard the evidence that I shall present, you will find there is a prima facie case of privilege.
It has always been my contention, and I am sure it is the belief of all members of the House, that we were elected to serve not only those people who voted for us but those who voted against us, as well as those who did not vote at all.
It is understandable that, after a hard fought campaign with emotions running high, some people might feel some reserve or hesitation about having a meeting with their Member of Parliament if he or she is not of the same political persuasion. That is unfortunate, but there is that possibility. It is therefore all the more important for an MP to serve all constituents. We must remove every possible impediment which might discourage citizens from seeking our help. Therefore, it is imperative that constituency offices do not advertise the political affiliation of the member who occupies that office.
My question of privilege arises out of impropriety on the part of some members of this House in the use of the services provided to them by the House of Commons and the privileges associated therewith, so that they might better discharge their responsibilities to their constituents as the Member of Parliament for that constituency.
The actions of these members, whether deliberate or not, have called into question the ability of all other members to serve their constituents in as non-political a way as possible when dealing with case work, and possibly have misled constituents into believing that one political party, rather than the elected member of that electoral district, represents them in the House of Commons.
Furthermore, and most important, it is against the rules established by the House of Commons under the guidelines, "Allowances and Services" to use the services in any other way for the constituency office. I quote Section 8, paragraph 9 as follows:
The constituency office may not be used by electoral campaign committees and may not be located in political party headquarters.
This regulation finds its authority under the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services, as provided by Standing Order 65(l)(s).


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are well acquainted with the rules governing the services which they can offer their constituents. I should like the hon. member to tell me the point that he is trying to develop. Who has breached what rule, and is it a rule of the House of Commons? I have to remind the hon. member that the rules governing these services are policed by members themselves, who delegate that authority to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. I do not know at this point, but this might not be properly addressed to the Chair.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I would refer you to the telephone directory for the lower mainland of British Columbia. On page 820 there appears in bold face type the heading, "New Democratic Party of B.C." Under that heading is listed the NDP office of Burnaby-Edmonds and all the other provincial constituency offices. Scattered among them is the telephone number of the office of the hon. member for Van-couver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell), with his office address and phone number. When I cross-reference that with his name, Mr. Waddell, 1 find that the address is the same as the number listed under the New Democratic Party of B.C. and the telephone number is the same. I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the constituency office that is used by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway is doubling as the office for the political party.
What is even worse, I see that the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) is functioning in the same way. That office is listed as being at 722-12th Street, New Westminster, phone No. 521-8111. It lists Dennis Cocke MLA at the same address and gives the same phone number. Pauline Jewett is listed at the same address and with the same phone number. I throw in parenthetically, that it does not even mention the other half of her constituency which is Coquitlam, so I take it that it is not represented in that office.
When I cross-referenced the telephone directory, I found that under her private listing she has an office address and an office phone number which, coincidentally, happen to be the same as the NDP office on 12th Street in New Westminster.
March 26, 1981

Moving over to the director-


Bob Rae: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I realize that the definition of filibuster is reading from a telephone book, but I wonder whether it might not be in keeping with parliamentary practice and courtesy, if the hon. member has a point which he wishes to address concerning the practices of certain Members of Parliament, to give notice to those members. This would allow them to be in the House when he raises a question.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I would direct the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood to the fact that I was just going to the telephone directory for the city of Winnipeg. I see that the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) is here. At page 437 of the Winnipeg telephone directory, under "New Democratic Party", there appears "Winnipeg North Centre, 1036 Notre Dame", with the telephone No. 722-5795. Or is it 6795?


Stanley Howard Knowles: It is 775-1019.


Benno Friesen: As I cross-reference I find that he is also listed under his name at 1036-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have to interrupt the hon. member. He has not even mentioned the word "privilege" yet. From what he has said until now, I think this is obviously a question that has to be dealt with in other circumstances. This is not a question for the Chair to decide as Speaker of this House. This has to do with the rules which are policed by members themselves through the competence of the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. If the hon. member is not satisfied with the way these rules are being applied or with the way the rules are set down, then he can submit his case to the particular committee and hon. members can correct whatever he feels is not done properly. I cannot hear him along the line of his argument and the facts he has advanced up until now. Unless the hon. member now goes directly to a question of privilege very well framed, I will have to disallow his question.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I began by saying that I was rising on a question of privilege. My question of privilege arises from the regulations and the rules established by this House that constituency offices may not be used as electoral campaign committees and may not be located in political party headquarters. I was going through the references which indicate-


Madam Speaker:: Order. These rules are not established by the House. They are established by the members and pertain to their constituency function. These are not rules of the House.
Privilege-Mr. Friesen


Mr. Elzinga:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. It has always been my understanding that this committee reports directly to you. The ultimate decision and the ultimate responsibility for carrying out these regulations pertaining to the House of Commons falls under your jurisdiction.
In my humble opinion, Your Honour, in all fairness to the hon. member, he should have an opportunity to present his case, and after hearing his case I think you will be in a better position to give a fair judgment as to whether or not he does have a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I have been listening to the hon. member's case now for about ten minutes, and after hearing his case for this period of time I feel this matter should be brought before the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services.
That committee does not report to me. It advises me. I appear before it on occasion when members want to transmit to me some of the things they might want. The Speaker then gets authority through discussions with the Commissioners of Internal Economy. That point has to be quite clear. I do not think the hon. member is dealing with a question that should be dealt with here in this House.
The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am already hearing a question of privilege. I could entertain a point of order, but as I am seized with a question of privilege, I have to deal with it before I can hear another one.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I have a question of personal privilege arising out of what the hon. member said in his reference to me.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, in the debate on the question of privilege preceding this one, one of the long and serious arguments which you heard was that each of the offices had to establish its own independence. I remember members of the New Democratic Party arguing this very point, that the government ought not to use tax dollars to establish offices that are separate from those of Members of Parliament.
It seems to me that if we find that tax dollars are being used to help political parties, we have to have recourse somewhere, and I appeal to you, Madam Speaker, to hear this question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member's recourse is to the Standing Committee on Management and Members' Services. Therefore, I have to rule out that question for consideration as a question of privilege.

March 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Knowles
1 will hear now the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who has asked to be heard on a question of personal privilege.


MR. KNOWLES-REMARKS OF MR. FRIESEN RESPECTING USE OF WINNIPEG CONSTITUENCY OFFICE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I ask to be heard on a question of personal privilege. The hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen) has made a general reference to Manitoba and the only Manitoba member to whom he has referred is the member for Winnipeg North Centre. He did not get around to it, but he is implying that I am responsible for accepting tax dollars for premises used for political purposes as well as for my constituency office.
I strongly suggest to the hon. member that he ascertain his facts before he makes a scurrilous charge such as that.
You do not know it, Madam Speaker, but this can be checked with the officers of the House. It is true that my constituency office is in a building that we, the New Democratic Party, own.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Bob Rae: Wait for it, fellows.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Such lack of intelligence really startles me.
The present Clerk, the previous Clerk and all of the officials involved in this matter know that I have insisted, even though I was told I could do otherwise, that because my office is in a building we own I do not want any rent paid by the government at all, and no such rent is paid.
My constituency secretaries, two of them, are paid as we are entitled to have them paid, but there is no rent charged to the Government of Canada.


Mr. Kilgour:: What about the rule?


Stanley Howard Knowles: What rule?


David Kilgour: What about the rule which says you are not supposed to have it in your office?


Stanley Howard Knowles: The rule is that you cannot collect rent for premises which are used for other purposes. I collect no rent at all. I suggest that the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta, if he is the gentleman I believe he is, apologize forthwith.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, maybe the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has not been in his office lately. I would point out to him that the rule does not say "pay rent." The rule says, and I will read it to him-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is continuing to debate this question. I reiterate to the hon. member
that the proper place to deal with this matter, if he does have a case, is in the members' services committee.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has indicated that something has been said or implied, and he used the word "scurrilous" with respect to the hon. member for Surrey-White Rock-North Delta (Mr. Friesen). That is the opinion of the member for Winnipeg North Centre. Coming from a member of his stature in the House, it is a very serious charge.


Mr. Cousineau:: He should have respect for that.


Walter David Baker: Just do not get excited.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: What I want to suggest, given the seriousness of the charge that the hon. member has engaged himself in scurrilous behaviour, is that the member, rightly or wrongly, should be given an opportunity to deal with that charge. I thought he was about to do that, Madam Speaker, and I wonder, therefore, whether he might be allowed to do so.


Madam Speaker:: If my understanding is correct, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) did not accuse the member of being scurrilous. He said there was a scurrilous charge, and that is a different matter. Let us not enter into this kind of debate. It seems to me that the hon. member at the time did not use any unparliamentary language.
I have notice of a question of privilege from the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt).


MR. COSSITT-RIGHT OF MEMBERS TO BE HEARD
Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on what to me is a very serious question of privilege concerning the rights of Members of Parliament to be heard in this chamber. I did not receive this right on a question of privilege that was before the House on Tuesday. It is a similar situation to that which I notice has occurred on several previous occasions. The specific question of privilege raised before the House concerned a matter in which I was directly involved.
First, may I refer to the remarks made Tuesday by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). In reply to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Durham-Northumber-land (Mr. Lawrence) on the so-called Taschereau papers, the Prime Minister directly referred to me twice. I am not saying that he said anything derogatory; I simply mention that I was drawn into the question by having my name mentioned on two occasions. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland also referred in his remarks to the member for Leeds-Grenville, I think on two occasions. So even if I had not wanted to be, I was involved in the question of privilege by having been mentioned a least four times.
March 26, 1981

This is also a matter in which I have been heavily involved over the last three or four years, a fact which I think is generally known to most members of the House. Therefore, 1 believe a breach of my privileges occurred on Tuesday when I was unable to contribute the evidence which I had before me at that time on the matter on which you were about to rule. In some ways it seemed to me that the situation was somewhat like a court where judgment was being given before all the evidence had been heard.
Parliament, as has often been pointed out, is the highest court in the land, but surely such a situation does not apply here. To give just one example, I was in a position on Tuesday to offer absolute evidence that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland was quite correct in stating that he had initiated an investigation into the withholding of the Tas-chereau file, but I did not have that opportunity. I agree with the view the Chair expressed on Tuesday.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. He is offering more comments on precisely the question on which I said the Chair was sufficiently informed. I remind him, as I did the other day, that even if the hon. member feels he has new evidence to bring forward with regard to the substance of the subject, the reason I did not hear him was that he was bringing evidence with regard to the subject being discussed and not to the direct matter of privilege. Today he is offering to bring new evidence as to what the minister did or did not do. That is not pertinent to the question of privilege and I cannot allow him to speak further on the matter. I said I was sufficiently informed. What he must do is raise a new substantive question of privilege. Otherwise I cannot hear him since I cut off debate on that question the other day.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I am not trying to introduce evidence pertaining to something that has happened. I am trying to base my question of privilege on the right of members to speak in this House. I merely cited that as an example. I can cite many other examples. My question of privilege has to do with the right of members to speak in this House.


Madam Speaker:: There is a right to speak in this House, but at that particular time the right of the hon. member to intervene had to be frustrated. It was my duty then to terminate the debate on that particular question because argument had been sufficient. The first intervener had not convinced me there was a question of privilege. Therefore, I thought that other interveners not directly affected by the question of privilege could not further inform me as to where the privilege lay.
Freedom of speech is not absolutely unrestrained in this House. At some point other rules come into play in order to at some point limit the right to speak of an hon. member. That is the way the procedures of this House are organized. Therefore, it is not a right completely unrestrained. If that is what the
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
hon. member is telling me, I have to tell him that I am under a duty to restrain members when 1 feel that other members' privileges are being impeached.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Bearing in mind the remarks you have just made, Madam Speaker, I feel that when a member has been mentioned in the House as being connected with a very serious matter before the House, that member has the right to take a stand on the matter and be heard.
I am not referring specifically to what happened on Tuesday. In another question of privilege before this House a moment ago, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) exercised his right to be heard as a result of having been mentioned. I think I have that same right.
The former member for Prince Albert, the late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker, gave us our present bill of rights. Section 1, subsection (d), guarantees freedom of speech. I agree that freedom of speech does not of itself give us a licence to do anything. However, in the charter of rights resolution before the House, after guaranteeing freedom of speech, Section 31(1) reads:
This charter applies
(a) to the Parliament and Government of Canada and to all matters within the
authority of Parliament-
They may not seem appropriate, but I think the words of Thomas Jefferson are appropriate. He said, "For God's sake, let both sides of the question be heard." That statement really sums up what I am trying to say. I stand to be corrected, but I know of nothing in the rules of the House that prevents me from taking part in a question of privilege in which I have been specifically mentioned.
I cited only one example and perhaps I should not have used that one. However, it is very clear from British parliamentary practice and the traditions of this House that it is the duty of the Chair to protect the rights of members. Part of the protection that should be extended to us is the right to defend ourselves or to reply when our names are mentioned in a question of privilege or point of order, and to say what we think is the truth if we think that something that has been stated is inaccurate.
If we are deprived of that right, we may come to the point where freedom of speech is gone in this chamber. I am certain that is not the wish of the Chair. I am sure it is not the wish of most members in this House, although I can think of a few who would wish that that was so, without mentioning any names or specifics.
I believe I have a legitimate question of privilege. I see nothing in the rules or in Beauchesne which says that a question of privilege should be cut off by the Speaker at a specific point. The Speaker has to make a judgment as to when it should be cut off. However, I have been in this House approximately nine years when two of your predecessors, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux and Mr. Speaker Jerome, were in the chair. When a question of privilege arose pertaining to specific members, pretty well all those members were allowed to comment. There was no restriction.

March 26, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Cossitt
I have noticed recently a tendency to move a little in the other direction. Maybe I am incorrect in the way I am observing it, but with all respect I feel that a tendency in this House to move toward limiting speech rather than to go maybe a little too far in the other direction is not in the best interests of freedom of speech and the rights and privileges of members of this House.


An hon. Member:: What about our privileges?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I hear remarks from the NDP. I do not know what they are saying.


Ian Deans: Why don't we get on with things that are important?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: When I tried to raise the subject of interest rates today, they heckled me. That is not important to them. They do not care about interest rates. They do not care about inflation. They do not care about anything.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: This is not the New Democratic Party; "NDP" stands for "no damn principles."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: You are wasting time.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I cannot conclude if those on my left are going to keep up this barrage of nonsense.


Ian Deans: You concluded years ago.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am still here. I have been here a little longer than the hon. member and I will probably be here when he has gone.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member conclude his question of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Yes, Madam Speaker. If the parlour pinkos to my left will give me permission to do so, I will be glad to attempt to conclude it in a very few words.


An hon. Member:: What are you, the big blue behind?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: 1 do not think a remark such as that is worth the dignity of a reply. The hon. member talks about a blue behind. All they are is blue after what happened in the Ontario election.


Charles Joseph Clark: They are behind too.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: There are other kinds of behinds, like certain animals. I conclude, Madam Speaker, by asking that this matter be given serious consideration. I raise this question not in any way as a severe complaint against the Chair or questioning the judgment of the Chair, but in the interests of members knowing where they can go, cannot go or should go. I ask the Chair to refer it to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that they can consider what limits
they would recommend to this House. Madam Speaker, it is very difficult to talk with this bejabbering over on the left.


Ian Deans: Just keep talking, you are making no sense anyway.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Well, the people of Ontario showed they thought you made no sense.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member was just about to conclude and I am dying to hear that conclusion.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I would not want the Chair to suffer such a fate, even though I might wish it on the gentleman on the left, so I will conclude by saying that I hope this matter will be given consideration and referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: I want to make it quite clear to the hon. member that the determination of a prima facie case of privilege does not necessarily demand a full debate. Nor is it pertinent to submit that, if you can contribute new evidence to the subject which brought forward the question of privilege, that is pertinent to the question itself. I did not establish that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) had a prima facie case of a question of privilege; therefore, the hon. member cannot complain that he was not allowed to speak on it. I could not entertain a question of privilege because quite clearly there was no question of privilege. So I feel that, on the basis of his intervention today, I cannot even think of submitting it to the committee as there is no prima facie case of privilege.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I abide by your decision and I will not pursue the matter further because I also respect the wilting health of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans).


Madam Speaker:: Of course not. The hon. member cannot pursue the matter further because I have ruled on it.


MR. WILSON-NOTICE OF QUESTION TO BE RAISED
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, at the end of yesterday's question period I gave you notice of my intention to raise a question of privilege relating to an answer I had been given. I wanted to relate that answer to answers given to me on several occasions by the same minister concerning the National Energy Program, and particularly with relation to the activities of drilling rigs in Canada.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. While it is true that the hon, member gave me oral notice yesterday of his intentions, that is not sufficient. He has to give me a written statement, which he did not, so I can hear him another time.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I will give you notice in writing for tomorrow.
March 26, 1981


MR. FR1ESEN-USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY LANGUAGE BY MR. KNOWLES
Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of personal privilege arising from the remarks of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who is speaking to his soul mate from-I said "soul mate" not "cell mate".


An hon. Member:: You are a disgusting bunch.


Benno Friesen: Madam Speaker, I intend to refer this matter to the management and members' services committee, but when I rose earlier I was simply reading the regulation that constituency offices may not be located in a political party headquarters. I then proceeded to read-


Madam Speaker:: Order. Those rules are not the rules of the House.


Benno Friesen: I understand that, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Then sit down.


Madam Speaker:: What I do not understand is why the hon. member persists in bringing this question before the House when the whole matter is governed by rules established by members themselves and policed by the committee in question.


Benno Friesen: It was raised, Madam Speaker, and there is no way that should have aroused the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre in the way it did. I would simply refer him to Beauchesne's fifth edition, which he may have had on some occasion an opportunity to read. On page 110 it lists the word "scurrilous" as being considered unparliamentary, a word he used in relation to me and the remarks I made, and I would ask him to withdraw it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, if you direct me to withdraw it, I shall do so and substitute the word "disgusting."


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) for his co-operation.


MR. MAYER-REPLY OF MR. PEPIN DURING QUESTION PERIOD
Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is long-standing and arises partly from an answer I received today during question period from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), who was responsible to this House for the Canadian Wheat Board.
I would like to point out to you, Madam Speaker, that the Canadian Wheat Board is not a government department like other departments. It is not funded out of general tax revenues but, rather, largely by western Canadian producers. We have had many, many problems over a long period of time getting answers to some of the matters raised by our constituents regarding the Canadian Wheat Board.
We now have a situation where the minister responsible for that board does not sit in this House and therefore cannot be
Privilege-Mr. Mayer
responsive to those problems, because by definition a minister from the other place cannot speak in this House.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That does not constitute a question of privilege. The custom of having members sitting in the other place responsible for certain government matters is well established. It has happened in governments of all parties, so that in itself does not constitute a question of privilege.
I would ask the hon. member to state clearly and briefly what his question of privilege is, and it has to be related directly to today's deliberations. The hon. member said "partly"; there is no question of "partly"; it has to be related to the deliberations of today.


Charles James Mayer: Madam Speaker, I asked the Minister of Transport what he was doing to see that there was additional tonnage available for shipping during the current shipping season and, to paraphrase his answer, he said he would have discussions with the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. If this is not a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I appeal to you to give me some direction as to how I can better serve my constituents with regard to the Canadian Wheat Board.
I have documentation in the form of letters to the clerk of the Standing Committee on Agriculture and also the clerk of the Standing Committee on Transport. I have had discussions with and written a letter to the government House leader, asking him to see if he could get the board in front of the appropriate committee so that all members could ask the officials of the Canadian Wheat Board the appropriate questions.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The fact that an hon. member is not satisfied with an answer that he received in the House does not constitute the basis for a question of privilege; that has to be quite clear to hon. members. I cannot allow the hon. member to continue on that particular question of privilege on that basis. I have listened to him for five minutes and I still do not know what the question of privilege is.


Charles James Mayer: With all due respect, it has been a very short five minutes. If it is not a question of privilege, then maybe the Chair can give me some direction. The board is a very large operation in western Canada. The total budget of the Canadian Wheat Board is approximately equal to the total budgets of the provinces of Saskatchewan and Manitoba, yet Wheat Board officials have not appeared in front of a parliamentary committee so that those of us who have constituents-


Madam Speaker:: I am in no way capable of helping the hon. member in this respect. If he wants a particular body to appear before a parliamentary committee, he is perfectly capable of requesting that in the proper place. I have no authority to call witnesses before any committee. I am simply here to apply the rules of the House. The rule that I am applying now is that whatever the hon. member is discussing at this point is not a point of privilege. I cannot hear him any longer if he does not

March 26, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
have a clear question of privilege to present to me. What he has said up until now has nothing to do with privilege. I can help him only by saying that if he wants to help his constituents he can continue to ask questions, to probe or discuss this matter at times when the House is debating these questions, but not through the device of raising a question of privilege.


Charles James Mayer: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, how am I to ask questions of a minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board when he is not present in the House? Can I then give you notice, Madam Speaker, that 1 would like to raise this question as a point of order at a later date?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member may raise a point of order when he wishes to.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am rising on a matter discussed in question period today which dealt with the propriety of the question whether the constitutional resolution should be before the House of Commons at a time when the Supreme Court of Canada is seized with a question having to do with that very resolution.
The House will recall that in an exchange earlier today I asked if the Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) would respect the rules of this House and the traditions of the Supreme Court of Canada and withdraw the resolution until the matter with which the court has now been seized is resolved. The Prime Minister, while not answering my question, invited me to present the case in the House of Commons before yourself, Madam Speaker, as to whether it is appropriate to have simultaneous consideration of the constitutional resolution by the Supreme Court of Canada and the House of Commons.
I am now responding to that invitation by the Prime Minister to argue that point of order, to argue that it is inappropriate for these two institutions, under our rules and practices, to be simultaneously considering the same question.
At the time of the publication of the government resolution on the Constitution, there were a number of objections raised by a number of provinces. Certain provinces brought three specific questions before the Manitoba Court of Appeal. Those questions began to be heard in early December, I believe. The deliberations proceeded, and the decision handed down showed a three to two decision against the province of Manitoba and the other provinces which were raising questions regarding the legality of the constitutional resolution. Hon. members of the House who paid attention to that constitutional matter will remember that the justices in that court were very evenly divided because there were some very real questions of law which remained to be resolved. As a consequence of that decision, an appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Canada by the government of Manitoba and others. That
appeal was accepted by the Supreme Court of Canada and that court now stands seized with the same constitutional question on the resolution which is now before the House of Commons.
The matter which must be considered and decided by the Chair is whether it is appropriate, under the rules relating to questions which are sub judice, for this House of Commons to be considering a matter which is under challenge, which is under consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada. It may well be that an attempt will be made by the justices of the Supreme Court to have priority given to that question so that there can be a speedy dispatch of the appeal now before it. That matter is out of our hands, although it is my understanding that efforts will be made to ensure that it will come before the Supreme court with some dispatch.
In this House we have dealt with questions pertinent to the rule that matters which are sub judice-before the courts- cannot be discussed here in the House of Commons. It is a rule with some specific applications, but it has never been raised in the precise circumstances that I intend to raise today. I will come to that later in my argument.
Very frequently, questions have not been allowed to be put in the House because those questions were before the courts. On other occasions, there have been actions which the House wanted to take but was precluded from taking because those matters were before the courts. The basic principle is set out in Beauchesne's Parliamentary Rules and Forms, which I quoted earlier today, citation 338(4). I will read that citation and then emphasize the particular principle which is most important. That citation says:
The reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament. If the constitutional situation of human rights is submitted to the Supreme Court, it thereby becomes sub judice and cannot be considered by a committee of the House until the court has given its decision. The question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.
I repeat, the question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Charles Joseph Clark: An hon. member of the New Democratic Party says "nonsense". He is the hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood (Mr. Rae). Perhaps he will write his own edition of parliamentary rules and forms-


An hon. Member:: What you are saying is constitutional nonsense.


Charles Joseph Clark: Most of us prefer Beauchesne to the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: If he were to associate himself with Beauchesne on constitutional matters, he would be in better company with constitutional matters than he has been in some of his more recent associations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 26, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: The Beauchesne reference which I have just cited, Section 338(4), entered into the categorization and writing of the rules of Parliament as a result of a decision of this House on April 12, 1948. At that time, an attempt was made to move a motion that a committee of the House consider a matter which was then before the courts. The ruling which I have just cited initiated this practice of the Parliament of Canada. It was introduced into our rules and forms as a result of that decision of Parliament in 1948.
The purpose of that rule is clearly spelled out in the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, page 427, in the paragraph relating to matters pending judicial decision. I think it is important to draw the attention of the Chair to the purpose for which that rule exists, which is quite concisely stated as follows:
the Chair should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceeding;-
That is to say, prejudice to the proceedings before the courts.
I want to underline the point that there is clearly a danger to the proceedings now before the Supreme Court. If this government is allowed to proceed with the resolution in the way it intends, rushing it through by closure, then the question under consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada will be removed from the jurisdiction of Canada and sent to another country. I cannot think of a more dramatic danger than to have that question taken out of a court in Canada and sent to another country by the Parliament of Canada. That is the intention of the-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: I would ask Your Honour to bear the purpose of this rule in mind when you are considering your judgment later.
In his answer to me in the House, the Prime Minister indicated that the rule would only apply if there was a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I think he was trying to say that the Government of Canada had not made direct reference of the constitutionality of the resolution to the Supreme Court of Canada. The House will recall that many of us thought it would have been more appropriate, more direct and more respectful of Canadian judicial institutions if there had been that kind of reference, but there was not.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but I must now interrupt the hon. member to read the proceedings on the adjournment motion.
Business of the House



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster)-Energy-Delay in construction of tar sands plants; the hon. member for Hamilton West (Mr. Hudecki)-Nuclear energy-Safeguards respecting sales of nuclear reactors; the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly)-Corporate Affairs-Delay in introduction of legislation.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Since there seem to be so many points to raise today and since the one which the Leader of the Opposition has raised just now is of great importance, I wonder if there would be unanimous consent to dispensing with private members' hour today so that we can carry on with the matters in which my friends are so deeply interested.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, normally I would agree to that, except for the fact that there are a couple of matters which, I gather from speaking to one of my colleagues, are of some urgency and on which the government intends to move. One of the matters is in the hands of the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, which I think we can dispose of quite quickly.


Stanley Howard Knowles: That will take only two minutes.


Walter David Baker: I have to say this because normally my friend is the defender of private members' business. There is also another member who feels he may have a point which he wants to raise. He might be able to withdraw it, but I do not believe I could ask the hon. member on the other side to withdraw his motion if he wishes to proceed. In any event, I think it is important that, notwithstanding these things, the rights of private members be respected. That is why I wanted to rise and explain the circumstances.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I should say that we are in perfect agreement with the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to continue the point of order. On the other hand, I do ascribe to the point of view outlined by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton because Bill S-16 in the name of the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills, a private member's private bill, is somewhat urgent. So I suggest, with all due respect, Madam Speaker, that perhaps we could, by unanimous consent, deal with that private bill and then dispense with the balance of private members' hour and continue with the point of order.

March 26, 1981
Committee Reports


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to this suggestion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: There is not unanimous consent.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: It being five o'clock, the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper.


David Michael Collenette: I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, because I know that today we are dealing with notices of motions for the production of papers as listed on today's Order Paper. As was stated a few minutes ago by me and by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, we do have a rather urgent matter to deal with, namely Bill S-16, which is a private member's private bill in the name of the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills. If it is the disposition of this House to give consent, we should proceed with that bill at this stage and then we can revert to notices of motions for the production of papers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. My information is that Bill S-16 has not been reported from committee.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I am sorry, I was coming to that. The bill has not been presented by the chairman, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier, but he is prepared to do so now with the consent of the House so that we can move to the other stages of the bill.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House that the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier shall have leave to present the report of the committee?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS

[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

[Stage Direction]
Fifth report of Standing Committee on Miscellaneous Private Bills and Standing Orders-Mr. Gauthier.
[Editor's Note: For text of above report, see today's Votes and Proceedings.]

Mr. Blaine A. Thacker (Lethbridge-Foothills) moved: that Bill S-16, respecting the President of the Lethbridge Stake of the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, be concurred in.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Deputy Speaker:: When shall the bill be read the third time? By leave, now?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Blaine Allen Thacker: that the bill be read the third time and do pass.
He said: Mr. Speaker, I want to thank in particular those hon. members who attended the committee yesterday on a rather urgent basis to hear the debate on this bill at the committee stage. I offer my special thanks to the chairman of the committee, the hon. member for Ottawa-Vanier (Mr. Gauthier), for the extraordinary efforts he made on behalf of my parliamentary agent and the members of the church.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Motion agreed to and bill read the third time and passed.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The House will now proceed to private members' business as listed on today's Order Paper, namely, notices of motions (papers), private bills, public bills.
There being no items on the Order Paper under the heading of private bills, the House will proceed to notices of motions (papers).


PRIVATE MEMBERS' MOTIONS FOR PAPERS
Thomas Charles Cossitt: That an order of the House do issue for copies of all correspondence, notes, minutes of meetings and other communications relating to the decentralization of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the province of Prince Edward Island.
He said: Mr. Speaker, naturally one hesitates to proceed with this subject in view of the untimely death of the former minister to whose riding this institution was moved. Therefore, it is difficult to proceed, but I hope that anything I say will not be taken as criticism of any kind of the former minister or of anything he may have done, because I know that on all sides of the House we regarded him as one of the finest members of this chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 26, 1981


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It has been my contention since the beginning that decentralization and moving these institutions out of Ottawa makes sense sometimes but does not make sense at other times. This was one of the times it definitely did not. It was a case where it appeared as if the government of the day was moving a very important cog in government machinery to a riding it was afraid it would lose in a subsequent election. It was moved there to prop up the cause of the Liberal Party. That was a pretty poor reason, when the government had facilities in Ottawa which were not inadequate, or could have been enlarged if they were slightly inadequate, at much less expense than taking a whole institution down to the province of Prince Edward Island.
O)
Of course, the biggest problem was created for the veterans of Canada, who found that the service they were receiving from the Department of Veterans Affairs would be cut down because in effect they would be communicating with the extreme end of the country rather than the centre. Through all its branches in Canada and through its national executive, the Canadian Legion strongly opposed this move, but the government failed to listen in any way to the representations of the Canadian Legion on this matter. Also the government failed to listen to the representations of the opposition and went ahead on the basis of a straight political consideration.
Political consideration and taxpayers' funds should not be equated together. Unfortunately there has been too much of a history in the country, particularly with some administrations, of equating the two together, of using public funds to further political considerations. In my opinion, the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs to the maritimes was a straight case of political consideration, rather than service to the veterans or proper expenditure of money by the government on behalf of the taxpayers of Canada.
I presume the matter stands now as a fait accompli; it has got to the point of no return. There is no way this matter can actually be stopped without a great deal more expense to the Canadian government and to the taxpayers of Canada.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) but I would ask his indulgence for a minute before he closes off the debate on this notice of motion.
The normal courtesy in private members' hour and business in the House requires the co-operation of all parties. It is usual to ask each member whether he or she wishes to proceed with a private member's bill or notice of motion for the production of papers. We had already asked the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and other members if they wished to proceed today and we had not got agreement. As Mr. Speaker will note, the order for today's discussion should have been order No. 32 in the name of my colleague, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert). I draw Mr. Speaker's attention to the fact that we have a terrible breach of courtesy here this afternoon.
Veterans Affairs


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, I find what the parliamentary secretary just said confusing. Perhaps I should ask him to elaborate. Nobody consulted me as to whether this motion should be or should not be heard today. When I came into the House, I suddenly found that it was there. I am just wondering what the parliamentary secretary is getting at. He has left the chamber, but I am sure someone will inform him of what I say.
Many weeks ago I received a telephone call from someone whose name I do not even recall but who claimed to be a member of the Privy Council office; he was wondering if I wanted to proceed at that time. At that time the minister had just died, so I said that it would be rather untimely to proceed the week after the minister was buried, that it would be taken as being offensive. I did not want to proceed at that time for that reason, obviously it would be most inappropriate.
I did not know that it was on the Order Paper today. Perhaps it is my fault for not looking at that section of the Order Paper until about five minutes before I was called upon to speak. I was prepared to go ahead, even though I must say that much of the material I would use is in my office. I did not receive the courtesy of notification from the government that it was its intention to call this motion today.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. parliamentary secretary does not have a point of order. The Chair has observed the rules; the item is on the Order Paper. Any arrangements made individually by members outside of the House are not recorded in decisions of the House. They are private matters; they do not concern the Chair.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker can rule as to whether or not this was a point of order but, as I said, it requires a certain amount of co-operation for private members' business to operate in this place. As we have just seen from the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker), we usually co-operate in a very fair and equitable manner.
I have been informed that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville notified the government-and we have to organize these debates-of his intention to withdraw this motion from the Order Paper. He did not do so, but I would like that on the record because he has gone back on his word.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: This is not a point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: 1 ask the parliamentary secretary to withdraw his remark that I have gone back on my word. In other words, he is calling me a liar. I consider that unparliamentary, and I am not prepared to accept it.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has listened carefully to the language used. There are certain expressions which are unparliamentary, such as the one to which the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville referred. But with all due respect

March 26, 1981
Veterans Affairs
to hon. members, the Chair has not heard that expression used and would invite hon. members, in the circumstances, to come back to the item before us.
Is the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) rising on a point of order?


Mr. Herbert:: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is really a question for clarification, so that there will be no misunderstanding. Certainly my understanding was that my motion was to be called today, but I will not dispute that at this moment. What I do want to ask-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The Chair has recognized a certain order of business. We are proceeding in a routine way with an order of business. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has the floor.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, on a point of order-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member is not establishing a point of order by referring to arrangements which may or may not have been made in other ways.


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I want to ask a direct question. Because the hon. member who is presently speaking introduced his motion, can we establish, as we are proceeding now, that he is in effect allowed to speak for the balance of five minutes, at which point in time there will be a reply from the government of five minutes, at which point the motion will be called?


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: I understand this item has been considered by the House for 59 minutes prior to today's debate. It is my understanding of the rules that debate can proceed until roughly 5.40 p.m., at which point a minister of the Crown will have the opportunity to reply for five minutes and the mover of the motion for five minutes. According to the rules, I cannot recognize the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville at this point.


Erik Nielsen: He is already recognized.


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


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville on a point of order. I have clarified the amount of debate that has taken place up to this point. I have indicated that the 31 minutes remaining will expire at 5.40 p.m., at which time a minister of the Crown will have an opportunity to speak. At that point, subsequent to a minister of the Crown speaking, there will be five minutes remaining for the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. That will be the procedure.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, my point of order is in regard to the remark-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Is the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville rising on a point of order, or what is he rising on?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: On a point of order, that is right, Mr. Speaker. It pertains to what the parliamentary secretary said about my going back on my word. You have ruled that is not unparliamentary.
To set the record straight, I should make this one elaboration, which I think the parliamentary secretary will recall is correct. I mentioned a moment ago that I declined to proceed at the time the minister died-within five or six days. On giving this matter further thought I have recalled that, when I was telephoned by someone from the Privy Council office and asked if I wished to proceed further-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. There has been dispute on both sides of the House in regard to facts. It seems to me both sides have set out a position. At this stage, are there any members who wish to speak to the motion?


A. Daniel McKenzie: Mr. Speaker, I wish to speak briefly on this motion. This has turned into quite a debate, especially in view of the remarks of the parliamentary secretary about the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) going back on his word and not withdrawing this motion when he had an opportunity to do so. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville tried to have this motion removed but he was informed by officials of the House that he could not do so.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: That is correct.


A. Daniel McKenzie: I think that point should be cleared up. It has absolutely nothing to do with the hon. member going back on his word, and we must proceed with this motion today.
I wish to point out that the move to Prince Edward Island is now a fait accompli. While the move is taking place we hope it will not be causing us any problems, but we have some very serious concerns about veterans affairs. I hope those concerns are not due to the move to Prince Edward Island.
We have had questions on the Order Paper for some time now in regard to a number of veterans' problems. There are serious concerns in the country about the estimated number of additional beds which will be required for domiciliary care for chronically ill veterans. This is a question we have raised many times. There are long waiting lists to get into these military hospitals. We do not know whether the move is causing delays in dealing with this particular aspect.
One of our more serious concerns is with regard to the pension commission and the length of time veterans must wait to have their pension reviews dealt with. Some of them are having to wait up to two years and many of them are dying before their application is reviewed. That is a ridiculous length of time for any veteran to have to wait for his pension to be reviewed. Some of the legions across the country which are assisting veterans with their applications are advising that there will be an exceptionally long waiting period before pension reviews will be dealt with. The legion and other service and veterans' organizations across the country are very concerned about this matter. We hope that the delay of the
March 26, 1981

pension commission's reviews of these applications is not due to the move to Prince Edward Island.
There are many other concerns, one of which is with respect to the Veterans Land Act. We feel that some changes will have to be made in this act with regard to spouses.
There are also very serious problems now faced by ex-prisoners of war. When our committee meets in the near future we will be asking for a review of the prisoner of war compensation with a view to increasing the basic rates. We know today that any former prisoner of war who suffered prolonged incarceration is undergoing serious health problems.
I understand there have been some delays with regard to purchasing land in Prince Edward Island. There are also delays in construction. I hope that these delays will not affect veterans and veterans' organizations across Canada.
Unfortunately, the acting minister is not in the House. I think it is unfortunate that he was not informed that this motion would be dealt with today. I do not even see his parliamentary secretary in the chamber and I do not know who will be answering on behalf of the Department of Veterans Affairs. I hope that the government will have the minister here, or at least his parliamentary secretary, to answer some of our concerns about the move to Prince Edward Island.


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Mr. Speaker, I had not originally intended to speak on this motion, but I was so moved by the eloquence of my colleagues, and by the importance of the subject, that I felt compelled to do so very briefly, with your indulgence, sir, especially in view of the fact that my riding includes Charlottetown, the community to which the Department of Veterans Affairs is to be relocated from the city of Ottawa.
I have a great deal of sympathy with many of the causes which the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) pursues. But in this case I feel obligated to disagree with the sentiment behind his particular motion because, with all due respect to him, I believe it is a poorly disguised effort to oppose the principle of the relocation of the department from Ottawa to my riding and to my province. It is a sentiment with which I could not disagree more heartily.
Various people who oppose the relocation of the department to Charlottetown do so for a number of reasons. I think some of those reasons are not at all well founded. I would like to address that aspect in my remarks.
Before doing so, however, I want to stress the good, strong, and positive reasons why that department and, in fact, other departments should be relocated from Ottawa to other centres, including my region of the country. The first reason that comes to mind, and not necessarily the most important one, is the benefits to be derived from spreading the government, as an industry, as much as possible, across the country. We quite frequently think of government as being necessarily located in Ottawa-Hull or the national capital region, so-called, or, for that matter, central Canada. Yet there is nothing etched in stone which requires the federal government, that is, major
Veterans Affairs
departments and agencies thereof, to be located in all cases either in Ottawa or the national capital region.
Government, as an industry, produces many benefits apart from services. It produces jobs and creates wealth. It causes dollars to ripple through the economy. There is no single reason why those benefits should be concentrated exclusively in central Canada. In terms of national unity, it serves the country as a whole to have other parts of Canada, not just central Canada, receive the benefits from government as an industry.
Second, I think it is an advantage to have government located as close as possible to the people it serves. We should remind ourselves that not all Canadians are located in Ontario and Quebec. Canadians in western Canada and in the Atlantic provinces are as loyal to this country as those located in central Canada and are, therefore, as deserving of having services provided as conveniently as possible in the area in which they reside.
I recoil every time I see this government move to withdraw parts of major agencies like Canadian National from regions such as mine and I am horrified at the implications for national unity. It means that more and more of the federal government's presence in Canada is removed from regions like Atlantic Canada. Just as I oppose the withdrawal of Canadian National and other Crown agencies from the Atlantic provinces and from parts of the west, so also do I oppose any steps taken to prevent relocations of the kind we are speaking about now.
Decentralization as a principle of government is good when it can be accommodated without any loss of benefits to the people the departments are intended to serve.
There is no evidence the move of the Department of Veterans Affairs from Ottawa to Charlottetown is causing a single veteran in this country to be deprived of services provided by that department.
The fact is that complicated and sophisticated systems of communication are now so advanced that public servants can process applications and adjudicate them in ways that are not affected at all by geography. Whether a department is located in Charlottetown, the Yukon, Ottawa or in Timbuktu has no bearing on the level of services or the speed with which the services can be provided.
The third reason I am not very enthusiastic about this motion is that the federal government, as an institution, must be as visible as possible to all Canadians. That conforms to my remarks of a few moments ago about agencies such as Canadian National withdrawing from regions such as my own. Every time a CN office closes in the Atlantic region, every time Air Canada withdraws a service from my region, every time the federal government consolidates its operations in key centres and major metropolitan areas at the expense of small communities like Charlottetown, people in those communities become more estranged from the federal government.

March 26, 1981
Veterans Affairs
In the name of national unity, and in the name of the federal government making itself available to Canadians in all parts of the country, and not just in central Canada, I think it is important that we oppose the withdrawal of agencies such as Canadian National from regions like mine. By the same token, we should be enthusiastic about legitimate efforts to decentralize and get away from the principle that bigness, by definition, is necessarily good or is always the best way to proceed.
All too often we have fallen into the trap of believing that governments and corporations in the private sector have to be big and impersonal; the result is that they become insensitive to the public they are designed to serve.
I maintain that government and business alike can be effective, efficient and, in the case of businesses, even profitable, without going hell-bent in the direction of consolidation and bigness.
Traditionally, we in Canada have prided ourselves on our diversity, our linguistic diversity, our economic diversity and our geographic diversity. Why then, all of a sudden, do we in government elevate to a high level of importance the principle that government must be monolithic, must be huge, must be concentrated only in centres such as Montreal and Toronto? Why can we not recognize, consistent with the principle of diversity, that a lot can be gained by appreciating the value of small communities in our country, of small provinces like Prince Edward Island, and of regions like Atlantic Canada that may not have the wealth of central Canada but, nevertheless, have the same attachment to the country as a whole and are, therefore, as deserving as other regions of a piece of the federal government pie?
By all means let us be rational, efficient and effective in government organizations, but let it not be at the expense of withdrawing the presence of the federal government from communities such as Charlottetown.
This government claims to be the champion of national unity. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) constantly wraps himself in the Canadian flag and present himself as the great Canadian patriot-perhaps the only Canadian patriot! I do not wish to digress from my subject or get into the constitutional debate, because I shall be speaking about the Constitution next week. I must say, though, I find it very strange indeed that the Prime Minister, who claims to be a great patriot, goes over the heads of the people of Canada, and of Parliament, to London to have passed there a package of so-called constitutional reform-a package for which he cannot get approval from the Canadian people. He is not a great Canadian patriot he is "the wild colonial boy."
Consistent with the principle that we should do things in Canada in a Canadian way, I think one of the traditions we should honour is an appreciation for the small communities that comprise the country. Consistent with that theme, I urge all members of the House of Commons to express outrage at any motion or any suggestion that departments of the federal government should not be located, when it is possible to do so, in communities outside central Canada, especially Ottawa.
I am a firm believer that the country as a whole, not just my own province, will be well served by having the Department of Veterans Affairs in Charlottetown, rather than in Ottawa. I regret very much, however, that this has been carried out in a very poor administrative fashion. I believe in the principle of decentralization and I commend the government, to the extent that it had anything to do with it, for proceeding with the relocation. But it should be recognized that it was the Clark government which did more in seven or eight months to bring about this relocation than the present government and the government before the Clark government did in some three years.
The principle of relocation is vital to Canada. I commend the government for recognizing that fact, to the extent that it has. But it has handled the administrative details of the relocation very badly. The community of Charlottetown, the province of Prince Edward Island and, I think, any reasonable person who knows anything about the subject, all recognize that the building that is to be the headquarters for the Department of Veterans Affairs should be located on the waterfront in Charlottetown.
I do not want to get into this in any great detail because I think the battle has probably been lost. The fact is, though, that the city of Charlottetown, the province of Prince Edward Island and the people of Prince Edward Island have long favoured locating the national headquarters on the waterfront in the city of Charlottetown. In that location it would complement a major urban development in the city, while not aggravating parking and traffic problems in the capital city of Prince Edward Island.
In a bullheaded and stubborn fashion, however, this government bucked community opinion, bucked the official representations of the city of Charlottetown, and bucked the same type of representations from the province of Prince Edward Island. Rather than locating the national headquarters on the waterfront, which made a lot of sense, the government has decided to plunk a huge federal government complex in the very heart of the city of Charlottetown, which will disrupt traffic and worsen the parking problems there. Also it will devour a very valuable part of the city of Charlottetown which could be better used for commercial purposes.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. I indicated previously that it was the intention of the Chair to interrupt the proceedings at 5.40 p.m. and at that point deem that the time provide under Standing Order 48(2) for consideration of this motion had expired.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I would like some clarification. There was some confusion earlier as the result of lack of notice on debating this item. That has been disposed of. You ruled it was not a point of order. However, I would submit that since the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) did not have the right to speak twice on his own motion, except as provided for under Standing Order 48 for five minutes in reply
March 26, 1981

after the minister, that the time the member from Leeds-Gren-ville was on his feet erroneously speaking to the motion should not be counted as part of the 100 minutes allotted under the provisions of Standing Order 48.
Therefore, I would respectfully submit the 41 minutes outstanding in this debate should be counted from the time the hon. member for Winnipeg-Assiniboine (Mr. McKenzie) took the floor, which was about 5.25 p.m., or around that time. I would submit that we should not interrupt the debate at this point to hear the customary reply from the minister. Incidentally, the minister to speak will be the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts). The Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs, the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) because of lack of notice could not be in his place for the speech.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 48, the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) is entitled to have the question put on his motion. I think members on this side might be disposed to extending private members' hour as long as it does not prejudice the right of the member to have the question put. It is not his fault that the parliamentary secretary got his wires crossed. It is not his fault that Standing Order 48 was not followed initially at the commencement of the debate. Therefore, he should not be prejudiced by private members' hour running out and the question not being put.
If the proper procedures had been followed, then the question would have been put. There would be no disposition on this side to follow the suggestion of the parliamentary secretary if it resulted in the right of the member for Leeds-Grenville to have his motion put to the vote, but if the House is disposed to extending private members' hour so as to allow that question to be put, there would be disposition, I believe, on this side to permit that to happen.


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, I suppose I am debating the point, but the confusion certainly was not on our side. We had the set normal practices. The hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) was prepared to go with the notice of motion for the production of papers appearing on the Order Paper as No. 32. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville was permitted to speak. That procedure was in error. From time to time, these errors do happen. I must insist, from my point of view, that the balance of this debate should start at 5.22 p.m. and conclude when the remaining time has been used up.


Walter David Baker: You have no right to do that.


David Michael Collenette: With respect to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on the extension of private members' hour, I find this difficult to accept. Earlier, as you remember, I sought consent to aid one of his colleagues, the hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker). We got consent at that time but we did not get consent to waive private members' hour to deal with a very important matter, namely, a point of order which deals with the future of the constitutional resolution now before this place. 1 could hardly
Veterans Affairs
be expected to agree, on behalf of the government, that we should not observe the provisions of Standing Order 6(1) at this time.


Erik Nielsen: Mr. Speaker, it is not merely a suggestion that private members' hour be extended and I would think that the parliamentary secretary would be one of the first to stand up in protection of private members' rights. There can be no doubt that the Chair has that responsibility, just as there can be no doubt that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville has the unquestionable right under Standing Order 48 to have the question put forthwith when the procedures have been followed.
I might just read Standing Order 48(2). You have already referred to most of it, but the pertinent words with respect to the rights of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville are as follows:
Unless the motion is withdrawn, as provided by Standing Order 50,-
That is, after the right of a minister and the right of the member to reply have been exhausted. The Standing Order continues:
-Mr. Speaker shall forthwith put the question.
There can be no doubt about his right. I would suggest that there was time before the parliamentary secretary rose in his place and there is still ample time for a five-minute ministerial contribution and a five-minute reply. It is still only 5.47 p.m. and the question can still be put. I would urge you, Sir, to protect the right of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and have his question put.


David Michael Collenette: I would not want the hon. member for the Yukon to assume that the government is going to act in any particular way on this matter.


Mr. Fraser:: Or any other.


David Michael Collenette: There are two reasons why I wish you would observe the suggestion I made in terms of not counting the time used by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville and starting the debate at 5.22 p.m. instead. First, the hon. member for Laurier (Mr. Berger) and the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert) both want to make contributions to this debate, as members have on the other side. Second, as we know, the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs is unable to be here. I am trying to locate him so he can be here. Whatever the misunderstanding was, it was not on our side, but that is a debatable point. I am trying to get the acting minister of veterans affairs here, and I understand there may be a disposition on the part of the government to agree to the motion of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.
The hon. member for Yukon when talking about a division and putting the question is acting with great anticipation. It almost seems as if hon. members want to force a vote, ring the bells and continue to filibuster the very workings of this House, whether in normal hours or during private members' business.


Henry Perrin Beatty: You are filibustering.

March 26, 1981
Veterans Affairs


Harold Thomas Herbert: Mr. Speaker, I rise on the same point of order.
I will make it apparent right at the start that I was anxious to speak but I, too, want clarification.
I understand that this debate will go on for a period of one hour and 40 minutes and that the debate has taken up 59 minutes at the first session. I understand that it will continue for another 41 minutes today or until the conclusion of private members' hour.
Because the member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) was recognized by you at the start of this period, and at your discretion, of course, you recognized two other members of the official opposition, but on this side we have not had an opportunity to speak. I particularly want an opportunity to speak because, if you look back through the order papers for the last three Parliaments you will see an identical motion has appeared in my name. I would like to add some remarks in the light of events in 1981.
I suggest, therefore, that you determine whether the time that has already been taken up by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville today forms part of the remaining 41 minutes. If not, that time should be struck from the record, thus allowing at least one more speaker-on this side I would hope, but at your discretion-to use up the period of time previously used by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville. For me, personally, I consider this as a question of privilege now in that I should be given the same opportunity to speak as members of the Official Opposition, three of whom have participated today. I would like you, Mr. Speaker, to determine precisely what time is remaining in this debate and precisely what the procedure is to be that we are going to follow in the remaining ten minutes until six o'clock.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker, the issue in this matter is whether a Member of Parliament is entitled to the production of papers. In an era of freedom of information, the government has a bill before a committee now calling for openness in government. That is one issue. My respectful submission is that a member is entitled to the production of papers. The government has indicated it cannot say at this point whether or not it might agree.
The other issue is under the Standing Order my friend for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) referred to; there is a right to have the question put, but that right can be lost if we continue in this debate. It is now nine minutes to six. That private member's right can be lost if we continue. It is wrong for that right to be lost, whatever the confusion. I would like to clear up the confusion. Hopefully I can. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for Burlington (Mr. Kempling):
That the question be now put.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Could I reply to the point made by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton? The understanding of the Chair is if the vote does not take place, no right is lost because presumably the next time this period comes up in private
members' hour the item would be called and the same rights of the hon. member would prevail.


Walter David Baker: I respectfully remind the Chair that there is now a motion before the House that the question be now put. I am aware of what you have said, Mr. Speaker, but no one has any guarantee that he will hereafter have the right to have that motion to receive that production. Therefore, it is important. The motion is there. I advanced it seriously in the interests of private members and the production of documents. I ask that you recognize that motion and put the question.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The Chair understands that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton has moved that the question be now put. This is a debatable motion.


Erik Nielsen: No it isn't.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Mr. Speaker, that is precisely the point I was going to make, although there are one or two other points I should like to make as well. Hon. members are shouting out right away that, no, it is not debatable. All I have had time to do is pick up Beauchesne's fifth edition and look under "Previous Question" on page 388 and there it is;
Members who spoke on main question may speak again-
There are several references there that can be looked up in Beauchesne. If I may say so, the practice is well known to any of us who have been around here for a while that the motion that the question be now put is debatable. You are, of course, caught with the other proposition, that this debate is not supposed to last in total more than 100 minutes. But certainly, as long as the time has not run out, any member, including the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville if he wants, can get up and speak to the proposition that the question be now put. I know it sounds silly to people who are used to that question being put immediately in other forums, but certainly it is debatable here.
There is another point I want to make. Perhaps again I am confirming something that has been said by the Chair. It has to do with the right of the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt) to have a vote on his proposition. Absolutely he has that right. The Standing Order was drafted that way. I may say that I happened to write it when I was chairman of the sub-committee dealing with these matters. There is no question about his right to have it. It is a question of when. He would like to have it today. I do not blame him. However, if he does not get it today, because of the passage of time, he will get it on another occasion.
One other point, the request is being made that the time taken by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville when, as it turned out later, he had no right to have the floor, should not be counted. This reminds me of times when Madam Speaker extends the question period because time was taken for applause, points of order and what have you. It reminds me of occasions when a member is speaking in a debate and his time is up, and Mr. Speaker extends it because there was time taken which should not have been taken.
March 26, 1981

I think, by the same token, the minutes that were used when the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville was speaking the second time should not be counted in the total of the minutes. There is no criticism of him for having spoken. What he said does not need to be struck from the record. However, I do not think that extra time should be added, just as I do not think he should count the time that has been taken on these various points of order. As for the motion that the question be now put, I refer my hon. friends to the rule books.


Mr. Roberts:: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I listened with considerable interest to the remarks of the House leader of the New Democratic Party in relation to the motion which was, as I understood it, attempted to be moved by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). In addition to other rather grave objections which have been referred to, the attempt he is trying to make, surely in terms of the rules of the House, and 1 do not have the book close by me, is an attempt to move such a motion while rising on a point of order, and to do that on the basis of holding the floor of the House to express a point of order is clearly in opposition to the rules. I am sure there are other hon. members who could direct you to the specific citation, indicating that that is clearly the case. As has been pointed out quite correctly, that kind of motion is debatable. I believe under Citation 452 of Beauchesne that is not the proper kind of motion to be moved by an hon. member rising on a point of order. That is clearly and simply contrary to the rules. I would argue it is also a rather improper attempt, but that would lead us into a debate as to motivation of actions and I do not want that. I would ask Your Honour to look at Beauchesne to verify the point of whether or not the argument I am making is adequate, that it is impossible to make such a motion in the way the hon. member has attempted to do.


Walter David Baker: On the point of order, Mr. Speaker. I appreciate the remark. As you know from many long years of association with me, Mr. Speaker, I have great respect for the House, the Chair, the rules, the customs, traditions and precedents. I thank the minister for bringing that to my attention. It would never be my intention to offend the rules of the House. If the minister is correct in that, I would most definitely withdraw the motion.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Mr. Speaker, a moment or two ago the parliamentary secretary said he had some indication the government might be prepared to accede to the production of papers. What we are arguing here is not whether it was right or wrong for the decentralization to take place. The motion before the House is for the production of papers so that people on all sides with regard to any part of this question can see what happened. It is freedom of information. I compliment the hon. member for Hillsborough and others on what they said. What we are getting at is the production of papers so that we can have freedom of information. If the parliamentary secretary can assure us of that, the matter will be concluded.


David Michael Collenette: I do not want to belabour the point, Mr. Speaker, but we did not have notice that this was to be discussed today. I covered those grounds. We have been trying
Point of Order-Mr. Hawkes
to get in touch with the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs so he may come to the House and give the assurances that the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville wants. I indicated that the government may well be disposed to allowing these papers to be produced, but, in all fairness, the hon. member for Laurier and the hon. member for Vaudreuil would like to speak.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order, please. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business having expired, I do now leave the chair until eight o'clock.
At six o'clock the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.

Madam Speaker:: I did not understand the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had finished his intervention. Since he is not here on this point of order I will take it under advisement and rule later tomorrow.




David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, pursuant to Standing Order 41(2), it gives me great pleasure to table documents relating to the government's proposal for reform of the estimates.


Madam Speaker:: Introduction of bills. The hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott), stand. The hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields), stand.


Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, are we at the point were it is appropriate to discuss the point of order raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) regarding the motion of the House leader?


Madam Speaker:: No, we are not there yet.

March 26, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark POINT OF ORDER


MR. CLARK-THE CONSTITUTION-APPEAL TO SUPREME COURT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, as you know, the bell sounded very quickly this evening before 1 had an opportunity to return to the House. You will recall that when you rose to call it five o'clock I was in the middle of a presentation of an argument that had not been completed. I am rising on a point of order now with regard to proceedings in the House.
That argument was only partially completed and there were indeed some very germane questions I wanted to draw to the attention of the Chair in the hope of aiding you in your decision. I would ask your guidance as to whether it would be appropriate for me to now continue with the argument I began before you rose at five o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: I, too, am at a loss because I was very conscious that the hon. member was discussing a point of order. I came into the House, I waited for awhile because I was expecting to see someone but the hon. member was not here so I had to proceed. I suppose we would now require unanimous consent to revert to that point. I am in the hands of the House; I had to proceed.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would imagine we are still at a point in the proceedings of the House where Your Honour would accept a point of order. The question before you is whether or not you would accept a continuation of a point of order which was being put before five o'clock and which was not completed. I am sure Your Honour would find that it would be appropriate to have argument completed on a point of order, and secondly, since I want to raise elements of that point of order which I believe are new in the practice of the House, you would want to hear them before you had to give consideration as to the appropriateness of the point. It is a point of order of some particular interest because I am making it at the express request of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) who, during question period today, asked that I put forward the arguments that were requested. I would naturally welcome guidance and I would naturally be prepared to proceed either on a new point of order or on a continuation of the point I was raising at five o'clock.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, if we were to accept the request of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) we would be party to their filibuster. Normally the House of Commons resumes its sitting at eight o'clock. Several Liberal members were in their seat and you waited many seconds in your chair before taking a decision.
We have absolutely no request to make. Had we wanted to we could or I could have taken the floor to seek unanimous consent to adopt the constitutional resolution and there was no one on the other side to say no, but we did not do that. All we did was discharge our responsibility to be in the House at the
proper time. We were here and we were expecting that the Leader of the Opposition would pursue his argument. Obviously, on the face of it the point he has raised is sheer nonsense. Be that as it may, you have ruled that you would take it under advisement. His rights are not curtailed. You will be making a decision on one of their manoeuvres earlier today and I would suggest that the House proceed with the order of business as it appears on the Order Paper.


Madam Speaker:: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) must appreciate that I found myself in an awkward situation when I saw he was not present. I took the question under advisement, for it seemed to me that I could not proceed any further without first settling the question of the point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I was really in an awkward position. I looked around me, I waited as long as I could, but I have to proceed and follow the Standing Orders as well.
I took the question of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition under advisement. If he has other points to raise after I have delivered my ruling tomorrow, I suppose he might perhaps raise new ones. For the time being I believe I have no other choice unless the House gives unanimous consent to enable us to revert to the daily routine of business. In that case, if the House agrees I will be prepared to hear the rest of the intervention of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. If the House does not agree I cannot proceed otherwise.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I see once again you seek unanimous consent of this House to allow the Leader of the Opposition, who was late and who knew he had the floor at five o'clock, to argue once again on a question that you have taken under consideration. Well, if they are all mixed up in their filibuster, there is no way we on this side will act as accomplices to such a low manoeuvre.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I, of course, have no interest in complicating your life or that of the House. There will be other occasions later this evening when it will be perfectly appropriate for me to raise that point of order again, and I will do so. I will, unfortunately, have to begin my argument again from the beginning and repeat some of the arguments I made earlier, but if that is the choice of the government House leader, particularly in contrast to the willingness of our party the other night when the Prime Minister sought extra time-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: -to speak in the constitutional debate, I am prepared to rise again to make the argument in all of its amplitude, repeating what I said earlier. It would be more expeditious, would save the time of the House, and would be more respectful of the traditions here if unanimous consent were given, as we gave the Prime Minister the other night. However, if that is to be denied by the government House
March 26, 1981

leader for reasons of his own, I will raise the question at another point.


Yvon Pinard: Referring to the consent given the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), in fact nothing was given to the Prime Minister. Under Standing Order 31(1)-


An hon. Member:: Oh, yes, there was.


Yvon Pinard: Under Standing Order 31(1), the Prime Minister has a right to unlimited time. The only consent given at the time was to allow him to speak before six o'clock, and the private members' hour was postponed. It was not cancelled. Nothing was given to the Prime Minister.


An hon. Member:: Don't worry about any other consent, ever!


Yvon Pinard: If the Prime Minister of Canada, according to the Standing Order, spoke for an unlimited period of time, he was allowed to. If he spoke two hours and 16 minutes, there was nothing wrong in that. The hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), who was the mover of an amendment according to the same Standing Order, spoke one hour and 16 minutes, and he is not the Prime Minister of Canada. He is a Member of Parliament. He is in the House sometimes and goes abroad sometimes; but he is not the Prime Minister of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I hope the government House leader will reconsider what he said. Of course the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has unlimited time. The Prime Minister used what time was required. It was rather important to the Prime Minister on that evening that we offered him the hour allotted to private members; it was important to the Prime Minister that that happen, that that be done, and he thanked us for that courtesy. I do not think that this is the place for meanness.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: This can be a place for procedural arguments and all the rest of it, but I do not think it should be a place for meanness. As the Prime Minister occupies a special place in the House of Commons, so does the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) have a special place in the House of Commons. He is an officer of this House. I think it is important that courtesies be extended for the convenience of the Prime Minister, and it is also important that courtesies be extended for the Leader of the Opposition, or, indeed, for the leader of any party in this House of Commons. I believe this kind of courtesy ought to be extended.
I think it is important, as well-and obviously must be important to the government-that the debate be continued and be completed within the rules of the House of Commons. It is important to us that it be carried on within the rules. It seems to me, if we regard this place as a place of harmony
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
with great differences, it is inappropriate for the government House leader to say, with respect to the Leader of the Opposition, in any event, that the Leader of the Opposition ought not to be afforded certain courtesies.
I ask the hon. gentleman to notice that the bell was perhaps the shortest on record. It was about seven, eight or nine seconds. Madam Speaker did say she waited for a short period, and I would not doubt that. The Leader of the Opposition, following the custom which has developed in this House, when the bells began to ring, came downstairs to his place in the House. I would not want to describe the failure of that recognition which should be given to the Leader of the Opposition in the way it might be described outside of the House, but I think it is important to remember that while there are strong differences between us-


An hon. Member:: Get up off your knees, Walter.


Walter David Baker: I am not on my knees, by any means. There are strong differences between them but I think it is quite appropriate, for whatever progress the government House leader wants to make with respect to this matter, that he reconsider, and give to the Leader of the Opposition the courtesy which I believe that position deserves. I frankly ask him for this.


Yvon Pinard: In view of the circumstances, Madam Speaker, I would say that the request of the Leader of the Official Opposition to the effect that we should not take into account the atmosphere in the House or the differences of opinion which can exist between the two sides of the House concerning matters under debate, as concerns his request; in view of his explanations, and if we consider the fact that he finds that the bell this evening rang for an exceptionally short time, I shall point out that we found for our part that the bell had rung for an exceptionally long time the day before yesterday. If we also consider that the government prefers the bells to ring more briefly to be able to get more work done and that the Progressive Conservative Party prefers to have the bells ring for a very long time to prevent Parliament from working; if we forget all that, if we put aside the fact that we have witnessed in the last few days a shameful filibuster on the part of the opposition, which is systematically preventing the Canadian Parliament from working, stopping this institution from meeting the aspirations of Canadians and preventing us from dealing with other matters which would be much more useful for the Canadian society; if we can forget this unacceptable and shameful attitude on the part of the opposition party at a time when we have many problems and when Parliament is expected to do much more than in the past, if we can forget all that, Madam Speaker, I would be willing to consider the request of the House leader of the official opposition, but on one little condition, which is quite normal in the circumstances following this long and unacceptable filibuster, namely, that he would allow me this evening to introduce my motion on time alloca-
8662

March 26, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
tion to put an end to the constitutional debate, and I promise that tomorrow I shall allow his leader to reopen the debate and to give his views on the question of privilege that he raised today.


Madam Speaker:: As I understand it, permission to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to continue his intervention tomorrow would be granted on the condition outlined by the hon. President of the Privy Council. I must ask whether the House agrees to this proposal.


Charles Joseph Clark: We find this kind of blackmail totally unacceptable, and it certainly does not contribute to progress being made in the House. If the hon. members on the government side want to ignore the rights of the hon. members on the opposition side, we can accept their stubbornness and react in a way dictated to us by their own action and approach. This is not something which we have been seeking, but something which is imposed by the government House leader. We can certainly react in a way which is consistent with his approach. As I said earlier, I will have the opportunity some time tonight to raise again this issue which I raised this afternoon, and I have every intention to avail myself of this opportunity.


Madam Speaker:: Just after the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition had mentioned he would bring this question up again later this evening, I wanted to say something, but the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) stood up, and I heard him. However, I cannot accept what the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition said at that point to be taken as permission to begin, all over again, the matter which was raised after question period today. The question was raised. I said that I would reserve on it and rule later; that is tomorrow. Therefore, if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition wants to come back to the question, it should be a completely new point because I reserved my ruling on the one which he brought out today.


An hon. Member:: Absolute nonsense!


Madam Speaker:: I see no other way of applying the rule, and I must be firm on them because, as hon. members realize, this is a particularly difficult moment for the House. We have had several procedural points. I am trying to control the House as best I can; we will only be able to go through this in an orderly fashion if I am consistent. I do feel that if I am to be consistent now, I have to tell the hon. member that he may come back on a point of order tomorrow or tonight, depending on how far we get in the proceedings, but it would have to be on a completely new point.


Charles Joseph Clark: Naturally I would not want to dispute the Chair or make your situation any more difficult than the circumstances of the debate, of closure, of the possibility of the government proceeding on a matter which may not be within its competence because it is already before the courts of
Canada, now make the matter before the House. But I would find it surprising, I must say, if Your Honour would want to pass judgment upon an argument which has not been fully put.
As I indicated to Your Honour, there are elements of the argument which I had not come to because of the expiry of time this afternoon when we moved to private members' hour; elements that are new to the practice of this Parliament and new to the circumstances here. I know the care Your Honour always takes to ensure that your judgments are well based and well considered. I know you would not want to be put in the position of having to make a decision, having heard only part of the argument that the opposition, and in particular the Leader of the Opposition in my capacity as an officer of the House, might want to put forward.
That is the dilemma which has been caused by the fact that there was an unusually short bell tonight, and the House of Commons began with a regularity which perhaps should but has not been the custom. As I said, I do not think it would accord with your normal practice to make a decision after having heard only part of the case. Of course, I am in your hands. I will rise at a later opportunity, which will of course be open to me, to put forward new elements of the case I was raising earlier in the day. Of course, it would be then your decision as to whether you wanted to hear the full case put by the official opposition or make a decision on a more limited basis.


Madam Speaker:: How can I know if an hon. member has put his full case? The only way I know that he has put his full case is when no one rises in the House. I was here at eight o'clock.


An hon. Member:: First time ever.


Madam Speaker:: I waited for a while. It was open to other members on this side of the House to continue the argumentation; I looked around, but no one did so. I then had to decide on that point of order, which I did. I decided that I would rule later on that point of order.
The hon. member knows that once the Chair has decided it is going to rule on something no further comments can be accepted. I did not create this situation. I am in a very difficult situation. My only guidance is in the rules and the practices of this House and, as far as I know, I am stating the practices of the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there is another rule or practice of this House, if I may put it to you, and that is a sense of fairness, a sense of justice and a sense of equity. I am talking about it in terms of the Chair, not in terms of the partisan differences which may exist in the House of Commons. I am certain if one checked the rules, one would see that while the matter is reserved it is still open. I think it is possible for the Speaker under those circumstances, the matter still being open, to permit an argument to be put.
The situation in which we find ourselves is that you have heard the first five minutes of an argument upon which you
March 26, 1981

were going to make a decision which could be binding on this House forever. It would then become a precedent on an issue, as the hon. member says, which is as fundamental as this. Under those circumstances, I certainly think that you must consider the enormity of a legalistic approach to this situation. I say to you, Madam Speaker, it would be not just unfair to the Leader of the Opposition, which it would be, but it would be unfair to Parliament, unfair to the development of precedents, it would fly in the face of the doctrine that practice and procedure must never be so applied and so dealt with that they lose sight of the equity of the situation.
This is the Parliament of Canada, and the decisions which you make, Madam Speaker, which are now unappealable, you may make on the evidence. That evidence is not even fully before you now on a case that is fundamental in relation to Parliament and the courts. I say to you, Madam Speaker, the decision which you will make is on an issue in the Constitution. You could be setting a precedent which could live to haunt this Parliament, succeeding parliaments, and render life in this place intolerable for everyone in it.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: That is why, Madam Speaker, I am happy you said the matter was still open, at least in the sense that you have reserved it. Madam Speaker, you smile. I do not think there is anything to smile about.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


An hon. Member:: Insult.


An hon. Member:: Shut up, over there.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I think I owe an explanation to the House. I am smiling to indicate generally to the hon. member that I did not say the case was still open. I said I had taken it under advisement. Therefore, I did say quite clearly that when the Chair says a question is going to be taken under advisement, it is open to further comments. That is why I was shaking my head and smiling at the hon. member, to remind him that that is not exactly what I had said.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I should like to rise on a new point of order. I had the opportunity earlier this afternoon to discuss a point of order in relation to a matter which could be sub judice. And I made an argument which you have interpreted by your decision here tonight as being a complete argument on the element of the case I was able to discuss before five o'clock. There is a new element to this case which I would like to raise now as a new point of order because it has to do with a series of circumstances that have not been discussed before in the House and, indeed, do not fall within the normal circumstances, or indeed the precedents of this House.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The right hon. member has a new point of order. I am afraid I must listen to the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) who wanted to speak on the point of order raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I would like to close that part of our proceedings. In this way we will proceed in an orderly fashion and I will then go to the right hon. member.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, all I wanted to say, and I say this as calmly as I can-I had my moment of warmth earlier today-is that in my view this whole discussion on whether or not the constitutional resolution is in order has been conducted at the wrong place.
The point of order the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) tried to raise is that the constitutional resolution is not in order, that it should not be proceeded with. It was not before us today; it was not before us when he raised it at 4.50 p.m., it is not before us tonight. I submit that any discussion, as to whether government order No. 36 is in order, should wait either for discussion or for a ruling until government order No. 36 has been called. We are not on that. We are in the midst of routine proceedings, and when we get through routine proceedings tonight, the point of order will be on order No. 41; it is not now on the constitutional motion itself.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is contending that because of certain citations in Beauchesne about the sub judice question, the constitutional package before the House is not in order. I, too, want to contribute to that debate, if I may, when the time comes, but this is not the time. He has to wait and the House has to wait until the order for the constitutional resolution is before the House.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my learned friend and colleague in House leadership is wrong. The question is not whether the constitutional package is in order; that is not the issue here.
As I understood the exchange and read the precedent or the statement in Beauchesne, the issue was whether when a new element had intervened, and that is the application, the leave to appeal, the notice of appeal, or the appeal which is now before the Supreme Court of Canada on a matter now before the House of Commons-it has been filed-it was proper that there be discussion in this House with respect to the question of constitutional amendment, not just with respect to the order, whatever is the number of that order. It is much broader than that. That response was dealt with.
I say to my friend that it is not inappropriate now. It would certainly be appropriate later; it would be appropriate today when the issue came up. It might have been appropriate yesterday, if we look over the question period. I do not believe it was, but it is appropriate today. It would be appropriate

March 26, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
tomorrow, but the issue is not that raised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles). The important issue in this matter is whether or not it is now appropriate-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You are trying hard.


Walter David Baker: -for this matter-


An hon. Member:: You have another 1.5 hours to go.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am having trouble talking over the little red rump down at the other end of the chamber.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Now the new issue is whether or not-


An hon. Member:: Now it is a new issue!


Walter David Baker: -the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition can raise another point of order. That is why he stood.


Mr. McGrath:: That is correct.


Walter David Baker: That is why he stood and began to argue. He is entitled to raise a point of order. Madam Speaker must make a judgment on the point of order, but there is no time like the present to raise a point of order, particularly when it may have related to something which occurred in the question period earlier today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if I may, 1 would like to proceed with the new point of order.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: I think I will have to study it for a while. I will consult with the Clerk. The reason the point of order of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition could be taken was that it flowed from the deliberations in question period. I said I would rule on that; I could rule on it narrowly with the arguments presented by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition regarding whatever he alleged happened during question period, or I could choose to rule rather broadly on the entire question of sub judice.
However, I might be excluded from doing that if, as the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre said, it is not appropriate at this time to discuss that question because that proposition is not before the House and debate or points of order on that particular aspect of the resolution which will come before the House might be properly discussed at that time. I will have to consult with the Clerk on this. This is why I am not prepared just now, until I consult with the Clerk, to hear the new point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I would imagine that you would want to take into account the fact that the argument
which I would like the opportunity to place before the House of Commons may affect the ability of Members of Parliament to pose any questions at all in relation to the constitutional resolution. It may be that it is now in a state of being sub judice, which will prevent it from being referred to in any proceeding in the House of Commons.
If I understood correctly the argument put forward by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), he said the matter could be raised only in relation to the actual introduction of that particular measure in the House of Commons. That matter has been the subject of frequent debate, questioning, and other activity in the House of Commons for some time. In other words, it is absolutely current. It is as current as any other matter raised in the question period today or might be raised later on. If it is sub judice, if it is not proper for this Parliament to be discussing this question at this time, then we all have to know it, and we have to know it now. That is the reason I want to raise my argument at this time.


Madam Speaker:: Well, I think I can now answer the right hon. gentleman. I accepted his first point of order because it flowed from the deliberations during question period.
The right hon. member now raises a new point of order about something which is supposedly before the House. At the present time, there is nothing before the House. We are still in the course of routine proceedings. We have nothing before the House. Therefore, I fail to see how the hon. member could raise a point of order on nothing; there is nothing before the House at the present time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I do not think I can allow that. I think the right hon. gentleman will have to wait until such time as we have something before the House.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we have before the House, with my customary respect, is a matter raised in question period today in relation to its sub judice character. It was on that basis that I introduced and Your Honour heard one point of order. We disagreed as to when that was finished, but you made a ruling and I must accept it. You have established that standard in relation to one point of order concerning the question of sub judice.
I think it would be entirely consistent, both with your previous ruling and with your practice, to accept the same standard or to accept the same reason for allowing another argument of a different kind arising out of question period on the matter of sub judice.
I confess to being rather astounded that the government House leader took 40 minutes of the time of the House to prevent me from pursuing a case which his own Prime Minister invited me to pursue earlier in the question period today. I raised one element of that case earlier this afternoon. I seek the opportunity, flowing from the exchange in the question period today, to pursue another element of that case which has not been explored in this House before and which Your
March 26, 1981

Honour would want to consider before you make any decision relating to any aspect of the cluster of argument I want to make relating to these two separate points of order.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, let us not split hairs. What the Leader of the Official Opposition is trying to do is to come again to bat after striking out earlier. That is pretty obvious. I wonder why you hesitate to find him out of order. He has pleaded his case and he was not here to proceed with it tonight. Parliament went on with its business; you have taken the matter he raised under advisement and you will hand out your decision. There is no reason why this hon. member should have the opportunity to speak again on the same issue. I find this contrary to our parliamentary practices, for it is about time for Parliament to continue with its business.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I rise partly because I have been here eight and a half years and I thought that-


An hon. Member:: And you still have not learned.


John Allen Fraser: An hon. member opposite says that I still have not learned.


Mr. Kempling:: The guy who said that has only been here a year.


John Allen Fraser: Through you, Madam Speaker, I thought when I came down here, and I have heard often enough since, that Madam Speaker's role is not to protect the program of the government but to protect the rights of members to be heard.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I apologize for the interventions on the other side. I can understand it because I listened to the House leader the other day when he told us that Beauchesne does not matter, that precedent does not matter, that tradition does not matter and that as long as they have the numbers that is all that matters. They can do anything they damned well want.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, my point is this. I find it outrageous-absolutely outrageous-that Madam Speaker, knowing that the right hon. gentleman who leads this party had not finished his argument, did not keep in mind the fact that as custodian of the rights of hon. members on this issue, there was some appropriate delay, or at least a question delivered to this side, such as: "Is the right hon. member coming back? Does he not want to proceed?"


An hon. Member:: That is not the Speaker's job.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I recognize the difficulty you are in when the government decides to push you right to the wall, according to the rules. I recognize that. But what we are talking about here is not the right of a government, it is the rights of members of this House, of which you are the trustee, custodian and guarantor.
There is another aspect of this, Madam Speaker, which is difficult for me to say to you, to continue with calm, when some of my friends-and I do have some friends on the government side-are not happy with what I am pointing out. They are not happy because they realize the public is watching this. The public has a better sense of fair play tonight than have the members opposite.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, there is another point to this. If the rules are to be applied without any concept of what was going on at five o'clock and what ought to have continued at eight, if they are to be applied with a sort of antiseptic severity which loses all sight of what it is we are supposed to be doing here and, as a consequence cuts off the right hon. gentleman after only a few minutes, when everyone knows he just got started, then I want to know this: When will the member for Vancouver South, myself, get a chance to talk on this issue? When will all other members here who believe there was a proper point raised get a chance to speak?


An hon. Member:: Speaker's discretion.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I hear a member opposite shouting over to you "Speaker's discretion." I suggest to you with great respect that you have a discretion not to listen to those voices. You have an obligation to listen to your own conscience and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, they do not like any talk of conscience because there is no action on the basis of conscience over there.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I have been here eight and a half years and it is very seldom I have ever used any strong words on a procedural issue-


An hon. Member:: Where were you at eight o'clock?


John Allen Fraser: I spent many years practising law and I know more about procedure than most of you fellows do, so be quiet.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, your duty is to protect our interests. Our duty is to protect your position. I understand that relationship. I think Your Honour will agree that since you have been the Speaker I have sometimes become over-

Point of Order-Mr. Clark
excited, but I have always bowed to your wishes and your directives. I will do so again. But I do want to say, Madam Speaker, that the respect we hold for you is based on the fact you are the trustee, the custodian, the guarantor of the rights of members, not the rights of a majority government that believes, as the government House leader said the other day, that it does not matter about Beauchesne and tradition, as long as they have the numbers they can do anything they want. I say this to you, Madam Speaker, very seriously, and I have never said anything like this before, since I have been in the House, this House is not a happy place right now-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


John Allen Fraser: It is not a happy place for reasons we all understand. We are trying to do our duty. It depends very much on the conduct of members and the confidence we have in how things are done in this House whether we do our duty appropriately in the interest of the Canadian people, or we are just completely stampeded by a majority that has gone absolutely mad in getting a proposition through before the Quebec election is ended, before the Canadian people have had a chance to know what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, the member for Fraser Valley, as I recall, said this is not a happy place, and he is absolutely right.


An hon. Member:: Vancouver South!


Ian Deans: The hon. member for Vancouver South, I apologize.


John Allen Fraser: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member has a point of order to make on the intervention of the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans) when he has not spoken
yet.


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, I have a very brief point of order to make, and that is that I would hope the hon. member would respect the rules of this House and refer to me as the hon. member for Vancouver South.


Ian Deans: I am sorry, Madam Speaker.


Walter David Baker: Respect the House by sitting down!


Ian Deans: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton tells me to respect the House by sitting down. That is advice which he might well take himself from time to time.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: Madam Speaker, since the bell stopped ringing something in the order of 47 minutes have elapsed. I want to suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the proceedings in 46 of those minutes were quite out of order. I do not understand how
we can be dealing with points of order in the middle of the daily routine proceedings. What can possibly be out of order during the daily routine proceedings as long as the proceedings are followed in sequence?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ian Deans: I sincerely regret that my Conservative colleagues cannot continue their filibuster. I regret it for their sake. But, for the sake of the House, had they been here at eight o'clock they could have continued.
If I understand correctly what has happened this evening, we have reached the point in the daily routine proceedings where we should be hearing statements by ministers. If my understanding is correct, then at this point nothing can possibly be out of order.
I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, in the interest of the House and the protection of all the members of it, that you call the next order of business.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Bryce Mackasey (Lincoln):: Madam Speaker, I think this is a very important point of order, a very important time in debate. What appalled me, when listening to hon. members opposite, was the premise that somehow or other the Speaker of the House is responsible for the ineptitude of the House leader of the opposition. It is not the responsibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons to phone or inquire whether the opposition wants to continue with the point of privilege or the point of order they were debating at five o'clock.
As I recall the event, at the time the hon. Leader of the Opposition-


Charles Joseph Clark: Right hon., Bryce.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: The right hon. leader. I apologize because I respect the courtesies of the House and I do respect the right hon. leader as a former prime minister.
At five o'clock the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) had an opportunity to continue the debate on that issue. Yes, I am certain he did. The important point, Madam Speaker, is that you should not be dragged into honest differences of opinion between the government and the opposition. Your job is that of custodian of the rules; your prestige and the effectiveness and efficiency of the House of Commons depends upon your impartiality. Your impartiality would not last very long if you had to cover up for the ineptitude of one side or the other. If there was no one on his feet at eight to continue the point raised at five o'clock, or that was debated at five o'clock, that was not the fault of the Speaker.
I remember very vividly that in 1968 in this very chamber the government of the day was defeated on a very important motion because at two or three or four minutes after eight o'clock, sitting quietly in their places, waiting for the speaker who was to participate, the member who was to carry on the
March 26, 1981

debate was tardy, and someone at that moment, quite appropriately, asked the chairman of the Committee of the Whole to call for the vote. The chairman of the Committee of the Whole, recognizing his responsibility to be impartial and to call for that vote, called for the vote. You may recall that the government of the day was defeated.


An hon. Member:: By two votes.


Bryce Stuart Mackasey: By one or two or 25. The important point is that the chairman of the committee had the sense of dedication, integrity and an awareness of his impartiality and did what was the appropriate thing, to call for the vote.
In the final analysis, Madam Speaker, in 1968 it was the fault of the government of which I was a member that someone did not rise in his place at eight o'clock to continue the debate. If there is an error tonight, it does not lie with the Speaker, but with members opposite who for one reason or another did not see fit at eight or five after eight to continue with the order of business we were discussing at five o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Perhaps I may summarize the situation. I do not need to recall the facts. Everyone knows I was here and waited and nobody rose, and that is very important; nobody rose. I looked around the House. The only indication to the Speaker that there are no more speakers is the fact that no one rises.
An hon. member on this side referred to the fact that I used my discretion and that perhaps I used it a bit too strictly. My discretion was not at stake. I did not use my discretion. There were no more speakers. I want to make that very, very clear. If I had used my discretion I am sure I would feel much more uncomfortable than I do now. When one uses one's discretion, of course, there is a judgment call. But I made no judgment call in this particular circumstance. There were no other speakers. There was one member present on this side of the House. He did not rise to speak and, therefore, I had to continue the proceedings. I had no other choice, and I repeat that.
If I am the custodian of the rights of members in this House, it is not by extending courtesies right and left that I will preserve those rights. My guidance, and my only guidance, lies in the rules, and I must apply them as well as I understand them. I may fail in this, but tonight I do not think I am failing. I must apply them as well as I understand them. I must comply completely with those rules and, when necessary, to look at usages and practices in order to integrate these usages and practices with the rules of the House of Commons. I repeat it, I used no discretion tonight.
The first point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has been disposed of. No second point of order can be entertained on that particular question because it is not before the House. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition could raise a point of order, which he did and which I heard and disposed of because it followed the deliberations of this
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
afternoon, namely, the question period. That is admissible and I heard the right hon. gentleman. The only course I can follow now is to continue the proceedings. If the right hon. gentleman at some other time feels he can bring in a new point, he can do so. I told him that I would rule, probably narrowly, after again looking into the arguments he gave me, on the question of sub judice which he raised today in the House of Commons. Once I have done that, and if the right hon. gentleman is not satisfied, then at the proper time it is open to him to raise another point of order.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a fresh point of order.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is a great deal of shouting around the House, Madam Speaker, but I shall try to overcome it and make my point of order. I raise it now because it flows, as did the earlier, separate point of order I raised, from the proceedings in the question period today. This is the first opportunity I have had to raise this particular point of order flowing from the question period today, and flowing in response, as my earlier one did, from the request by the Prime Minister that I make my points on the matter that was argued during an exchange between the Prime Minister and myself in the question period today.
As you will recall, Madam Speaker, there was reference to rule No. 338(3) of Beauchesne's having to do with the question of matters which are sub judice. That particular reference in Beauchesne's, with which you will be familiar, reads as follows;
The convention applies to motions, references in debates, questions and supplementary questions, but does not apply to bills.
The reason it does not apply to bills is that there has never been, in the practice of Parliament, a desire to try to limit the capacity of Parliament to legislate on a matter which was before the Supreme Court of Canada, if Parliament wanted to bring in new legislation which would create new law.
What we are dealing with here is different from precedent in two cases, and different from what was argued before in two elements. The first is that we are dealing here with a resolution, not with a bill. The second is, and this is the nub of the question, and obviously a matter you will want to consider with the utmost care, we are dealing with a matter which may very well be beyond the competence of the Parliament of Canada to pursue in any event. We are dealing with a matter which may be beyond the constitutional competence of the Parliament of Canada. Indeed, it is precisely that question, as to the competence of the Parliament of Canada to deal with a matter which is before us, which is now being brought by-


Madam Speaker:: I am very sorry, but I must interrupt the hon. member. Even though he now says he is raising a new point of order which flows from the deliberations of the day, namely, question period, the proper time to do that is before I

March 26, 1981
Order Paper Questions
commence proceedings, presenting reports-the normal proceedings of the day.


An hon. Member:: Why?


Harvie Andre: What citation?


Madam Speaker:: When the hon. member raised the point of order today, somewhere around five o'clock, it was at about the point in the proceedings we usually reach at three o'clock and I could entertain the point of order. But I cannot entertain it now, even though-


An hon. Member:: Why?


Madam Speaker:: -he is trying to do indirectly what I just told him he could not do directly, and even though he now alleges that it flows from the question period. I could accept that if we had not begun routine proceedings, but we have. Therefore, if the right hon. gentleman has a new point to raise, he can raise it, but not at this time. I must now proceed to questions on the Order Paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Questions on the Order Paper.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Point of order.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Order!


QUESTIONS ON THE ORDER PAPER
[Stage Direction]
(Questions answered orally are indicated by an asterisk.)
David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 1,943, 2,049 and 2,210.


Mr. Benjamin: Does the government have any intentions of transferring ownership and/or control of Arctic airports from the Department of Transport to the (a) Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (b) territorial governments?


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Ownership of the Arctic airports is vested in The Queen in right of Canada and will remain so. Assuming that the control referred to means operational responsibility, under present arrangements the smaller airports (over 40) are operated by the territorial governments with funding provided by Transport Canada. The government is examining whether it would be desirable and possible to give the territorial governments both operational and financial responsibility
(under the Department of Indian Affairs and Northern Development) for these airports. No consideration is being given to transferring Transport Canada's responsibility for the safety of air services in the north.


Mr. Greenaway: 1.	Since 1975 to date, by year, in the province of British Columbia, how many legal proceedings have been launched by the Crown against resident native people for infractions against the Fisheries Act, and by case, which ones were (a) dismissed (b) appealed (c) won (d) lost, by the Crown?
2.	In cases dismissed, what were the reasons?
3.	In cases of appeal, how many were (a) won (b) lost by the Crown on (i) upholding (ii) reversal of the original decisions?
4.	What was the total cost of (a) cases (b) appeals to the (i) Department of Justice (ii) Department of Fisheries and Oceans, and for what purposes was the money disbursed?
5.	In cases where convictions have been upheld, what revenue accrued from (a) Fines imposed (b) property, including Fish, conFiscated?
6.	How many days of work were lost by employees of the Department of Fisheries and Oceans in appearing at these proceedings and what is the estimated cost to the department of this time lost?
7.	In each case of acquittal, was confiscated property, including fish, returned to the owner(s) in good condition or was alternative compensation given and, if so, what was the nature of such compensation?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: The Department of Fisheries and Oceans does not keep separate statistics concerning the prosecution of native Indians as this could be interpreted to be discriminatory. For example, in 1979, several agencies questioned a form used by the department in reference to fishing activities which distinguished between "white" and "coloured" fishermen. The form was changed immediately.
The information requested would require a search of approximately 6,000 prosecution files from 1975 to 1980 in area and district fisheries offices throughout B.C. as well as at regional headquarters in Vancouver. It is estimated that the search would take up to eight person months to complete at a cost of $15-25,000. Regional staff would not be available to conduct such a search during the summer and fall fishing season; therefore, the department would have to contract the work.


Mr. Cossitt: 1.	Was a survey recently sent out by the Department of Supply and Services and, if so (a) for what purpose (b) was it sent to approximately 1,000 business persons or companies (c) was it signed by the deputy minister, Mr. David Kirkwood (d) did the questionnaire ask if recipients were satisfied with the speed at which they were being paid by the department for work performed?
2.	Has the department been concerned with the efficiency or otherwise of the cheque-issuing process and, if so (a) for what reasons (b) what is being done to correct the situation?
3.	As of March 6, 1981, how many replies to the questionnaire have been received?


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: 1. Yes.
March 26, 1981

(a)	In accordance with Office of the Comptroller General policy, all components of the department's programs are subject to evaluation on a five-year cyclical basis. This survey is to obtain information for an evaluation of the component which includes the system to pay suppliers of goods and services.
(b)	Yes.
(c)	Yes.
(d)	One question asked recipients how satisfied they were with the performance of the federal government's payment of invoices.
2.	The department is always interested in the efficiency of the cheque-issuing process. However, this survey is not based on any special concern but is part of an evaluation process as explained in the response to 1(a).
3.	Two hundred and one.


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


Mr. Crosbie:: Madam Speaker, a point of order.


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, a point of order.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, if question No. 681 could be made an order for return, this return would be tabled immediately.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Harvie Andre: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: The only points of order I can entertain now are points of order relating to the proceedings. No others are allowed at this time.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my point of order is very much on a question of proceedings. Citation 232 in Beau-chesne reads as follows:
Points of order are questions raised with the view of calling attention to any departure from the Standing Orders or the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business and may be raised at virtually any time by any member, whether he has previously spoken or not.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Subsection 3 of Citation 233 states:
Since the introduction of a time limit on the daily oral Question Period it has become the custom for the Speaker to recognize points of order only at the conclusion of the Question Period.
Points of Order
Citation 235 states:
Any member is entitled, even bound, to bring to the Speaker's immediate notice any instance of what he considers a breach of order. He may interrupt and lay the point in question concisely before the Speaker. He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House. The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment, namely the moment it occurred. A point of order may be taken after a debate is concluded-
And the citation goes on.
Would you kindly explain for my benefit and perhaps the benefit of other members of this House why you are ruling that points of order at the present time are, in fact, out of order?


John Carnell Crosbie: On what authority?


Madam Speaker:: What the hon. member just stated is absolutely correct. I can entertain points of order relating to routine proceedings but I cannot entertain points of order relating to something that is not before the House.
I would draw the attention of the hon. member to the citation which says:
The Speaker's attention must be directed to a breach of order at the proper moment-
I am telling the House that whatever points of order were raised earlier were not raised at the proper moment, namely, the moment they occurred.


An hon. Member:: This is right after question period.


Madam Speaker:: We have nothing before the House at the present time. Unless the hon. member wants to point out to me now any irregularity regarding the routine proceedings, I cannot hear the point. If the point is on routine proceedings, 1 will hear him with pleasure.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I wonder if all members of the House of Commons do not now have a question of privilege. That question of privilege is: whether or not the privileges of all members are being affected as a result of what I respectfully suggest is a misreading of Citation 233 in Beauchesne. This will bring us to the point that points of order are not now being allowed so we can deal with the customary modes of proceeding in the House. I think when we read the blues on this matter tomorrow we will be rather shocked at what happened. But as a result of what happened, especially with respect to the second point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) if you do not hear him now, he, having the right to raise it at any time, will have lost his right to deal with a matter which falls within that general dictum of customary modes or proceedings in debate.
Never in eight years have I found that there is only one time to raise a point of order, and no other time, and especially no other time when the new point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is on a matter which has been before the House daily.
I rise now because if there is not a point of order-and I say there is a point of order, a point of order having been raised by

March 26, 1981
Points of Order
the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition-there is now a question of privilege. It is the right and a privilege of members now to be heard-not just any member. It is the privilege of the Leader of the Opposition to be heard when he rises in an orderly way. Surely it is flying in the face of the dictum as well if he must wait to be heard.


Mr. Caccia:: He was not here.


William James Kempling: Go on another trip, Charlie.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Go on another trip to Europe, the IPU.


Walter David Baker: I am not talking about the first one, I am talking about the second point of order. I say, with respect, that by failing to hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition, another paragraph in Beauchesne is being affected. That affects my rights and privileges.
Our rules do not end with the Standing Orders. The Standing Orders are only the clarification for some things. They are not the Bible. They are not the whole text. They are not the old and the New Testament. They may be one testament but not all of it. We have some customs and some rules which are enshrined in Beauchesne's fifth edition, in May's and all the rest of them. One is that a point of order is always in order with respect to the conduct of legislative business.
Legislative business is not just a bill which might be before the House, it is the whole process of the House of Commons. The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is not an ordinary member. He raised a new point of order in the conduct of legislative business, when it is always in order, according to Citation 233 in Beauchesne, to raise a matter calling attention to any departure from the customary modes of proceeding in debate or in the conduct of legislative business.
Part of the conduct of legislative business in this House does not mean just government orders. Part of the conduct of the business of this House includes all the routine proceedings which we are in the middle of right now.
For that reason, I ask you to consider very carefully the position we are in now, at least with respect to the second point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. Because you have ruled on the first one and I cannot argue with that, but by not permitting him to proceed on his second point, without even listening to his argument beyond a sentence or two, you may have violated his privileges and you may, by so ruling, affect the privileges of every one of us to speak in accordance with the customary modes and proceedings in debate or in the conduct of legislative business.
However, the Standing Orders, the rules, reglement, customs, traditions and precedents go much beyond that. They are not nice, clear cut things you can punch into a computer and have an answer come out. One of the things those rules, customs and precedents are there to protect is my right as a Member of Parliament to rise at any time, that is on a matter or a question of privilege.
Other members should be heard with respect to that question of privilege. That goes fundamentally to our place in this House, to our ability to discuss and debate public issues and to raise public issues at the time they come up, particularly an officer of the House, as is the Leader of the Opposition.
It is not just my privileges that are affected. We are in grave danger of affecting everybody's privileges by what I call a legalism. With respect to the legalism, there is more to the rules of this House than merely the Standing Orders. There are the traditions, precedents and customs. In the discretion which you have in dealing with the question of privilege I now raise, you deal with the ability of members to function in terms of order in this House. That will be sadly affected. That affects my privileges as a member. That is why there must be another way of approaching this situation in order to permit the Leader of the Opposition to raise a point of order which by Citation 233 can be raised at any time there is "any departure from the Standing Orders" which is one thing, "the customary modes" which is something else, "proceeding in debate", something else or "the conduct of legislative business".
Although it is entitled routine proceedings on the order paper, that is only a label. The essence of it is that it is part of the legislative business of the House of Commons. I therefore ask you, Madam Speaker, to consider it from the point of view of a question of privilege that I raise, because I happen to have been recognized, on behalf of all members of the House, particularly the Leader of the Opposition who I respectfully suggest ought to be able to continue this argument now.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I congratulate the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) for keeping his voice down, but I say to him that to call what he raised a question of privilege is a misnomer. It is not a question of privilege. He used that phrase to criticize a ruling of the Chair. I point out that under Standing Order 12 a ruling of the Chair is not debatable, cannot be appealed and there cannot be any discussion on it. Your Honour ruled that although the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) might well have other opportunities to raise a point of order, he does not have the opportunity or the right to raise a point of order during routine proceedings unless it is a point of order with respect to something in routine proceedings. I submit to Your Honour that we are in for trouble if under the device of calling it privilege we are going to have these attacks on the Chair. I hope my friend will think very seriously before he does that sort of thing again.
While I am on my feet, I want to say a word or two about this myth, even though it is based on a few words in Citation 233, that a point of order can be raised at any time. My friend the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) recited that a moment ago. It is like being able to present a motion to adjourn at any time. It is not that. You can present a motion to adjourn at any time that you properly get the floor to do that. As for the right to raise a point of order at any time, my friend from Nepean-Carleton read the very words:
-when one needs to call attention to any departure from the Standing Orders.
March 26, 1981

Has there been any departure from the Standing Orders in the tabling of documents, statements by ministers or answering questions on the Order Paper? Not a bit. I read on:
-or the customary modes of proceeding in debate-
We are not into debate. When we are in a debate you can get up at any time. Many times members get up. They may not have good ground for it but at least they have the right to get up. It continues:
-or in the conduct of legislative business.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend says yes. We are not in the conduct of legislative business.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


Stanley Howard Knowles: No, we are not, we are in routine proceedings. We have not got to legislative business. We did not get to it all day Tuesday, I suppose we will not get to it all day today and I do not suppose we will get to it all day tomorrow.


Some hon. Members:: Right on.


Stanley Howard Knowles: There you are. I have been through this kind of thing before. I plead with my friends in all corners of the House to recognize that the most important thing in a situation like this is the preservation of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: One of the ways to preserve Parliament is to preserve and protect the person we put in the Chair to guide and direct the deliberations of this House. Attacks on the person in the Chair can lead to serious consequences.
I repeat, Madam Speaker, we are not in legislative business, we are not in debate. No one can allege with respect to what we are dealing with, namely, the various items under routine proceedings, that there has been any departure from the Standing Orders. If there has been such a departure, let a member get up and say so, but let him cite it and say what it is. We have not heard that.
If you erred at all, Madam Speaker, it is not in the ruling that you gave that the Leader of the Opposition should wait until another time. If you erred at all, it is in not proceeding one by one down the items of routine proceedings until we get to government orders and something gets called. If in that process anything is done that is wrong, if the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Col-lenette) who just tabled questions, I think that is what he was doing in the hubbub, did something wrong or did not answer somebody's question and that member wants to get up and raise a point of order, that is legitimate, but the point of order has to relate to what is before the House.
That is spelled out again in one of the citations which the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton read. In 235, referring to members, it states:
Points of Order
He should do so as soon as he perceives an irregularity in the proceedings which are engaging the attention of the House.
What has been engaging the attention of the House this afternoon and tonight-routine proceedings, presenting reports by standing and special committees, tabling of documents, statements by ministers, introduction of bills, first reading of Senate public bills, government notices of motions, motions and questions on the Order Paper. These are the things that have been engaging the attention of the House, and at any point anything was out of order with respect to those items would have been the proper subject of a point of order. But to get up and claim that it is a point of order as to whether or not the sub judice doctrine is being respected in the case of the constitutional package simply has no relation to those now engaging the attention of the House. If we cannot respect these rules and respect the Speaker when she draws our attention to the rules, we are in for the kind of trouble that I do not want to see during the next ten days this House is in session.


An hon. Member:: What happens after ten days?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My hon. friend asks what could happen in the next ten days? I said earlier that we might have a day like this tomorrow and the answer from the Tories was that we would. I hope they will reconsider that I hope they have not had a council of war and they think they can proceed to tear this House apart.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Talk to the government.


An hon. Member:: When are you going to get a cabinet post, Stan?


An hon. Member:: You might accept the Senate before you are through.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I do not mind these insults. Of course, I have just had the worst insult of all, the suggestion that I would go to the Senate; never!
I do plead that we calm down. Later on tonight I hope we will get to Item No. 41. When we reach that a discussion on a point of order or several points of order that are already before the House, will be quite in order. When we get back some day to 36, which is the constitutional package, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in my view would be perfectly in order in rising on a point of order and saying, with respect to what would then be engaging the attention of the House, that in his view it is out of order.
But now, Madam Speaker, I plead, not just through you, but to my friends in the House, that if you try to go on from the present item to the next they do not howl as they did a few moments ago. In my view, you are doing your best, you should stay with it and you are perfectly right that while routine proceedings are engaging the attention of the House it is not in

March 26, 1981
Points of Order
order to raise a point of order with respect to something else altogether.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) said in his intervention he hoped there was another way we could hear the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). I hope so, too, because I would like to accommodate him, if it is at all possible according to our rule. However, there is not another way. I have to insist that what I said awhile ago, confirmed now by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), is the only way I can proceed.
I would remind the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that points of order cannot be raised indiscriminately. For example, tonight we could not raise a point of order on a borrowing bill; it is not before the House and is not relevant to the present proceedings of the House. He quoted Citation 233, but it is not relevant to this particular situation. We are not at the present time conducting legislative business. We might come to it but we are not there at the present time, nor are we in debate. Therefore, I do have to rule that I cannot hear points of order unless they relate to routine proceedings. For example, if there is a point of order on questions on the Order Paper, which I have just called, I can entertain that. I have just called questions on the Order Paper and I will hear the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) on that matter, and then we will proceed from there.


Some hon. Members:: Point of order.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I had read out the numbers, and I did ask that if No. 681 could be made an order for return, the return would be tabled immediately. It was given to one of the ushers but I did not get your consent to do that. Following that I would ask that all remaining questions be allowed to stand.


An hon. Member:: Question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: The questions have been-


Some hon. Members:: Point of order.


Madam Speaker:: The questions have been-


An hon. Member:: A question of privilege takes precedence over any order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I will hear that at the proper time when I finish dealing with the questions on the Order Paper. Members know that usually I listen to the hon. Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council on questions on the Order Paper, that is the normal and usual procedure. I will deal with that and then I can hear points of order if there are any. For the time being the parliamentary secretary has the floor.


An hon. Member:: Not on a question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I will terminate with that procedure. The questions as enumerated by the hon. parliamentary secretary have been answered. Is it the pleasure-


An hon. Member:: Point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I heard the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn) say he had a question relating to the questions on the Order Paper and I will give him the floor.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: Madam Speaker, my question No. 1,418, asked on July 9, has not been answered. It is a simple question. I asked the government what money they loaned to Tanzania, whether the loans had been extended, what was the interest rate and was there any default? It is a simple matter and the government has not answered. My point of order is simply this, Madam Speaker: Why has that not been answered? Is it embarrassing to the government? Have they given away the taxpayers' money? That is important in other debates before this House and we want to know.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, since it appears there may be a number of interventions on points of order concerning questions on the Order Paper I will sit down and hear them all and deal with the answers seriatim, if that is acceptable. If you would like me to jump up and down after every member and say: I will do my best to get the answer, I am quite prepared to do that, I need the exercise.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member is not the only one jumping up and down tonight. I would urge him to answer the question as it was asked by the hon. member for Mississauga South. If there are others I guess he can rise and answer them too.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I shall do my best to give that answer.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I would like to bring some questions on the Order Paper to the attention of the parliamentary secretary. On December 9 I put a question on the Order Paper, No. 1,852. It is a simple two-part question dealing with the chairman of the Canadian Film Development Corporation. I asked whether or not he was included in the corporation's conflict of interest guidelines. I also asked whether he maintained an interest in a private law practice and, if so, with which firms and in what capacity, and whether or not the firm conducts business on behalf of clients in the film industry.
This is a very simple question, Madam Speaker, one that was put on the Order Paper three and a half months ago as a result of representations made to me by a private citizen concerned about this particular issue. I would have thought it possible for the parliamentary secretary, if he was concerned about doing his job and ensuring that Members of Parliament got swift answers to questions on the Order Paper, to have found it possible in three and a half months to get an answer to a question this simple.
I would also like to refer to two other questions, Madam Speaker, which have sat on the Order Paper now for two and a
March 26, 1981

half months. The parliamentary secretary will note that questions No. 1,907 and No. 1,908 have sat on the Order Paper since January 12. Question no. 1,907 deals with the government's failure to promote the Telidon system at INTELCOM '80 in Los Angeles, and I asked why that was not done. 1 asked other related questions dealing with the whole issue of the government's promotion of that system. As the parliamentary secretary knows, I am this side's spokesman on communications and I think this is an issue which is germane to consideration of communication issues, and is one which could have been answered in that period of time.
Madam Speaker, the other question which I bring to your attention is No. 1,908 dealing with the CBC, and whether it was possible for independents to borrow CBC documentaries. Again, that is a very simple question which could have been answered over the course of two and a half months.
I think the delays here raise very serious questions about the utility of putting questions on the Order Paper, because if questions which are as simple as this stay on the Order Paper for two and a half or three months that renders the Order Paper useless as a means of obtaining information.
Members of Parliament put questions on the Order Paper because (a) they are of a technical nature and they cannot be asked in the oral question period, and (b) because they believe that a public response should be given. The vehicle of the question on the Order Paper enables us to do that. But what we find is that questions are put on the Order Paper, sit there indefinitely with no answer forthcoming, and that renders this vehicle absolutely useless. There are over 200 questions on the Order Paper ahead of the one I have mentioned, the one I put there on December 9. I have two questions among those two hundred which have sat on the Order Paper unanswered. It seems to me the system we have been following is one which has been very unsatisfactory for all sides of the House, because hon. members on all sides have questions on the Order Paper which remain unanswered.
I think it is incumbent upon the parliamentary secretary to give an answer to the members of the House as to what action he will take to ensure that simple questions which are placed on the Order Paper receive responses within a reasonable period of time. Perhaps, if it is not possible for him to do that, it would be appropriate for the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization to look at the whole procedure being followed here to see whether there are other mechanisms which can be followed to enable Members of Parliament to seek and obtain this sort of information from the government in a timely manner.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am in agreement with one part of the comment made by the hon. member opposite, and that is that this whole practice of questions on the Order Paper should be looked at by the Standing Committee on Organization and Procedure. Last fall I made some public comments on the practice of one member having many questions on the Order Paper which are very expensive to answer.
Points of Order
It engendered some public debate between the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt), myself and other hon. members. I certainly would take that point, and I commend the hon. member for bringing it forward this evening. Perhaps we should be looking at this particular aspect of our proceedings.
The hon. member talked about the delay in answering questions. I have repeated, on a number of occasions, that we have answered almost 80 per cent of the questions on the Order Paper. I would like to raise it to a 100 per cent, but the session is not yet over. Take for example, question No. 1,907 of the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) concerning Telidon. In part three of that question the hon. member says:
Has the government any estimates of promotional budgets for competitive systems produced in other countries and, if so, what are such estimates?
That is a tall order to fill; to get that kind of information in two months, three months, or even six months. We have to find out who are our competitors. It is very difficult, in some respects, to find out who the competitors are because not every country is forthcoming with this information.
If my reply is somewhat lengthy, I am only trying to accommodate, I am sure, the very sincere questions of the hon. member opposite.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would ask the parliamentary secretary to perhaps give the House an explanation as to why I have not received to this date-although it is over four months since I asked for it-an answer to question No. 1,774. This question deals with the estimated expenditures of de Havilland Aircraft of Canada for (a) advertising, (b) free or subsidized publication, and (c) other information conveyed to the public. I raise this particularly because, as we know, this is one of those unfortunate one dollar items that were included in the supplementary estimates and eventually passed in the bill that went through the House last night. I think it is unforgivable that the government, four months after the request, has not seen fit to give the House an explanation as to what, in fact, has been spent by that corporation in connection with the items I set out in my question.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I am glad we are having this exhaustive interrogation about this item because it gives me an opportunity to explain some of the limitations 1 have in bringing these answers to the House.
The particular question raised by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens), question No. 1,774, dealing with de Havilland Aircraft of Canada, deals with a company which I believe is a Crown corporation or the greatest shareholder is the Government of Canada. But one must realize that de Havilland Aircraft must operate within the marketplace, must keep certain information to itself if it is to compete with other companies. As a result, in respect of questions of this nature, when we are talking about the business practices of Crown corporations, or any company in which the federal government has a large interest, we have to respect-and I am sure the hon. members opposite would respect, given their support and belief in the principle of free enterprise-that there is only so

March 26, 1981
Points of Order
much information we can make public without jeopardizing the commercial prospects of these companies. That could very well be the reason there has been a delay. However, I would again ask the hon. member for York-Peel, what constitutes a delay? Each question must be looked at in its own context.
There were questions raised by the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville concerning the Taschereau papers. This matter has come before the House in the last few weeks. I would like to inform the House that it took two years to bring these answers forward because they dealt with a very sensitive matter. The Taschereau papers were being reviewed, as was mentioned in those answers, and this is a very complex matter that goes back 40 years.
My purpose in giving this reply is to let the hon. member and others know that this is not a simple and easy matter of putting a question on the Order Paper and expecting a reply as of yesterday. Each question must be looked at in its own context. I believe it will then become apparent why replies are quick in coming forward or are slow.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, partly in the context of what the parliamentary secretary has now said, I noted that his rationalization for not giving us the information with respect to de Havilland was that it was a commercial concern, and that I would respect, in the free enterprise system, that sometimes that type of information cannot be made public. It is obvious to every hon. member that if that, in truth, was the answer, it could presumably have been given a week after I asked the question, and I could have taken appropriate steps to try to obtain the information from other sources.
My second point of order concerns question No. 1,775. This is another question which has been outstanding for four months. This question makes the same requests I made with respect to de Havilland, but this time we are dealing with the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation. I think the parliamentary secretary could perhaps offer an explanation to the House now as to why-in the case of a clear Crown corporation clearly there is no question of free enterprise or competitive advantage-they have chosen to keep secret what that company has been spending on advertising, free or subsidized publications or other information conveyed to the public.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I answered this question in part; I think it was yesterday. I am just trying to find the reference in Hansard. Perhaps this was in response to the hon. member for Dufferin-Grey-Waterloo. I may have that wrong. I am sorry.


An hon. Member:: It may be a question of privilege, Madam Speaker.


David Michael Collenette: I stand to be corrected. I know that I was using the old boundary name before redistribution the last time, and I regret that, but I think everyone knows who I am talking about. Quite simply, there are a number of questions posed by this hon. member and the hon. member for York-Peel concerning the advertising budgets of various government departments, Crown corporations, and, as I said yesterday, we
are trying to get the information in a group so we can present it to the House rather than give isolated answers. Some of the information is available on that series of questions and will be brought forward as soon as we get the information from other departments, so there is no real mystery on that particular question.
The hon. member for York-Peel talked about de Havilland Aircraft of Canada. I am not saying that is the reason, but I am simply saying this is the general constraint I sometimes find, when dealing with Crown corporations. Certain information cannot be released because of the competitive nature of the business that company may be engaged in.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would point out to the parliamentary secretary that I put questions on the Order Paper asking separately about each company. I did that because I did not want the government to have the excuse, which the parliamentary secretary is now offering, to group all of the companies together before the parliamentary secretary could give us the entire answer. However, I will not press for information concerning certain expenditures of various other companies that is still outstanding. Let me refer the parliamentary secretary to question No. 2,042 in which I asked:
1.	What was the total cost of the Prime Minister's December-January world tour?
2.	What percentage of the total cost of the trip will be paid by the Canadian taxpayer?
I think this is something which is of great interest and I would like an explanation to be given to the House why, so long after the tour, we are still waiting for an answer to my question.


David Michael Collenette: I cannot answer that particular question tonight but I will try to look into it for the hon. member.


Mr. McKinnon:: Madam Speaker, my question too is on the failure of the parliamentary secretary to answer what would seem fairly simple questions on the Order Paper. I was glad to hear him say that the time taken depends on the context of the question. He is quite right. Simple questions should be answered much more quickly than the complex ones.
I asked a question on December 15 because of an answer he had tabled shortly before concerning the increase in real terms in the expenditures of the Department of National Defence. The answer which came back said that this excluded statutory costs. So I simply asked:
What has been the increase in the real terms in the Department of National Defence's expenditures, including statutory costs, for each fiscal year 1970-71 through 1979-80?
All they had to do was to add statutory costs. I am sure that had I asked this question during consideration of the defence estimates, I would have had the answer before the end of the meeting; the question is that simple, yet for three months they have been unable to put it on the Order Paper. I fail to understand that. I suspect the reason is they send the ques-
March 26, 1981

tions, and after the department gives the answers to the parliamentary secretary he takes them to the Privy Council where they get lost in the morass. I cannot see why they are unable to answer such a simple question in less than three months.
I am tempted to run this into two points of order and to include both questions I am complaining about tonight under the same point of order. My next question is similar to the one raised by my colleague who has just spoken. It is question No. 2,035 which reads:
1.	Was a Canadian forces 707 aircraft committed to the Prime Minister's use during his recent European-African-South American trip and, if so, for how many days and hours?
2.	Were other service aircraft committed and, if so, for how many days and hours?
3.	What was the total itemized cost for transportation of the entire trip?
I asked this, Madam Speaker, because I like to keep track of the money the Department of National Defence is spending. I am quite aware of the system they have used previously for working out the cost of a variety of flights of members and cabinet ministers. It was simplified almost to the extent of using a template. You just moved it to the type of aircraft and the number of hours. They would multiply the figures for you and give you the cost. It is quite simple. I did not make it complex. I did not ask for the extra cost of the Prime Minister's party being lost for a week in Austria. I did not ask if they had phoned for substitutes for the avocados he missed so much. I did not ask if they had to rent those running shoes which he was shown wearing in Brazil. It was nothing complicated at all. I did not ask if he had to stay in a hotel in Algeria because nobody would speak to him. I think these answers should be forthcoming as quickly as possible, and I am looking forward to hearing from the parliamentary secretary in a few days. I am sorry the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) is not here because I would like to say I do not believe it is the fault of the Department of National Defence, and there is no truth to the rumour that he is attending NATO exercises in Poland.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I regret that the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald) appears to believe that the question asked by her colleague, the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon), is so funny. I think he has a legitimate and very serious question and I shall do my best to get the answers.
I would say to the hon. member for Victoria, however, that he answered his own question a few minutes ago when he said he could easily go to the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence when the estimates are before that committee to get the information he sought through the Order Paper. This proves one of the points I have been raising from time to time, that a lot of the questions on the Order Paper are unnecessary. I would respectfully suggest the hon. member should take that route if he is assured of getting such a quick answer. Certainly I am doing my best to get an answer from the Department of National Defence.
With respect to question No. 2,035, it is linked to the question previously raised by the hon. member for York-Peel
Points of Order
concerning the Prime Minister's recent visit. I expect that when an answer to that question comes, we can also expect an answer to question No. 2,035 since they are linked.


Madam Speaker:: I had urged the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council to answer each question as it was raised, but I had no idea that this many questions would be asked. I will leave it to his discretion, whether he wants to answer them all at once or as they are asked. He had asked me if he could do that, but there are so many now. I leave it to his discretion.


Charles Joseph Clark: On a point of order, Madam Speaker, on that matter. We have heard a great deal tonight about the importance of observing the customs and practices of the House of Commons. The custom of the House of Commons has been for a specific answer to be given to a question that was put specifically on Order Paper matters. I am sure Your Honour would want to retain that kind of consistency in ruling, and I am sure you would not want to allow the parliamentary secretary to depart from that consistency. Naturally I would leave it to him to exercise his judgment in his usual way to ensure that he responds specifically to each specific question that is raised.


Madam Speaker:: I would point out to the Leader of the Opposition that the custom goes both ways. This is left to the discretion of the parliamentary secretary. A while ago I urged him to answer the questions one by one because I thought this would be more orderly, but now that I see there are a lot of questions and time is running out, I leave it to his discretion. There is nothing wrong with the custom. It has been done before.


Allan Bruce McKinnon: Madam Speaker, my point of order arises out of what the parliamentary secretary just said, that I could ask these questions at the Standing Committee on External Affairs and National Defence. He is quite right, except that at the time I wanted the answers, which was three months ago, there were no estimates before the House. I am surprised to hear him suggesting that I should be putting questions like this in committee when the committee is not sitting.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Bruce McKinnon: The other reason is that I am not unaware what happens if you try to obtain answers to oral questions that are detailed. That is what the Order Paper is for. If a question is detailed you are supposed to give the routine an opportunity to work. Unfortunately, it is not working very well these days and that is why there are so many people here with points of order.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Obviously this is a complete farce and sham-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: He is out of order.

March 26, 1981
Points of Order


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Any five-year old would recognize that, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I submit, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am anticipating the same thing hon. members are thinking just now, but I must at least hear a few sentences of what the hon. member says in order to know whether he does have a point of order which is related to routine proceedings.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: My point is, Madam Speaker, that you should simply not recognize members and move on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: 1 thank the hon. member for that advice, but I cannot follow it.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I am hoping the parliamentary secretary will exercise a great deal of discretion. I am most interested in hearing the contextual rationale for the delay in answering a question which I placed on the Order Paper on October 6.


An hon. Member:: Is this the British House of Commons?


Donald W. Munro: This is not the British House of Commons, in any event. In October I asked for some extracts of the public accounts as to the expenditures on airport improvements and capital outlays. Of course the parliamentary secretary will be aware-apparently I do not have his attention, so I shall wait until I do-that I have on more than one occasion stood in my place and asked about the installation of radar at Victoria International Airport. I am rather interested in knowing how many radar installations there have been since I started asking my questions about four years ago, and at what types of airports. I would be interested in knowing the way he will wriggle around this one and explain that there is more in it than the question seems to imply.
I put a second question on the Order Paper on October 7. I thought it was a very simple question. It related to the hon. Senator Perrault and whether he is entitled to exempt staff and, if so, how many? I should have thought by now, five and a half months later, if he has not been employing exempt staff, that fact might have been revealed. If he had exempt staff privileges, as do some ministers, it would have been possible within five and a half months to describe which positions had been filled, what was the job description and qualification for each position, and what is the salary for each position, I feel there is some cause for concern on my part that there should be such a delay in answering these questions.
The other two questions have been on the Order Paper for a less lengthy duration, but they are important questions. Again they request extracts of the public accounts or of the estimates. They relate to the coastguard.
As other hon. members have stood in their places and mentioned, questions are asked when answers are wanted. By the time the answers come, the need for the information which is being sought is sometimes past and out of date. I feel there is just cause for complaint on this side of the House for the lengthy delays.
My questions which have been on the Order Paper for a month concern figures which public servants can extract from the appropriate documents. I know from experience that answers to questions on the Order Paper are of first priority to public servants. It is the first thing each morning that a public servant receives on his desk. He is expected to deal with it expeditiously and get it, through his under secretary, to the minister. I cannot understand the lengthy delays we have been experiencing in this Parliament.


Mr. Neil:: Madam Speaker, my point of order concerns a question which I put on the Order Paper approximately ten months ago, in June of last year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Douglas Charles Neil: It was a fairly simple question. It was an inquiry of Statistics Canada as to how many surveys were carried out which required personal contact by an employee with an individual or a householder. It also asked how many full-time and part-time employees were on the payroll in each province.
I put that question on the Order Paper because I received a letter from a constituent who, shortly after filing his income tax return, was called on by one of his neighbours who indicated that he was a part-time employee of Statistics Canada and was asked questions pertaining to his personal income and expenses. My constituent felt that it was rather impertinent of one of his neighbours to ask these personal questions, particularly when he had just filed an income tax return and the information was available to the government. In a very short period of time, that constituent will be filing his 1980 income tax return. I presume he may be called on again by one of his neighbours asking similar questions.
My question is fairly simple. It is directed to Statistics Canada. Since Statistics Canada is the department which keeps the statistics, certainly within a period of ten months it should be able to punch its computer or do whatever is necessary to extract the information I requested in this question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, once before I asked the hon. parliamentary secretary about question No. 681 which has been on the Order Paper of 11 months and two days. I cannot understand why it is taking so long for my question to be answered, because Parks Canada has a sizeable staff. The reason I am asking this question is because Banff National Park is in my constituency. Many people in my constituency have asked why so many studies are being carried out, but there never is any action. I wanted a list of the studies carried out between 1974 and 1979, the subject of those studies, and whether they were put out to tender or conducted by the staff of Parks Canada. It is not a difficult question. Perhaps the
March 26, 1981

studies have all been completed; they are all in the past. It is a simple case of going through the studies and marking down the three or four points the people of Banff should properly know.
I do not think the government wants to withhold that information. At one point I asked the parliamentary secretary why I was not getting an answer. He said he would do his very best, but I cannot understand, for the life of me, what is holding up Parks Canada in regard to answering this question.
In the meantime, more studies are going on, but we do not even know what studies have already been completed. I urge the hon. parliamentary secretary to put a little fire under whoever is supposed to get these answers.


Thomas Gordon Towers: Madam Speaker, I suppose we all have our wishes, but I just wish the hon. member for Vancouver-Kings-way (Mr. Waddell) could exchange places with one of my constituents who is facing charges in the Supreme Court of Canada as a result of government policy regarding its metric conversion program. My question No. 811 has been on the Order Paper since May 8 of last year.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Thomas Gordon Towers: It is a simple question. I feel sorry for the parliamentary secretary because I think the Metric Commission is hanging him out to dry; they are not giving him the answers. This is the fifth time I have asked this question. I think my constituents have a right to an answer. Not only are they paying the costs, they are facing court charges. My question No. 811 reads as follows:
1.	By year, what was the total amount of funds disbursed on the metric conversion programme?
2.	(o) How many persons are employed under the programme (b) how many man-years are allocated to the programme?
3.	(o) How many contract employees or consultants are employed under the programme (b) what was the total amount of funds disbursed, by year, on contract employees or consultants?
4.	(a) How many contracts with consultants has the metric programme (b) who are the recipients of the contracts and what is the total amount of their emolument, by year?
5.	What was the total amount of money disbursed to date, for paid media advertising to publicize or promote the metric conversion programme?
6.	How many letters of comment has the Metric Commission received from concerned Canadians regarding the implementation of the programme and how many were letters (a) of complaint (b) praising the programme?
7.	Are weights and measures that have "been adopted in the Canadian metric conversion programme fully compatible and interchangeable with weights and measures used by other nations which use the metric system (b) is the Canadian "tonne" fully interchangeable with all other nations?-


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. It is ten o'clock.


Walter David Baker: When I asked the House business question earlier today, which the hon. member for
Adjournment Debate
Mississauga South followed up, the government House leader was somewhat imprecise as to what the government's business would be for tomorrow-


Some hon. Members:: It is ten o'clock!


Walter David Baker: He indicated that it might be the borrowing authority bill or it might be something else. I wonder if the Government House Leader can tell us-if he can tell us now-what he intends to bring forward tomorrow.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, when orders of the day are called we will try to move our motion to limit time allocation on the Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION

['The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.\nMotion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.', '\nFriday, March 27, 1981']
Madam Speaker:: In accordance with Standing Order 40, a motion to adjourn the House is deemed to have been moved.



Mr. Maurice Foster (Algoma):: Mr. Speaker, on November 12 I asked a question of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) concerning the National Energy Program and the dispute which had arisen between the province of Alberta and the federal government concerning energy pricing. I suggested to the minister that he should try to seek an arrangement with the minister of energy for the province of Alberta and that the question of the hold on tar sands and heavy oil plants, which Alberta had placed on these plants, be separated from the general negotiations relating to the pricing of oil, and revenue-sharing with respect to oil.
I suggested that at that time, because of a number of factors. The national resources and public works committee, of which I am a member, in its deliberations last fall discussed the very matter of heavy oils and tar sands. The committee held a number of discussions and meetings with the various companies involved. It became apparent to us that we were dealing with a massive program. The initial tar sands plant, the Syncrude plant, cost $2 billion or $3 billion, but the two plants which are now being discussed will cost some $8 billion to $10 billion and are not something in immediate play in terms of production but, rather, are long-term projects which will take several years to construct. They will require massive amounts of money to construct.
It seemed to me that the dispute between the federal and provincial governments with respect to oil pricing and revenuesharing would be long settled one way or another before these plants ever come into production. I thought that would be a

March 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate
wise move in order to see this dispute set aside and taken away from the general difficulties which have arisen between the two levels of government. Indeed, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources indicated that day he had spoken on the phone with the minister of energy for Alberta and would be happy to see that course of action followed. However, as it turned out, it was impossible to have the two points of contention separated. So, the hold which the province of Alberta has had on those heavy oil and tar sands plants continues to this day.
I know the minister is to meet with the minister of energy for Alberta early in April. At that time I certainly hope he will strive to see the two issues separated so that those plants can go ahead. I think this is important because we are dealing not only with a production plant but a plant which has a certain research element in it, and which will not come into production for a number of years.
It seems to me the second factor is that the most hardship is being borne by the communities involved. I have here an article datelined Cold Lake, Alberta which appeared in the November 21 issue of The Gazette. The headline is "Don't delay oil project locals plead". The article begins as follows:
Cold Lake businessmen want Alberta Premier Peter Lougheed to let Imperial Oil Ltd.'s $9 billion Cold Lake heavy oil project proceed.
It states that Wayne Kowalski, former president of the Grand Centre Chamber of Commerce, is planning a meeting with the premier. His brother is the MLA for Barrhead, Alberta. He pointed out how important it is to see that these projects go forward.
I think the most devastating impact is felt by communities like Cold Lake and others in Alberta. Much of the steel industry in eastern Canada is working at near capacity, so the harmful effect is there.
I hope when the ministers have a meeting early in April that they will try to set this aside. The federal government has shown some good will by moving a reference price up to $38 per barrel, escalated to the CPI in the future.
Alberta has a very heavy club to use on the federal government and the eastern consumers by cutting off 60,000 barrels per day every 90 days until September. I believe this results in an increase of 75 cents to $1 per barrel every time production is reduced by 60,000 barrels. With that kind of bargaining tool, I do not think he has to shortchange the future on these tar sands plants. This is causing a lot of difficulty for the local communities out west, and at the same time sets back the time when we are going to be self-sufficient in oil from the heavy oil and tar sands plants in the future.


Mr. Roy MacLaren (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Mr. Speaker, I join with the hon. member for Algoma (Mr. Foster) in hoping that we will soon see the commencement of the oil sands plants, a statement which the minister has also made on a number of occasions recently.
The government is fully committed to the expeditious development of western Canada's non-conventional petroleum resources. On November 12 the minister expressed his support for the concept put forward by the hon. member for Algoma that a separate "oil sands" agreement, independent of a general oil pricing agreement, be negotiated.
The record shows that the national government has always been ready to ensure that oil sands and heavy oil projects will take place. In this context, hon. members will recall that the federal government took the initiative in February, 1975, to save the Syncrude project. At that time the governments of Alberta and Ontario, and the three private participants, responded and the project went ahead on schedule.
Examination of the National Energy Program will show the emphasis being placed on oil sands and heavy oil development through such measures as the maintenance of the depletion allowance, the provision of special tax incentives for heavy oil upgrading plants, and the application of reference prices at or close to international prices to encourage the opening up of these resources.
The immediate development of the oil sands and heavy oil resources is especially important in the light of Alberta's declining conventional oil reserves. New discoveries are becoming more difficult to find. While the remaining undiscovered conventional oil is of an impressive magnitude- perhaps 3 billion barrels-it cannot be located quickly enough to compensate for declining producibility. Therefore, the National Energy Program has established a policy of steadily rising incentives to find this oil. It has been estimated that netbacks will almost quadruple during this decade. This will assure orderly development of this declining resource.
I should like to re-emphasize the efforts that the federal government has made during the past year to reach an accord with Alberta on the pricing of oil and gas and, in particular, on the basis of getting new oil sands projects under way. Throughout these discussions we have been willing to show considerable flexibility. For example, when it became apparent last October that an over-all pricing agreement with Alberta would be impossible at an early date, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) endeavoured to guaraptee the future of the tar sands plants. In a meeting with the Alberta minister of energy he proposed a generous incentive price for tar sands oil which would be escalated annually with inflation.
When Alberta was not prepared to negotiate, the federal government then offered to loan $40 million to Imperial Oil so that the Cold Lake project would not be abandoned. These and other examples will show the degree to which the government of Canada is eager to see these projects go forward.


NUCLEAR ENERGY-SAFEGUARDS RESPECTING SALES OF NUCLEAR REACTORS
Stanley Hudecki: My question on March 18, 1981, concerned the drastically reduced sale of
March 26, 1981

Candu reactors by Canadians as the result of strict adherence to nuclear safeguards by this country without similar commitments by other nuclear exporting countries.
My question specifically asked what steps Canada has been taking through the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna to upgrade international standards to those of Canada, ensuring that the sales be used for peaceful purposes only and thereby giving Canada a more competitive position in Candu sales.
This question is raised by the fact that Canada has been instrumental in developing a very special nuclear reactor system named Candu. Candu has been developed rather slowly compared with most competing systems and with the utmost regard for the economics of power production and safety. It offers the possibility of clean, minimally-polluting power on a large scale at least for the next 50 years. During this time the fossil fuels of oil, natural gas, and coal will become gradually exhausted. It will give the human race a breathing space in which to make long-term plans.
Nuclear power need not cause any chemical pollution. The radioactive products of a fission reactor can be entirely contained in principle. The one genuine objection to nuclear power is the manufacture of plutonium.
The significant feature of various Candu reactors is that they function on fuel containing natural uranium. Most other commercial power reactor systems require enriched fuel; that is, they require the addition of separated uranium-235 or plutonium. Ours uses heavy water as the moderator, conserving neutrons. A great deal of thought and expense have gone into isolating from the outside world the system in the Candu reactor with a heavy concrete vault which has a special built-in huge vacuum mechanism to extract excess steam in the event of any serious leakage. Many other safety features are incorporated and are too technical to detail.
The reactor is acknowledged as technically superior to almost any other in the industrialized world. It should, therefore, be highly marketable and one on which a profit should be realized, instead of requiring repeated federal financial assistance for continued operation.
Since 1945 Canada has played a significant role in defining the international regime which has set up rigid safeguards and standards to eliminate the use of atomic energy for destructive purposes and to promote its widest use for industrial and humanitarian purposes, as per the Declaration of Atomic Energy of November, 1949.
Since 1955, it helped to organize the International Atomic Energy Agency which came into being in 1957, Canada has been on its board of governors since that founding date.
In 1974, when India detonated its "peaceful nuclear explosion", the Canadian government suspended nuclear co-operation with India and the government announced more stringent non-proliferation safeguards covering the export of Canadian nuclear and special material. Since that time the conditions established by this policy were applied to all contracts for nuclear exports, current and future, accepting full-scope safe-
Adjournment Debate
guards. The government also made clear that it would end nuclear co-operation with any state which exploded a nuclear device.
Thus, by 1976, Canada developed the most far-reaching national safeguard of any nuclear supplier, a policy that went well beyond any other state at the time and beyond that subsequently agreed to in the nuclear suppliers group.
With this preamble, I again direct my stated question to the Parliamentary Secretary for the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Duclos).


Mr. Louis Duclos (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Mr. Speaker, first I would like to comment briefly on the hon. member's statement that our sales of Candu reactors to foreign countries are not as good as they should be because our requirements, with respect to nuclear guarantees, are much more stringent than those of other exporting nations. Mr. Speaker, competition is fierce on the nuclear technology international market both for uranium and for the nuclear reactors themselves.
When Canada tries to sell its Candu reactors on this purchasing market, it is with the knowledge that the decision of a prospective client country will rest on a whole series of factors, including the nature of the technology offered, the financial terms, the opportunities for industrial participation and supply diversification and, foremost, the over-all political and economic objectives of the client country. The supplier's policy of non-proliferation and his nuclear guarantees is but one of many factors. Each one of those factors will have a different significance as dictated by the market and it is fair to say that none is likely to have a determining influence.
Mr. Speaker, Canada's nuclear export policy can be summed up as follows: Canada is seeking to export its uranium and its nuclear technology, making sure at the same time that those exports do not contribute to nuclear proliferation.
To meet this last objective, Canada has developed a comprehensive policy of non-proliferation and nuclear safeguards to promote implementation of a more effective non-proliferation international system and to minimize the risk of Canadian nuclear products being put to improper use. When this policy was implemented in December, 1976, the Secretary of State for External Affairs recognized that it was more advanced than that of other suppliers and he stated that Canada was willing to accept all the economic effects that would result from its unequivocal support of nuclear non-proliferation.
To come back to the question asked by the hon. member, during the seventies, Canada made considerable efforts to convince the other nuclear technology supplying countries to implement similar non-proliferation and safeguard policies. We have had considerable though partial success within the

March 26, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Nuclear Suppliers Group which approved in January, 1978, common guidelines concerning transfers of nuclear technology. These guidelines, however, are not as restrictive as the Canadian policy. Canada and other nuclear technology supplying countries with a similar philosophy on the subject, such as Australia and the United States, keep on trying for a greater international consensus in this regard at the meetings of the International Atomic Energy Agency in Vienna, and more specifically in the committee on security of supply recently established by the agency.
In closing, Mr. Speaker, I would say that the main objective of Canada is to promote the development of an effective international system of non-proliferation which would be closer to the Canadian standard. However, progress in this regard will be slow and difficult.


CORPORATE AFFAIRS-DELAY IN INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Mr. Speaker, it gives me great pleasure to participate in the only thing of substance today. The question I would like to elaborate on relates back to March 4 when I asked the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) about his intent in terms of introducing effective competition legislation in light of the oil company study by the director of investigation and research. I suggest that the minister's answers at that time were completely unacceptable. What has basically occurred here is that the minister is not treating some of the manoeuvring of the Canadian economy that has occurred over the past several years in a very serious manner. I think the main item facing us at that time was the investigation into the oil companies restrictive trade practices. I think what we have to look at are events which have taken place over the last few years. They are serious and have put a number of industries in the same kind of position to damage our economy and harm and exploit Canadian consumers. I would like to just point out this is a matter of increasing concentration in the Canadian economy, and there are several figures I would like to record.
In 1975 there were 264 mergers; in 1977 the department recorded 395 mergers. Then, by 1979 they had recorded 551 mergers, showing a definite trend of acceleration. The interesting thing is that by 1978 foreign takeovers had exceeded domestic takeovers. I would suggest that is a very dangerous situation. One of the few inquiries into that kind of activity was conducted by the Bryce commission, but I think its conclusions were not accepted by many people in Canada. People simply did not agree with them.
Within the different sectors of the Canadian economy were four firms accounting for 50 per cent or more of the total shipments involved in a given industry, and I would like to place some of these on the record. The four largest firms in the distillery industry accounted for 83 per cent of shipments;
tobacco, 100 per cent; iron and steel, 77 per cent; motor vehicles, 90 per cent; electric wire and cable, 80 per cent; and our old friend sugar refining, 92 per cent. The message there is that what the oil companies did to us, as reported by the director of investigation and research, other companies are in a position to do.
Another matter which really shocks me, is the way in which merger data is gathered by the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs. They readily admit to running an extensive clipping file, but that is the only mechanism, and it just detects the tip of the iceberg. They do not record assets. In fact, the monitoring system in place has no effective way of assessing the impact on or damage to the Canadian economy that these continuing mergers have.
The suggestion is that the government, which apparently has the regulatory authority, demand that companies wishing to take over a Canadian company be required to give information in advance to the department so we can monitor effectively the effects on the Canadian economy. However, the main flaw is the legislation, and we have been fooling around with this since 1923-the last big thrust in the combines investigation field- and since that time there has been one successful conviction. There has been a tremendous demand over the last few years that this legislation be modified so the Canadian people will have some effective protection, by establishing a civil review procedure for potential mergers and public disclosure. I think the government has been extremely remiss over the last decade or more in not bringing this forward. It now has the opportunity in this session. I realize that we are hamstrung with the proposal before us, but that legislation should be brought into this House for discussion.
There are some very nasty aspects to this situation. I would just quote the government of Saskatchewan on the previous Bill C-13:
Saskatchewan, for one, is not prepared to agree to the intrusion into areas of provincial jurisdiction that is entailed in the proposed legislation.
I think there are constitutional concerns about this, and concerns on the part of business and the public in general. It is important that the minister lay that legislation before the House as soon as possible so that discussion can begin. This is too important; we cannot leave it any longer. I hope to hear some good news from the parliamentary secretary this evening.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, I want to congratulate the hon. member for Comox-Powell River (Mr. Skelly) on his concern for Canadian consumers. I would like him to know the minister shares those concerns. For some time now we have been concerned about the issues he has raised. I would remind him of the history of our efforts.
It was the Liberal government in 1966 which asked the Economic Council of Canada to examine the entire question of competition policy in Canada and to make recommendations to the government. Subsequent to this report, in 1971 the then minister, the Hon. Ron Basford, tabled Bill C-256 in the
March 26, 1981

House. This bill gave rise to a national debate that was unprecedented for an economic policy of this sort. In order to advance the debate, the government decided in 1973 to go ahead with an initial stage of the bill containing those provisions on which there was the greatest unanimity. The amendments came into force in 1976.
As to the other provisions which were still the subject of widespread disagreement, the government referred them for study to an independent committee set up in 1975. The committee report was made public in 1976 and led to the second stage of the amendments; these were contained in Bill C-42 which was tabled in the House in the spring of 1977.
This bill received first reading and, to speed passage, was immediately referred to the Standing Committee on Finance, Trade and Economic Affairs and to the Senate Committee on Banking, Trade and Commerce. The government had determined to finish this reform of competition policy, and to do so quickly.
As you are aware, the committee was inundated with briefs, which led to further national debate. The committee prepared its report, containing 90 recommendations relating to Bill C-42. Most of these recommendations were adopted by the government and incorporated in Bill C-13, which had its first reading in November, 1977. The government had decided to go ahead, but you will remember that a proposed merger of Argus and Power Corporations was making headlines at the time and Canadians were becoming aware of the danger of having economic power concentrated in the hands of only a few people.
In 1975, the government had set up the Royal Commission on Corporation Concentration, already referred to by the hon. member-the Bryce commission-which reported in the spring of 1978. The Senate committee submitted its report early in the summer of 1978. It seemed prudent to await the recommendations of the royal commission and of the Senate
Adjournment Debate
committee before proceeding any further with the amendments to the competition policy.
The House must appreciate the fact that one does not play around with policies that affect the very structure of Canadian industries. Every effort must be made to avoid mistakes, as they are irreparable. It is, moreover, essential that the proposed amendments receive the support of Canadians from all walks of life. In the past this support seemed to be lacking and, though there was general agreement that the act needed revision, no consensus emerged as to the actual amendments. The unprecedented wave of mergers in recent years and the increase in economic concentration have made Canadians aware of the need for action in this area. The director's report on the petroleum industry is another example which clearly shows the need to amend the act.
In our view, because of obvious and recent events, a consensus is now taking shape among Canadians regarding the need to make the Combines Investigation Act more effective and better adapted to Canada's economy. There will always be those who will oppose this reform. But consumers, small and medium-sized businesses and the public in general support it.
The minister intends shortly to table amendments concerning monopolies, mergers and conspiracies that will provide Canada with an effective policy to counteract the harmful effects of economic concentrations. If the proposals in Bill C-13 were lacking in clarity and precision, the amendments to be tabled will set out in precise and unequivocal terms what reprehensible trade practices are. Hence, they will not create the uncertainty which businessmen are so afraid of, but they will protect the interests of the Canadian consumers.


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, the House stands adjourned until tomorrow at 11 a.m.
Motion agreed to and the House adjourned at 10.30 p.m.


Friday, March 27, 1981