1981-10-28

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: Madam Speaker, Canadian farming is dependent upon credit, but government policies of high interest rates, combined with its refusal to increase the budget of the Farm Credit Corporation and to extend the small business development bond to unincorporated farmers, have contributed to a 147 per cent increase in farm bankruptcies since 1979. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bruce-Grey (Mr. Gurbin):
That this House instruct the Minister of Finance to declare a national moratorium on all farm bankruptcies, foreclosures and forced sales pending the budget, to add at least $500 million to the Farm Credit Corporation to refinance existing loans, and to extend the small business development bond to unincorporated farmers in the upcoming budget.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMPILATION OF STATISTICS ON CATTLE EXPORTS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, a good proportion of live cattle exported to the United States from southwestern Alberta clear the border at Kings-gate, British Columbia. In compiling statistics Agriculture Canada considers the border point of exit as the province of origin of these cattle, thus counting these Alberta cattle as coming from British Columbia. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Medicine Hat (Mr. Hargrave):
That the Minister of Agriculture instruct his officials to correct this situation in order that the beef industry can have accurate statistics.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


DEMAND FOR ACTION TO ASSIST CATTLE PRODUCERS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Jack Shields (Athabasca):: Madam Speaker, we are in real danger of losing our vitally important beef industry due to high interest rates and high production costs. The cries of cattle producers for real assistance from the government have so far gone unheeded. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kindersley-Lloydminster (Mr. McKnight):
That the Minister of Agriculture immediately address himself to the problems facing our cattlemen with something more than the tired old words we are sick of hearing.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The Inter-American Development Bank will soon be considering and voting on a $20 million loan to Guatemala. As a member of the bank Canada is able to vote on the loan. In Guatemala in recent months there has been a serious increase in terror affecting the Guatemalan population, as well as Canadian church and embassy people. In view of this fact I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hamilton Mountain (Mr. Deans):
That the Minister of Finance instruct our representatives at the Inter-American Development Bank to vote against the granting of the proposed $20 million loan to Guatemala.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.

October 28, 1981


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Jim Schroder (Guelph):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In light of the fact that today is the first birthday of Canada's National Energy Program and therefore an appropriate occasion to acknowledge the many new opportunities for Canadians to participate in the vital and expanding energy sector, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London West (Mr. Burghardt):
That this House applaudes the foresight of aggressive Canadian entrepreneurs and the efforts of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, which have reduced foreign ownership of Canada's petroleum industry by 10 per cent in the last year alone.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CANADIAN ARMED FORCES
Mr. Ron Stewart (Simcoe South):: Madam Speaker, I speak as a member of the subcommittee studying the Armed Forces reserves. In view of their distinction in protecting Canadians in two world wars and in the Korean conflict, and as Remembrance Day approaches, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That the Prime Minister and his government extend, on behalf of all members of the House, an expression of gratitude and assurances of increased moral and tangible support to the Canadian Armed Forces, regular and reserves, in their ongoing role in defence of the Canadian way of life.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


GARRISON DIVERSION
Hon. W. G. Dinsdale (Brandon-Souris):: Madam Speaker, last Thursday the powerful Senate Appropriations Committee in Washington approved another $4 million for the controversial Garrison Dam project in North Dakota and voted to remove the court injunction against the project filed by the American Audubon Society. Officials at the Canadian embassy have stated that "assurances that these changes will not affect Canada are meaningless." The premier and the minister of natural resources of the Manitoba government
have sent strong messages of protest to Washington in response to this action. In light of these developments I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the Prime Minister and the Minister of the Environment, along with the Secretary of State for External Affairs, particularly in view of the statement from the Canadian embassy that assurances that Canadian waters will not be polluted are meaningless, join with the Manitoba government leaders in personally protesting the action before it comes before the full Senate.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


POST OFFICE
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, because a near 100 per cent postal rate increase proposed for January 1 will not only contribute to our growing inflation rate but will also adversely affect the small business sector, jeopardize the viability of direct mail service, and cause hardship to the many Canadians who are already overtaxed, as this petition I hold will verify, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Haldimand-Norfolk (Mr. Bradley):
That this House instruct the minister responsible for the Canada Post Corporation to take immediate steps to have the unacceptable and inflationary proposed rate increase reduced to a realistic level and, at the same time, take all necessary action to correct inefficient postal operations which have resulted in regular, record, deficits within the Post Office.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NUCLEAR ENERGY
Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The 600-gallon heavy water spill at the Bruce nuclear plant in Port Elgin from August 29 to September 5 contained almost three times as much radioactive poison as the U.S. Atomic Regulator Commission tried to dump into the Susquahanna River following the Three Mile Island accident. The dangers to the public have been downplayed by the Atomic Energy Control Board of Canada. The excuse is that the spill has been within so-called legal limits.
October 28, 1981

Because this radioactive spill contained large amounts of tritium, a substance so toxic that some scientists believe it can cause birth defects, and because it is a substance for which there are no proven safety levels for emissions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton):
That the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources immediately instruct the Atomic Energy Control Board to conduct a complete review of all their general radiation emission standards to protect the health of this and future generations of Canadians.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ralph Ferguson (Lambton-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Figures released yesterday by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) indicate that the government's operating deficit is down nearly $1 billion. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough Centre (Mr. Kelly):
That this House recognize and applaud the minister for his efforts in putting Canada on a firm economic base.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Mr. Scott Fennell (Ontario):: Madam Speaker, today celebrates the anniversary of the ill-conceived National Energy Program. Since the price of gas and fuel oil has risen by 30 per cent in one year on account of federal and provincial sales taxes and increases at the wellhead, the majority of which goes to federal and provincial governments, and as the National Energy Program has forced Canadian petroleum producers physically and financially to leave Canada, resulting in a failure to ensure oil self-sufficiency for Canadians, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Calgary Centre (Mr. Andre) that:
The Minister of Finance provide in his upcoming budget for an energy tax credit and return to the drawing board to rewrite the National Energy Program in order to encourage Canadian petroleum producers to return to Canada.
Oral Questions


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the Minister of Justice be severely castigated for abusing the truth and thereby misleading Canadians when he stated that a survey taken by Canada West Foundation supported the government position on the Constitution when, in actual fact, 90 per cent of those surveyed were in opposition to having Canada's Constitution amended in the U.K. by the British Parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Hon. Don Mazankowski (Vegreville):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. Yesterday the minister undertook to attend immediately to the question of the illegality of the government's order in council which proposes to eliminate one fifth of Canada's rail passenger service. This arose out of an opinion expressed by Mr. J. C. Eglington, the counsel for the Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments.
The minister also undertook to respond to the suggestion advanced by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to the effect that he recommended that the implementation date of November 15 be deferred until such time as this matter be referred to the appropriate court for thorough clarification.
Can the minister now advise the House of the results of his action, and can he also advise the House what he proposes to do?


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Yes, Madam Speaker. In this instance the Leader of the Opposition, the Minister of Transport, and the hon. member for

October 28, 1981
Oral Questions
Vegreville are just reflecting the views of distinguished legal minds on the subject. There is a debate among lawyers regarding not only the particular recent order in council on VIA, but all orders in council passed under Section 64 of the National Transportation Act. Some of them say that these must be registered, and others say they do not. There is a debate on the subject. My lawyers, and I have a number of them-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Crosbie:: You'll need them!


Jean-Luc Pepin: -say that these orders in council do not need to be registered. They quote a number of precedents to that effect. However, they are looking into this very interesting discussion in greater depth.
Should there be a doubt about the matter, and this is the important part of my answer, we will pass a new order in council and will have it registered. The important thing is that such a decision, such a move on our part, would not change the substance or the date of implementation of the decision made in the order in council.


Mr. Clark:: Shame!


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Shame!


RAILWAYS
Donald Frank Mazankowski: That is a most contemptuous and arrogant response, because there is clearly doubt in the minds of the vast majority of Canadians about the minister's action, and I think that that should be taken into account, as well.
I would like to ask the minister whether he is aware of the fact that under existing CTC order R26-520 and R-6751, and pursuant to Sections 260, 261 and 262 of the Railway Act, the railways, namely, the CN and CP, have a continuing obligation to provide rail passenger service, notwithstanding the creation of VIA Rail and notwithstanding its withdrawal of the service as contemplated by the minister in his order. Is he further aware of the fact that the Canadian Railway Labour Association will be making an application to the CTC to order the CN and the CP to restore passenger service on those lines which VIA will vacate should the minister's decision go through?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, because I suspected that the question would be raised, I asked my lawyers to look into precedents. I may soon be in a position to demonstrate that my hon. friend made a decision similar to the one we are talking about now. We will know more about that later on today. The only thing I know, and I will presumably be talking about that tomorrow in front
of the committee on regulations, is that Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act is very clear. It has been interpreted by the courts on a number of occasions. The courts have said repeatedly-and I will quote that, chapter and verse, tomorrow-that there is no restriction on the rights of the government to vary or rescind orders passed by the Canadian Transportation Commission.
I did not have all morning to talk about the debate with my lawyers but, as I understood it, the debate concerns what the major consideration should be. In other words, is it the document being amended, or rescinded which conditions the registration, or is it the instrument that commands the change?


Mr. Nielsen:: That's like Gilles Lamontagne-up and down, up and down.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Some of the hon. members on the other side have degrees in law; so do I.
The changes that were made were made to orders of the CTC, and consequently they were not changes to regulations of the CTC. Because they were changes to orders they do not have to be registered.


APPLICATION TO COMMISSION TO RESTORE SERVICES
Donald Frank Mazankowski: Madam Speaker, the minister, either accidentally or deliberately, chose to ignore the question I asked, which had to do with the ongoing statutory responsibilities of the railroads, namely, CN and CP. Notwithstanding the minister's actions under Section 64, there are overriding CTC orders, namely R26-520 and R-6751, and pursuant to Sections 260, 261 and 262 of the Railway Act the railways are compelled to provide a passenger service. Is the minister aware of that? Is he also aware that an application will be made to the CTC to force the CN and CP to restore services on those lines which VIA will vacate?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I can only answer the question the way I did, which was to state emphatically that under Section 64(1) of the National Transportation Act the Canadian government, by order in council, can rescind or vary any order that the Canadian Transportation Commission has passed. That is what the debate is all about.


Donald Frank Mazankowski: You didn't rescind the other orders. Those two orders are still in existance.


Walter David Baker: Resign.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
October 28, 1981


TRANSPORT
Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi, who is the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. I am directing my question to him, which I can under the rules, to try to circumvent the executive atmosphere we have and the arbitrary order in council that puts us in this quandary whereby hon. members do not have an opportunity to discuss and debate, and to try to find out the reason and the explanation for the costing order.
Can the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport inform The House on the status of convening the transport committee as of tomorrow and all next week, even in view of this November 15 deadline, so that all members on all sides of the House can examine the presidents of the two railways and the president of VIA Rail, and so that competent officials from the CTC can attend to explain the costing order and how it compares with the Amtrak order and the costing order of European Rail, which has 11 different railways feeding into it-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would like to have a question, and I would like it to be as brief as possible.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, can the chairman inform this House on the status of earlier discussions to convene the committee? Does the hon. member not think it would be a positive step to widen the terms of reference of the committee to include the Atlantic coast and British Columbia, rather than having only Ontario and Quebec?
[ Translation]


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, members have already had an opportunity to discuss the matter at least twice. The first time was on an opposition day, when the first motion was introduced by the opposition; the last or second time was last Monday, during the debate on a motion for concurrence in a committee report. Members opposite have four opposition days left to discuss the matter again, if they wish. In addition, the Minister of Transport has announced that he was available to appear before another committee in order to provide clarification.
So there have been and there will be plenty of opportunities to discuss this matter, thanks to the flexible attitude of the Minister of Transport and the government. The hon. member's request is therefore unnecessary.


PARTICIPATION BY MEMBERS IN CONSIDERATION OF DECISION
John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, my question was directed to the Chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. It did not involve the government House leader, who undoubtedly has torpedoed the recommendation that the Chair-
Oral Questions


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The President of the Privy Council is authorized to answer questions if he so chooses on questions of that nature.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Mr. Andre:: Nonsense.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Could either the Chairman of the Standing Committee or the President of the Privy Council please explain to this House, under this red herring of four more allotted days, that unless the standing committee meets tomorrow and all of next week, the four allotted days, cannot be used until after November 15 thereby eliminating any participation by members on all sides on this very arbitrary decision?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in fact it was my intention to designate next Monday as an opposition day and I wanted to discuss this with my fellow House leaders later this afternoon.
In the circumstances, before November 15 there will be at least one more opportunity for debate. In all probability, next Monday will be an opposition day.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Finance. Yesterday the Conference Board pointed out that consumer confidence in the Canadian economy is at a 20-year low directly attributable to a high interest rate policy. Yesterday the Minister of Agriculture complained about the banks' high interest rates, yet yesterday in London a deputy governor of the Bank of Canada said high interest rates are going to remain in Canada. My question to the minister is straightforward. Will he now guarantee us a low interest rate policy, and will he tell us who is running Canada, the Government of Canada or the Bank of Canada?


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member realizes as well as I do that the way to get interest rates down in this country is to get the rate of inflation down. The hon. member and I could have a number of debates about the variation in interest rates between Canada and the United States, or on how much savers ought to receive for their savings in the form of interest payments, presumably some amount above the rate of inflation. We can have our debate on that and we can have differences of opinion, but I hope my

October 28, 1981
Oral Questions
hon. friend and I agree that the surest and most fundamental way of getting interest rates down is to take every possible step to get the rate of inflation down, a rate which is high and rising, and which can only be the way of providing the guarantee that the hon. member sincerely asks for today. That is my answer to his request for a guarantee.


REQUEST THAT BANKS BE DIRECTED TO REDUCE INTEREST RATES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is clear every day that the only way to get interest rates down in Canada is to change the Government of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: Where were you when we were voting?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we don't want the Tories, who increased interest rates five times when they were in office.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, at least the deputy governor of the Bank of Canada acknowledged in the same speech that the continuation of high interest rates would mean that Canadians would continue to suffer, more homes would be lost, more businesses would go out of business, and farmers would suffer. If those are the results of high interest rates, and they are indeed the results, why does the government not assume its responsibility and direct the banks to bring down the interest rates?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows perfectly well, and surely he has not been the first to think about a simple solution like that, as if everybody is going around groping for a way to battle inflation, that there is a very easy way, and that is just to direct the governor of the bank to reduce interest rates.


John Carnell Crosbie: That's what you told us.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: That is the simplistic solution proposed by the hon. member. He knows perfectly well that the net effect of that proposal, whatever its effects in the short term, would be increased inflation and subsequently even higher interest rates. That is the result of his policy. He says the only way to get interest rates down is to change the government. I know one way to get interest rates even higher than they are today, and that would be to follow the economic advice of the hon. member.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, even the minister should know that that is nonsense. I will come to my last question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


PLEA FOR BUDGETARY TAX CUTS
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I see the minister smiling and I am sure he is smiling about the benefits that are accruing to some people because of high interest rates. He knows full well that not everyone is suffering from high interest rates. Indeed, wealthy investors are doing quite well.
[DOT] (M30)
Considering that the standard of living in the average home in Canada has gone down for three years in a row, will the minister at least offer a tax cut in the coming budget for the ordinary Canadian, and make those 160 Canadians who earn more than $200,000 a year without paying one penny in income tax, pay at least their fair share of taxes?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member knows it is not possible for me to tell him what will be in the budget. Having said that, I wonder, if I said yes to the hon. member's question, would he then support the budget I introduced.


An hon. Member:: We will see the budget first.


TRANSPORT
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my question was for the hon. member for Northumb-erland-Miramichi who just left the House. I see one of his colleagues has gone to get him. I would welcome his return to the House so he can speak for himself rather than be gagged by the government House leader.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for St. John's West.


Some hon. Members:: Here he is! He's come back! Hooray!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I can see we are off to another wonderful Wednesday.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: The Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
October 28, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: I thank the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi for returning to his responsibility.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: I direct my question to him as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. Will the chairman of that committee tell us whether he has asked for a reference of the VIA Rail question to the standing committee, and whether he has asked for authority to call officials of the railways, VIA Rail or of the Canadian Transport Commission, or any other group who might be able to help the House of Commons come to the truth about the VIA Rail decision? Has he sought that reference?
And Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi) and Mr. Pinard having risen:


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down, Pinard.


Madam Speaker:: Order.


An hon. Member:: Now we know who runs the committees.


An hon. Member:: Show some courage. You can let the man speak.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier, this question has already been asked. We made it quite clear that although the suggestion seemed to have some merit, we had to consider the fact that this matter had already been debated at least twice. Members will recall that starting with the first designated day, it was the subject of a motion introduced by the opposition, which even led to a vote of non-confidence in the government. The matter was debated all day, followed by a vote in the House, and subsequently we had a surprise motion for concurrence in a committee report on the subject. This matter was debated for a whole day, on Monday this week, on government time, and now, as I said before, there are still four opposition days before December 10, so that if the opposition wants to discuss the question again, we shall have no choice but to reopen the debate.
However, Madam Speaker, the question asked by the opposition leader could not be answered otherwise, because even if the committee did have the reference order, in the final instance this can lead to debate in the House and could therefore upset the government's priorities.


POSITION OF COMMITTEE CHAIRMAN
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, there is a very real question affecting the basic rules of this House of Commons and the propriety of conduct here as to whether a minister of the Crown can force an elected
Oral Questions
chairman of a standing committee of this House of Commons to sink to his knees and seek safety in his seat.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We will pursue that affront to democracy later.
I would like to ask the member for Northumberland-Miramichi, in his capacity as chairman, does he intend to sit quietly in his seat and be gagged by the President of the Privy Council, or will he accept his responsibility and stand up and tell this House whether he has sought the reference and sought the authority I asked him about?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Dionne (Northumberland-Miramichi):: Madam Speaker-


Yvon Pinard: Madame le President-


Some hon. Members:: Come on, let him speak.


An hon. Member:: What kind of a democracy is this? [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I am sure that the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi is now able to answer the Leader of the Opposition and tell him that he does not need his lessons in democracy.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: Madam Speaker, first of all I do not sink to my knees for anyone except my God.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Erik Nielsen: He is not here today. He will be back tomorrow.


Maurice Adrian Dionne: The answer to the right hon. gentleman's question is yes.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REASONS FOR MINISTER'S ACTIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is for the Minister of Transport. We have an indication that this minister, who went around the rules of the CTC-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Withdraw!


Charles Joseph Clark: -to deny the Canadian Transport Commission the right to hold its hearings on the VIA Rail procedures, has now apparently used his authority to deny a request by the

Oral Questions
elected chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport to have this House of Commons-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I would appreciate it if the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition would ask his question.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Minister of Transport, who has gagged the Canadian public and is now gagging this Parliament, is this: why did the Minister of Transport refuse that reference, and what is the Minister of Transport afraid of in letting the people of Canada examine in public hearings, either under the CTC or this House of Commons, the facts on which he purports to base the disruption of 19 per cent of rail passenger service in this country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, obviously I cannot accept the premise which was used by the Leader of the Opposition. I did not go around the law. He must realize that the law says that the government is entitled to do what it is doing.


An hon. Member:: It has never been done before.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I caught the Leader of the Opposition flat-footed the other day because he was saying that the government was violating the law. The law is there. Did you read Section 64?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes.


Jean-Luc Pepin: I did not go around the law. That is clear.


An hon. Member:: How about answering the question?


Jean-Luc Pepin: With respect to those facts pertaining to VIA, they have been debated at least since 1976.


An hon. Member:: Not true.


Jean-Luc Pepin: Mr. Lang had a reference to the CTC at that time. All these routes we are talking about now have been thoroughly investigated throughout the last three or four years. The subject is very well known. What is needed is a decision. The opposition is using every trick of the trade to prevent a decision. That is what I object to.
With respect to the reference to the Standing Committee on Transport, I have said repeatedly here in the House that I was willing to go to the committee to provide all possible information. It should be obvious to everyone here that what the opposition is trying to do is obtain a reference so that a report can be written and so that they will have another kick at the can. It is the seventh trick they are using now in order to delay.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I can see that the only thing that will happen today is that there will be fewer questioners. I urge hon. members on both sides to be brief.
The hon. member for St. John's West, for a good start.


FISHERIES
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, they have been kneecapped over there.
My question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. The minister will know that the Newfoundland fishing industry is in a crisis, that seven of the major fish plants in Grand Bank, Fortune, Gaultois, Ramea, Burgeo and my own district of St. John's have been closed now since the end of August and that the Lake Group, the second largest Newfoundland company, is in the hands of its bankers. Thousands of fishermen have been unemployed for some time, as have thousands of plant workers and half the trawler fleet.
The minister has said repeatedly that he has constitutional jurisdiction over the fishery. I agree that he has. In these circumstances I want to ask the minister what steps he is taking to get these fish plants reopened. What steps is he taking to get these trawlers back to sea? Has he met, or will he be meeting, with the Newfoundland minister of fisheries to develop some joint plan to resuscitate the fishing industry, which is now in dire straits, if any industry in this country is in dire straits?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I do not have jurisdiction over licensing fish plants. There are many days I wish I had because, in the last three or four years, there has been one constant repetition in many of my speeches, and that is that we must not load onto the fishery the solution to all economic problems. In its authority the province of Newfoundland chose to increase the capacity of fish processing plants by some 230 per cent. Community stages became feeder plants, feeder plants became full-fledged freezing plants. In fact, the very problem about which the hon. member complains is very much the types of mortgages which were put on the old existing plants by the expansion of the industry which occurred in Newfoundland. I regret that very much. I take no pleasure in having been shown that my warnings were right.
I deplore the fact that the hon. member is not still the minister of fisheries for Newfoundland because we worked well together to solve some problems. I have not received representations from the government of Newfoundland focusing on this issue.


REQUEST THAT MINISTER TAKE ACTION
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. The seven major plants I mentioned are all offshore trawler-fed plants. This has nothing to do with the licensing referred to by the minister. The minister is attempting to pass the buck. He is the minister of fisheries for all of Canada. Is he developing a plan which will lead to a remedy of this situation? Is he meeting with the Newfoundland minister who, he says, has jurisdiction in certain instances? Will he provide inventory assistance, for example? The minister knows interest rates are
October 28, 1981

a major problem to the industry. Is he urging the Minister of Finance to do something about that?
After seven years of the minister's claiming credit for all the good things, the industry is now in dire straits. When will the minister meet his responsibilities? What does he plan to do in his jurisdiction to help in the situation? These are major plants, and most of them are in the district of Burin-St. George's.


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, the division between the offshore and the inshore fisheries has been the subject of considerable debate over the years. The hon. member may not remember, but the government which multiplied the fish processing plants-and I am not trying to pass the buck; I am simply establishing some facts-also advocated a division between the offshore and the inshore of the order of 15 per cent for the offshore and 85 per cent for the inshore. I resisted that advice of the Newfoundland government. We have tried to help the offshore, and large fishing vessels have obtained very major increases in their landings. However, the major companies, faced with rather high inventories because of United States resistence to the accumulation of fish in their warehouses, are having some difficulties. This is a matter which was addressed by the Fisheries Prices Support Board. Recommendations have been made, and I hope to take to the cabinet in a matter of days the recommendations of the Fisheries Prices Support Board.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, the Americans have the neutron bomb, which destroys people and leaves property intact, and we have a Minister of Finance and high interest rates which amount to the same thing.
I would like to address a question to the Minister of Finance respecting farm incomes, farm indebtedness, and the question of bank profits. It has been revealed by Statistics Canada that farm incomes all over Canada in 1980 were down 16 per cent. In Manitoba they were down 75 per cent, and in Ontario 30 per cent. Indebtedness, however, has increased to the point where the total indebtedness in Ontario of $600 million is equal to total farm income for 1980. Bank profits have risen to $1.2 billion.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members are exaggerating. Their preambles are so long that I do know how much time I can allow for answers to questions of such length, because obviously sometimes the answers might be a bit longer than the questions. Would hon. members please be brief in their questions?


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I will put my question quite simply. In view of this pattern of indebtedness and bank profits, how is it possible that the minister was quoted last
12271
Oral Questions
week as saying that the banks were "bleeding a little", when all the evidence is that it is the farmers, home owners and small business people of Canada who are bleeding, and not the banks?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, even though you invited the hon. member to ask a question, I did not hear it. He is before the wrong audience if he wants to make that kind of speech.


ROYAL BANK MORTGAGE SCHEME
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask the minister how it is possible for him to have said in this House last week that he regards a proposal which would increase the indebtedness of home owners as a progressive proposal from the Royal Bank. He said it was a move in the right direction. It would cost the Royal Bank two fifths of 1 per cent of its profit. How can the minister possibly stand in his place and say that that kind of proposal, which increases the indebtedness of home owners to the tune of $2,000, $3,000, $4,000 and $5,000, is conceivably a step in the right direction?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will attempt to explain to the hon. member that there are certain home owners in current circumstances who have cash flow problems and accumulated equity in their homes. A particular option, subject to the decision of the home owner, is available to minimize or mitigate the cash flow problem by taking a particular interest deferral.


Bob Rae: Do you call that a choice?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member disapproves of that proposal. I believe he ought to permit the home owners of Canada to have that option and to decide for themselves whether it is appropriate for them in the circumstances. The hon. member says that is not a choice, but he is quite wrong because quite a number of home owners, given a choice, prefer to carry on with their mortgage payments at an increased level rather than have them reduced. That is their decision, but I believe this particular option can be useful to home owners with short term or temporary cash flow problems, and that is what it is intended to be.


SMALL BUSINESS
Mr. Jean-Guy Dubois (Lotbiniere):: Madam Speaker, my question to the Minister of State responsible for small businesses deals with the Small Business Development Bond program. Could the minister tell me how many small businesses in

October 28, 1981
Oral Questions
Canada and, if possible, in Quebec have availed themselves of this program, whether the minister will recommend the possible extension of this program, and whether he has discussed with the Minister of Finance the possible extension of this program which concerns small businesses?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: 
FORESTRY
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. I assume the minister is aware of the seriously depressed state of the lumber and wood converting industries. I assume he and his colleagues are aware of the serious consequences, particularly to the hundreds of small communities throughout our country, with respect to unemployment, knowing one out of ten Canadians who work in that particular sector is wholly dependent on a single industry. What is the government doing in the short term, at least, to help the industry over this crisis and to help those throughout our country directly or indirectly affected by the serious difficulty that is experienced in that sector?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we have one major program in place that is of particular importance to the British Columbia industry, and that is the Program for Co-operative Overseas Market Development that we run jointly with the British Columbia Council of Forest Industries and the British Columbia government.
Not long ago we signed a new agreement extending this program for a further period of years. The federal government is increasing its funding in support of this program by one third. The previous operation of the program has brought about an increase in exports of British Columbia forest products from some $200 million to $1 billion in markets, quite apart from those in the United States. I think this is a major effort in helping to counteract the tendencies to which my hon. friend has referred. I am happy to work and support other initiatives in this same direction.


EXPORT EARNINGS
Frank Oberle: Has the minister received a request from the Council of Forest Industries of British Columbia not to send any further trade missions at the present time, particularly to the United States, because of the serious effects some other government programs have on our ability to market our lumber in the United States. Sixty per cent of the lumber is shipped there. Is he aware, and is the Minister of Finance aware, that this is one industry that generates more export dollars and makes a greater contribution to our balance of trade than all other industries combined? Is he aware of the serious situation in the industry? Will the government do anything about it?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we are certainly aware of the importance of the forest products industry across Canada to our entire economy. We have a range of programs to support the development of the industry and to support its domestic and overseas marketing. We will continue to add to and intensify these efforts, including efforts to increase the opportunities for the industry in the United States, in spite of the weakened economic conditions there, conditions that have been confirmed as being weak just recently by the president of that country. On both sides of this House we share a commitment to the strengthening and development of the forest industry across Canada. I am sure we will continue working together in that direction.


PUBLIC SERVICE
Hon. David Crombie (Rosedale):: My question is directed to the President of the Treasury Board. I am sure the minister is aware of the landmark decision of the Federal Court of Appeal handed down last week, which clearly established the federal government's power, in a strike situation, to determine the number of public servants who may or may not go on strike. The minister will recall the case dealt with air traffic controllers in particular. I would like to ask the minister whether he is considering any policy whatsoever which would result in a decrease in the number of public servants, generally, who may or may not go on strike.


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, of course I am aware of the decision. I took the appeal to the Federal Court, because we felt that the original intention of the law, as adopted by Parliament in 1967, entitled the government, through the Public Service
October 28, 1981

Staff Relations Board, to designate those public servants who are essential to the interest, safety and security of the public. The Federal Court of Appeal simply confirmed the interpretation which we have given to that provision of the law, and which we have applied in many other instances. For example, 1 refer to the correctional officers in prisons, to nurses and other such groups. That is what the decision means, Madam Speaker. I understand the union, in fact, is seeking leave to appeal to the Supreme Court of Canada. It may be some time before our interpretation is definitively confirmed. There is no intention on the part of the government, Madam Speaker, to apply the law in any other way than was intended when adopted in 1967.


POSITION OF MINISTER OF LABOUR
David Edward Crombie: My supplementary question is directed to the Minister of Labour. Given the minister's earlier statements questioning the continued usefulness of the right to strike, and also given the recent Gallup Poll outlining Canadian concerns about the right to strike, I should like to ask the minister if he is giving any consideration to any action which would result in a restriction of the right to strike in those areas where the public is concerned generally, such as airlines, railroads, telephones or postal services.


Hon.   Chas. L. Caccia@Minister of Labour: Madam Speaker, the answer to the hon. member is no. We believe, from tradition and experience so far, that by and large Canadians prefer to solve industrial disputes by resolving them first through mediation and arbitration, and letting the interested parties come to a peaceful solution without interference, wherever it is possible.

[ Translation]


HAZARDOUS SUBSTANCES
Hon. Roch La Salle (Joliette):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs I shall direct my question to the minister responsible for housing. Yesterday, my colleague from Hamilton-Wentworth raised the issue of the famous urea formaldehyde foam. Since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has declined offhandedly any government responsibility in this matter and in view of the fact that in 1976, the Departments of Energy, Mines and Resources and Consumer and Corporate Affairs had recommended that no federal department use this product and that in 1977 the Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation not only approved this product, but also agreed to subsidize it under its CHIP program, can the minister responsible for housing tell us today whether he feels at least some degree of moral and social responsibility in this matter and whether he will try to propose some compensation for these 100,000
Oral Questions
home owners who not only have problems with their mortgages, but are being forced out of their homes because of a product for which the government has a certain responsibility?


Hon. Paul J. Cosgrove (Minister of Public Works):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member is aware that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs, who is not here, is the chairman responsible in government to deal with this issue. I hasten to add that I am a member of the committee where the situation is being studied. The representations made by the hon. member are high on the list for consideration by that committee.


INQUIRY WHETHER SPECIAL GRANT WILL BE RECOMMENDED FOR OWNERS FORCED OUT OF HOMES
Roch La Salle: Madam Speaker, the reply of the minister will certainly not reassure those who have major problems. I ask my question of the minister responsible for housing since the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has declined all responsibility. An inquiry will result in recommendations which I suppose will be relevant several months hence.
Could the minister assure these people that he will recommend the provision of a special grant in the next budget so that they will have somewhere to live next winter? I ask the minister to show some compassion for thousands of those people, both adults and children, who will not be able to live in their homes during the coming winter if the government does not take specific action.


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, at the outset I would reject the premise of the statement made by the hon. member that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs has rejected his responsibility. The opposite is true. He has been designated by the cabinet as the minister responsible to study the very issues that the member raises. If the hon. member pursues it and says that this is an issue of such moment that so many members are concerned about, I ask him what action did his government take about the same problem while they were in office?


HOUSING
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the minister responsible for housing. The minister has had petitions, he has had briefs, protests, and CMHC reports. All of them are directed to immediate action on interest rates to solve Canada's housing problem. Yet all he does is ask for another survey of Members of Parliament. When will the minister get busy and ignore Scrooge, the

October 28, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
Minister of Finance, who wants to commit people to a lifetime of debt? When will he take action with the rest of us in the House and do something about bringing down mortgage interest rates?


Paul James Cosgrove: Madam Speaker, in response to a question by one of the colleagues of the hon. member this afternoon, the Minister of Finance indicated that some financial institutions have already taken steps to assist Canadians faced with these kinds of problems.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul James Cosgrove: I have taken steps. I have personally responded to questions, incidents, and examples raised by colleagues of the hon. member. We are looking at individual cases where there is imminent danger of steps being taken which puts them in a position that is irretrievable. We have taken steps, and we are continuing to do so.


PETITION
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that the Clerk of the House has laid upon the Table reports of the Clerk of Petitions, stating that he has examined the petitions presented by hon. members on Tuesday, October 27, 1981, and finds that they meet the requirements of the Standing Orders as to form.



POINT OF ORDER


Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, there was an incident during question period today which led to the point of order I want to raise now. As Madam Speaker is aware, the Chair does not ordinarily entertain points of order during question period. The first opportunity Members of Parliament have to raise points of order arising out of question period comes at three o'clock.
I refer Madam Speaker's attention to Citation 366 of Beau-chesne's fifth edition which deals with the entire issue of private members having questions addressed to them during question period. It reads as follows:
Questions may be asked of private members only under strict limitations. Virtually the only question possible would refer to a committee of which the member is the chairman. A question asking, for example, if a member intended to introduce certain legislation, is out of order.
This is the only reference I could find in Beauchesne's respecting the addressing of questions to private members.
Obviously it leaves considerable discretion in the hands of Madam Speaker.
What happened this afternoon during question period is that questions were directed to a committee chairman acting in his capacity as chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport. They were not inquiries of the ministry. This was done on some three separate occasions. The chairman of the committee rose three times from his seat to seek to respond to the question, and at the same time the government House leader rose to try to wrest the floor away from him and to be recognized first.
The implications of a decision that a member of the ministry would have priority in responding to a question relating strictly to the responsibilities of a committee chairman, acting in his capacity as chairman of the committee, are very serious indeed for the functioning of all standing committees of the House of Commons. First of all I point out that committee chairmen are private members. They are not members of the ministry. They are not elected by the ministry. They are elected by the members of the committees themselves. Their responsibilities are owed not to the ministry. They are not accountable to the ministry or the party, but rather to hon. members of the House of Commons, in particular members of the committees.
If the right of an individual committee chairman to respond to questions addressed to him concerning his responsibilities as committee chairman is allowed to be pre-empted by a minister of the Crown seeking the floor at the same time, we are doing serious damage to the independence of committees of Parliament and are putting them in a position where the only way they can report to Parliament during question period is with the consent and agreement of the government.
When Beauchesne provided for questions to be put to private members who are committee chairmen respecting the discharge of their responsibilities and the activities of committees, surely it was not intended that the chairmen should have to funnel their responses to committee members and to parliamentarians through the government House leader.
The reason this is of particular concern to me is that I am Commons chairman of one of the two committees of Parliament which is chaired, by convention, by an opposition chairman. Madam Speaker will be aware of the fact that my colleague, the hon. member for Vancouver Quadra (Mr. Clarke), is chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts and that I am chairman of the Standing Joint Committee on Regulations and Other Statutory Instruments. The convention was established over the years that those two chairmanships should reside on the opposition side, precisely to stress the independence of committee chairmen and the independence of the committees themselves from the ministry. The responsibilities of those two committees are to hold the government to account and to hold its activities in check. Their responsibilities are very clearly to members of the committees and to members of the House of Commons, not at all to the ministry.
In this particular instance, when Your Honour recognized the government House leader as opposed to the chairman of
October 28, 1981

the Standing Committee on Transport, obviously you recognized the government House leader as opposed to a member of his own party. Of course, the chairmen of committees do not function as representatives of Parliament. They function as representatives of the committees themselves, and their responsibilities are to the committees. It would have been an absurd situation, for example, if the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan), instead of posing a question to the chairman of the Standing Committee on Transport, posed a similar question to me relating to the discussions which the standing joint committee is currently undertaking on the entire question of VIA Rail and the government's cutbacks and it would have been possible for the government House leader to intercede and prevent me from responding to a question related to my activities as chairman and to the activities of the committee.
Consequently, I wanted to raise this question at the earliest opportunity because the implications for the entire functioning of the committee system, the implications for my responsibility as chairman of the standing joint committee, and the implications for all Parliament, are very profound indeed if the government House leader or other members of the ministry are able to wrest the floor away on issues not relating to their conduct but to the conduct of a standing committee.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief because many points have been covered by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty). But, with respect, I should like to expand upon a point he barely touched upon. What happened today was certainly unusual, to say the least, and frankly has implications which strike at the very integrity of the committee system. The point my hon. friend mentioned about cabinet members versus members of committees, I will not repeat ad nauseam, but we see from day to day ministers deferring to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the Prime Minister deferring to a minister in answering questions, because of cabinet responsibility. This is a very well-accepted practice.
What happened today was not cabinet responsibility. A minister of the Crown, the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), in effect deferred or tried to control a duly-elected chairman of a committee of the House of Commons, which is an entirely different matter. This is why I think it is important to review, as we are doing right now, what happened today in order to establish the correct procedure forever in a day so that it will never happen again.
It is my submission that chairmen of committees may, as ministers, answer or not answer questions. I give the member full credit for finally answering the question in the very frank and direct way in which I knew he had to answer. He did not have to answer the question, but having answered it, that is fine. The only person who could replace the duly-elected chairman in effect is the vice-chairman, not a minister of the Crown.
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
I would hope you, Madam Speaker, would look at and review what happened today so that we will never again be faced with this fundamental embarrassment to hard-working members of the Standing Committee on Transport who wanted to have a chance to participate in substance, albeit within a very short period of time.
I am almost prepared to conclude my remarks, but we all know-and I know as well as any member because I have been in the House as a member of the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for almost 15 years-that there are many members who feel that committees are a complete charade. From time to time chairmen and vice-chairmen, on substantive matters such as transport, try to do a good job with their standing committees because the issues are important. What happened today destroys integrity and puts the chairman in an almost incredible position, making it difficult for him to maintain his authority in the standing committee whenever, if ever, it meets again.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, everyone in the House knows that our parliamentary practice comes from Westminster. The hon. member would have us believe that we are not respecting that parliamentary practice because of our attitude during question period. May I refer you, Madam Speaker, and, with respect, my learned hon. colleague, to Erskine May, nineteenth edition at page 327 where questions to the Speaker, questions to ministers and questions to unofficial members are discussed. The relevant passage reads as follows:
On 17 March 1944, Mr. Speaker ruled privately that a member may not seek by means of a question to the chairman to interfere in the proceedings of a select committee by suggesting a particular subject for inquiry (although such subject fell within its order of reference).

It seems to me, Madam Speaker, that this reference clearly disposes of the substantive question. Subsidiarily, I should like to make three comments: first of all, the questions put to the chairman of the Transport Committee were directly related to the order of business in the House, because if such a reference or the reference suggested by my colleagues opposite had been made to the committee, the committee would have had to report within a given time, and the report would have been the subject of a motion of concurrence, and thus might have been a subject for debate in the House.
However, as I have indicated in my replies, we had no intention of gagging the opposition, and I certainly do not feel guilty, because at least twice, up to now, the opposition has been able to deal with the matter on an opposition day, once with a vote of non-confidence in the government and on Monday of this week, when a motion for concurrence of a committee report dealing with the matter was introduced. I also indicated that the opposition still has four days until December 10, and that it will be perfectly free to select one or several of these days to reopen the debate on the matter.

October 28, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
But the problem arising as a result of the questions put to the chairman of the committee is that if the reference had been made to the committee, this might have prevented the government from controlling and disposing of the business of the House in accordance with Standing Order 18(2). In this respect, first of all, as government House leader I believe I was quite justified in giving the government's point of view in reply to the question put to the chairman of the committee.
The second point I wish to clarify, still subsidiarily, since the reference from Erskine May disposes of the question substantively, is that the member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) quoted Beauchesne, fifth edition, Citation 366.
But if he had read more slowly in the first place, he would have noticed the last part of Citation 363(1), which says, and I quote:
-A member may put a question but has no right to insist upon an answer.
So he has absolutely no grounds for complaining that he received no answer from the chairman of the committee. And subsidiarily, as my third point, in the final instance, after everything was placed in its proper context and after I had an opportunity to explain why a reference to a committee has some effect on the order of business in the House, it was obvious that in fact, the hon. member had ample time to answer in a manner that was both clear, brief, precise, exemplary and unambiguous, the question put by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), which summarized all previous questions directed to the committee chairman. In the circumstances, Madam Speaker, it is abundantly clear that the members opposite have absolutely no reason, either under the rules or according to parliamentary practice, to raise a point of order.
Finally, I would like to add that if these members are sincere in their desire to know the facts about the order in council and the government's decision to cut back VIA Rail services, in that case, they should be satisfied with the offer made by the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) to appear before the appropriate committees in order to explain his policy and to give the government's point of view. It seems to me that if they were solely interested in obtaining the facts, they would be satisfied with this generous offer by the Minister of Transport, and in the best interests of the Canadian people, they would refrain from using the rules of the House to indulge in petty politicking and disrupt the government's order of priorities.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, ordinarily I would not rise on this matter because the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) put the case on this very important question in a most articulate and able manner. After hearing the intervention by the government House leader on behalf of the government, however, I feel compelled to respond.
During the question period this hon. gentleman ran interference for a very embarrassed chairman of the Standing
Committee on Transport not once, not twice, but three times, thus gagging a proper procedure aimed at getting a response from that chairman on the business of the committee.
On the fourth occasion that he rose, it was not any longer for the purpose of keeping the muzzle on, because it was becoming embarrassing and the heat was too intense, but in order to say that the chairman of that committee could now respond to the question being put to him. Having done that, presumably in the guise of it being legitimate parliamentary procedure, he then cited May's Parliamentary Practice to say that it cannot be done.
What could be more ridiculous, Madam Speaker? He was the very one who did precisely what he said could not be done, basing his action on the theory that we in this place are governed by the rules of Westminster. That is not so, Madam Speaker. There are legions of differences between the practices of this House and the practices of Westminster. One only has to point to Standing Order 43 as one of the more apparent differences. The citation from May's which the hon. member used has no application here in view of Citation 366 of Beauchesne.
There is another difference to which I can draw the attention of the Chair with respect to the way in which we treat substantive motions and non-substantive motions. At page 365 of May's nineteenth edition, a motion to concur in a committee report is classified as a non-substantive motion, yet it is clear from our practices that it is so regarded. There are legions of such differences.
I would invite the Table officers to advise Your Honour on the matter that has been raised since its importance commands your consideration, and then perhaps we could have a ruling tomorrow.
What has happened is that apparently we are not going to have a reference to a committee for whatever reasons the government has, and I do not know what they might be. It seems that the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) does not want to appear before the transport committee because it might make a report. Of course, that is the whole thrust of the reasonable request to have this question examined, in order to ascertain the truth of the facts that go into the government's decision. But the minister has said he does not want to appear and be examined by the committee because he is afraid-and I was astonished at his frankness-that the committee might report. Of course it might report. It might report and make the finding that I am sure the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi (Mr. Dionne) and other New Brunswick and Atlantic provinces members would like to see, namely, that the decision to cut those services was illegal. That could quite likely be the report from the committee.
I invite you, Madam Speaker, to consider this question very carefully. It seems to me that the whole difficulty might have been avoided had you followed your usual practice. When a question from this side is addressed to a member of the ministry, you usually see that minister. In this case, on three separate occasions questions were addressed to the hon. member for Northumberland-Miramichi as chairman. In his
October 28, 1981

capacity as chairman, he rose three times. I would have thought that the natural inclination would have been to see the chairman and permit him to respond to the question.
Therefore, I suggest that future difficulties might be avoided if Your Honour followed that ordinary and customary practice of recognizing the individual on the other side to whom the question is addressed.


Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief. As I said the other day, I never quite understand how we get into these discussions. However, in reading Beau-chesne I draw certain conclusions. First of all I want to point out that Citation 366 of Beauchesne states that:
Questions may be asked of private members only under strict limitations. Virtually the only question possible would refer to a committee of which the member is the chairman.
I assume from reading that, that since the question is allowed to be asked, the answer is allowed to be given. I begin from the premise that if it is legal within the laws of the House of Commons to ask the question, then surely it must be reasonable and equally legal for the hon. member who is being asked to be able to answer.
The second point I submit for Your Honour's consideration is that the reference made by the hon. House leader for the government is in my judgment and, I hope, in the judgment of the Chair, an innapropriate reference. As previously indicated by the House leader for the government, as reported in Hansard of March 17, 1944, at page 327, Mr. Speaker ruled privately that a member may not seek, by means of a question to the chairman, to interfere in the proceedings of a select committee by suggesting a particular subject for inquiry. That, of course, was not before the House today. As I listened to the debate, there was no intention at any time to seek, by way of a question to a select committee-or, for that matter, any other committee, assuming that a standing committee is a select committee-to alter the terms of reference or to suggest that a matter not legitimately before the committee should be placed before the committee.
Therefore, I submit to Your Honour, if I may, that that reference is quite inappropriate, does not apply to the situation before you, and therefore is of no value in this debate.


Erik Nielsen: That does not apply in Canada.


Ian Deans: Therefore, I simply ask Your Honour to consider the proposition that if, within the Standing Orders of the House of Commons and the precedents established in the House of Commons, it is deemed appropriate that an hon. member on either side can pose a question to a committee chairman under certain circumstances, and if those circumstances are not in any way deviated from, then it should be equally understood that the chairman of the committee should be given the option to answer; that the only person who could determine whether the chairman ought or ought not to answer should be the chairman of the committee at that point of time; and that if the chairman wishes to relinquish the right to
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
answer to the President of the Privy Council or to the government House leader, then that may well be the prerogative of that chairman at that time.
However, under the circumstances, I would suggest that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and House leader for the government, did in fact interfere with the orderly conduct of the business by repeatedly rising to answer a question not directed to him, when the hon. member to whom the question was directed was obviously willing and able to answer it himself.


Madam Speaker:: Regarding the question first posed by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) at the beginning of this discussion, as to whether or not the chairman should have answered that question, it is true, as stated in Beauchesne, that a chairman of a committee may answer a question in the House about the activities of that committee. That citation, of course, is quite acceptable; but there are other citations which could have been quoted which state that a minister or, for that matter, a chairman of a committee, is not obliged to answer.


Erik Nielsen: But he was trying to answer.


Madam Speaker:: The Chair has no authority, whatsoever to force a minister or, for that matter, a chairman of a committee-


Mr. Siddon:: But he stood up.


Madam Speaker:: -to answer a question in the House. I have no authority whatsoever to force anyone to answer any question put to him in the House.


Mr. Lawrence:: Good grief!


Madam Speaker:: The issue in the minds of some is that the chairman of that committee was gagged by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard), who chose to answer the question instead of the chairman of the committee.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No, no. He was recognized by Your Honour to answer.


Madam Speaker:: If the President of the Privy Council wants to interpret a question as being related to the business of the House, it is not for the Chair to say that it is not related to the business of the House. In my mind, since the President of the Privy Council did rise to answer that question, he was perfectly justified in answering it.
Two people rose to answer that question. I recognized neither, and I want to make that quite clear. I never recognize one minister or another in order that he may answer a question which comes from the opposition benches. Hon. members will notice that I never, never announce the name of a minister during question period, except following an interruption when I have to call members to order and I give the minister the floor for the second time. However, I do not choose the ministers who will be answering the questions which are put to the government.

October 28, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Beatty
Therefore, if the President of the Privy Council chooses to answer a question and to interpret it as being related to the business of the House, the Chair may not interfere. The only time the Chair interferes is when it is quite obvious that a question which is not within a minister's responsibilities is directed to him. Then, of course, I will not allow a minister to answer that question.
I want to make it quite clear that I cannot start the new practice of recognizing this minister or the other. That practice never existed. The Chair does not recognize any particular minister in order that he may respond to a question coming from the opposition benches.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Quite right, when it is a question to the ministry; but this wasn't.


Madam Speaker:: It is hard for me to see where the problem lies. The opposition members did get an answer from the President of the Privy Council, and an answer was also given by the chairman of the committee. Therefore, in a sense, the questioners were satisfied in both instances. It is not for me to choose whether the President of the Privy Council or the chairman of the committee should have answered that question.
It is the first time that I have had to deal with this particular matter of the responsibility or otherwise of committees to answer questions. I fail to see that anyone has been gagged in these particular circumstances in view of the fact that two people rose, and I did not choose between them. I thought one deferred to the other. As a matter of fact, on the first question the chairman deferred to the President of the Privy Council and on the second or third question, the President of the Privy Council deferred to the chairman of the committee. That is a question with which I do not want to interfere.
However, I will check the precedents and perhaps clarify the rule regarding the circumstances in which chairmen of committees may answer questions put to them. I insist on the word "may", because they may refuse to answer the question, and that is their privilege.
The hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin).


Mr. Benjamin:: Madam Speaker, I rise-


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker!


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Erik Nielsen: Where are the traditions and the customs in this place?


Madam Speaker:: Just a minute. I had already recognized the hon. member for Regina West (Mr. Benjamin) who rose before I dealt with this problem. Does the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) want to comment further on this particular point of order? I thought that I had closed the debate
by saying that I would consult the precedents and try to clarify the rules as to the circumstances in which chairmen of committees may answer questions. Is the hon. member now rising on another matter, or does he want to comment further on what I have just said? I repeat that I have not yet ruled, and he may comment, I suppose. However, I want to know what is going on. The hon. member for Regina West had already risen before the hon. member for Yukon asked for the floor.


Erik Nielsen: I am rising on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker. Naturally I would not question the ruling of the Chair.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: She has made no ruling.


Erik Nielsen: I do not question the comments of the Chair. However, I too want to review very carefully the record of today's exchange, together with the just completed summation of the Chair, with a view to referring this very important matter raised by the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), this whole question of government intervention and the responsibilities of committee chairmen to reply to questions, to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. That may be of assistance to the Chair as well. All I am doing is to flag the possibility that tomorrow I may file a notice to raise that question of privilege and follow it with a substantive motion.


Leslie Gordon Benjamin: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 25 and in light of what happened in the standing committee yesterday, and I move, seconded by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan):
That this House do now adjourn.


Madam Speaker:: Can I have that in writing?
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the said motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


Some hon. Members:: Yea.


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


Some hon. Members:: Nay.


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


Madam Speaker:: Call in the members.


Mr. Peterson:: What a waste of time!


Madam Speaker:: I declare the motion lost. Shall we call it six o'clock?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



PETITION


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I ask leave of the House to lay upon the Table a petition, prepared by Mrs. Ruby Burnside of Orono, Ontario, and signed by 934 residents of the town of Newcastle and other places in Durham-Northumberland constituency, concerning the very serious consequences of the recent strike by certain employees of the Post Office. These petitioners are asking that legislation be enacted making it illegal for public servants working in essential services to strike.



ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Ron Irwin (Parliamentary Secretary to Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, the following questions will be answered today: Nos. 2,317 and 2,474.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich): 1.	With respect to the Royal Canadian Mounted Police "E" Division headquarters located at 2881 Nanaimo Street in Victoria (a) what was the (i) completion date (ii) cost of construction, including furnishings, office equipment and landscaping (b) on what date was the building opened and occupied by the RCMP?
2.	Was a decision made to open a new headquarters in Victoria and, if so, on what basis?
3.	Was a decision made to move the headquarters to Vancouver and, if so (a) on what basis (b) on what date will the move occur and what is the itemized cost, including acquisition and preparation of a new building?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: 1. (a) (i) and (ii) Land and adjacent buildings for Division and S-Division headquarters were purchased 78-06-08 for $4,600,000.

October 28, 1981
Order Paper Questions
Division HQ	$2,550,000
S-Division HQ	915,000
Land	1,135,000


[Stage Direction]
Furnishings and office equipment, $74,100
Landscaping,	$30,000.
(b)	Sub-Division building was initially occupied 77-11-25 under lease. Division headquarters building was occupied 78-04-28 following purchase approval 78-03-31 which was finalized on 78-06-08.
2.	The RCMP "E" Division headquarters was accommodated in the Montreal Trust Building at 1061 Fort Street, Victoria, B.C. from 1963 to 1978. In 1976, due to normal expansion plus a reorganization of the administration of the force in British Columbia, it became evident that this building would not meet the force's long-range requirements. It was therefore necessary to arrange a short-term lease renewal pending provision of alternative accommodation or expansion of the Fort Street building.
Due partly to the landlord's insistence that a minimum renewal term of three years be negotiated and the projected increase in space requirements by the RCMP, together with cost estimates for enlarging, upgrading and alterations to the existing premises, the RCMP, with the approval of Treasury Board, authorized Public Works Canada to proceed with a public tender call for 50,000 rentable square feet of space for a ten-year term.
Foreman Enterprises Ltd., Vancouver, British Columbia, was the successful tenderer and subsequently constructed both a Division and Sub-Division headquarters on one side of Topaz Avenue and Nanaimo Street in Victoria under a lease purchase agreement.
3.	The recommendation by senior management of the force and the decision of the Solicitor General to relocate the headquarters in Vancouver was made only after an in-depth review of the present organization structure. The basis for the relocation of the headquarters is that Vancouver is clearly recognized as the hub of British Columbia and the centre of action in terms of police activity as well as being the centre of trade and commerce. Additionally, a large percentage of the force's personnel in British Columbia is located in Vancouver and surrounding municipalities and placing the headquarters in closer proximity thereto is likely to result in greater cost effectiveness.
Further, there is no logical rationale from an operational point of view to maintain the Division headquarters at Victoria since the provincial justice ministry has offices and conducts a great deal of its work out of Vancouver. Similarily, provincial Crown counsels have been decentralized to Vancouver and elsewhere, increasing their accessibility.
The review which was directed at the administrative costs and over-all efficiency and effectiveness, identified several deficiencies with the present concept of a secretariat and two districts:
(a)	the secretariat concept is not cost effective;
(b)	duplication in virtually all facets of management at the secretariat and district headquarters levels, resulting in costly administration delays;
(c)	an unhealthy competitiveness between districts, and districts and secretariat;
(d)	a lack of clear terms of reference for members of the secretariat, resulting in confusion and frustration of its employees and a limited contribution to division management and operations.
Based on the foregoing concerns, the decision was made to return to a one division concept which would eliminate the extra layer of management and provide for a more viable operation.
It is not planned to move our British Columbia headquarters to Vancouver immediately. Such a move will take place over a three-year period, with completion being in the latter part of 1983.
The costs and savings are projected to be as follows:
Action Plan: Total amalgamation of all RCMP HQ operational and administrative functions at Victoria and Vancouver to Fairmont, Vancouver.
Estimated costs:
(a)	Relocation of manpower and equipment, renovations, and new construction	$22,500,000(b)	Purchase of WCB Clinic	6,500,000(c)	Fit-up of WCB Clinic	2,500,000(d)	Relocation of Victoria furnishings and equipment	80,000(e)	Relocation of Victoria employees (100)	1,000.000Total cost	$30,330,000
* Cost is only an estimate since purchase is still under negotiation which should be completed by end of June, 1981.
Estimated Savings: (a) 1. Sale of ED-1 HQ Victoria building. (Assumption: city of Victoria grants severance and Victoria S-D building will meet the force's needs). Sale proceeds:
50.000	sq. ft. at $70 per sq. ft. or $3,500,000.
2.	Rental of ED-1 HQ Victoria building. (Assumption: city of Victoria will not grant severance), total rentable area
50.000	sq. ft. at $15 per sq. ft., yearly rental of $750,000. Escalated at 10 per cent per year (inflation factor) discounted at 15 per cent (time horizon of proposal), $5,791,500.
3.	Sale of Victoria S-D building. (Assumption: city of Victoria will grant severance and the larger ED-1 HQ building will be required to meet the force's projected space needs of
40.000	sq. ft. Sale proceeds: 15,000 sq. ft. at $70 per sq. ft., $1,050,000. Rental of excess space 10,000 sq. ft. at $15 per sq. ft. yearly rental of $150,000 escalated at 10 per cent per year (inflation factor), discounted at 15 per cent for 10 years (time horizon of proposal), $1,158,300. Total $2,208,300.
October 28, 1981
[Stage Direction]
4.	Rental of Victoria S-D building. (Assumption: city of Victoria will not grant severance). Total rentable area 25,000 sq. ft. at $15 per sq. ft., yearly rental of $375,000 escalated at 10 per cent per year (inflation factor) discounted at 15 per cent for 10 years (time horizon of proposal), $2,895,750.
(b)	Salaries contributing to the manpower reduction of 30 employees at $25,000 a year (average salary), an annual savings of $750,000 per year escalated at 10 per cent per year, discounted at 15 per cent for 10 years, (time horizon of proposal), $5,791,500.
(c)	Rental savings, Vancouver, B.C., $347,540 per year, escalated at 10 per cent per year (inflation factor) discounted at 15 per cent for 10 years (time horizon of proposal), $2,683,703.
(d)	The purchase of WCB Clinic provides 100,000 sq. ft. of required space that, if not purchased, would have to be replaced by (1) new construction at $100 per sq. ft. or $10,000,000 or (2) rental at $15 per sq. ft. yearly rental of $1,500,000 escalated at 10 per cent per year (inflation factor), discounted at 15 per cent for 10 years (time horizon or proposal), $11,583,000.
Net cost over 10 years; $6,771,797.
Mr. Herbert: 1.	In each of the past five years, what amount was included in the budget for the student loan program and what amount was allocated to each province?
2.	What amount was contributed to the province of Quebec in lieu of participation in the pwgram?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Secretary of State):: 1. (a) Amount included in budget for last five fiscal years:
1976/77	1977/78	1978/79	1979/80	1980/81$	$	$	$	$68,400,000	94,700,000	97,796,000	97,796,000	110,940,000
(b) It is not possible to separate these budgetary allocations by province because, with the exception of alternative payments to the province of Quebec, the amounts are paid to lending institutions or collection agencies and not to provincial governments. As well, in some cases, loans are not authorized by the provincial authority in which the lending institution or agency making the loan is located.
The following table shows the value of loans authorized annually by each province for the past five loan years (loan year ends June 30):
Province	75/76	76/77	77/78 ($ million)	78/79	79/80B.C.	16.9	20.3	19.9	20.4	21.1Alta.	20.2	19.9	18.7	19.2	20.3Sask.	5.6	5.5	7.5	7.9	7.0Man.	7.6	12.6	9.1	7.8	7.0Ont.	76.4	90.7	59.1	77.2	69.5N.B.	10.2	8.6	8.4	8.8	8.9N.S.	13.7	13.2	11.3	11.1	11.7P.E.I.	2.0	2.3	1.7	1.7	1.6Nfld.	4.6	5.0	4.8	5.0	5.1Yukon	0.1	0.1	0.2	0.1	0.2N.W.T.	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1	0.1Total	157.4	178.3	140.8	159.3	152.5
Motions for Papers
2. Alternative payments to Quebec in each of the last five fiscal years:
1976/77	13,027,488
1977/78	12,102,573
1978/79	15,875,306
1979/80	21,670,352
1980/81	17,452,507


Ron Irwin: I ask, Madam Speaker, that the remaining questions be allowed to stand.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Ron Irwin: Madam Speaker, I have the pleasure of tabling a revised return to motion for the production of papers No. 51, which was put forward in the name of the hon. member for Victoria (Mr. McKinnon).


Madam Speaker:: Shall the hon. parliamentary secretary have leave to table the revised return?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion No. 51 (revised)-Mr. McKinnon:
That an order of the House do issue for copies of all letters, papers and studies concerning the move of RCMP Headquarters "E" Division fom Victoria to Vancouver, British Columbia.
Motion agreed to.
Mr. Hal Herbert (Vaudreuil):: Madam Speaker, I have a half dozen motions on the Order Paper at the present time which date back to last December. I should like to draw the attention of the parliamentary secretary to Motion No. 56 in particular. It calls for the production of a copy of the latest signed agreement between the government and the province of Ontario under the Canada Assistance Plan. Because it is my understanding that the government is prepared to table this document but that the government of the province of Ontario is refusing its consent, I think the matter should be clarified. I therefore ask the parliamentary secretary if, after the call for motions for the production of papers next Wednesday, he could clarify this point. It is relevant, obviously, to the discussion this fall on the renewal of the fiscal transfer payments with the provinces. The importance of this item is self-evident.


Ron Irwin: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon.

October 28, 1981
Canada Oil and Gas Act
member for his comments and I will bring them to the attention of the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Smith).
I ask, Madam Speaker, that all other notices of motions for the production of papers be allowed to stand.


Madam Speaker:: Shall the other notices of motions be allowed to stand?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.



GOVERNMENT ORDERS


[Stage Direction]
The House resumed, from Tuesday, October 27, consideration of Bill C-48, to regulate oil and gas interests in Canada lands and to amend the Oil and Gas Production and Conservation Act, as reported (with amendments) from the Standing Committee on National Resources and Public Works, and Motions Nos. 21 (Mr. Wilson) and 22 (Mr. Waddell).
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, this is the first time that I am participating in a 20 minute debate spread over a period of three days. It is all because the Liberals
reneged on yet another all-party agreement dealing with VIA Rail.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Peter Elzinga: In this chamber we are aware of the fact that the government's word is no good, and I think it is finally sinking through to the Canadian people.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Given the fact that there is so little time to go, perhaps the hon. member might like to address himself to Bill C-48.


Peter Elzinga: In dealing with Motion No. 21, let me say that I have listened with great interest to the debate on Bill C-48. On those occasions when I have not been in the chamber I have made myself aware of what was said through reading Hansard. It is obvious that all parties in the House agree on many aspects of the legislation and on its importance. I am sure the basic goals of all parties are very similar; we all wish to achieve energy self sufficiency.


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: Order, please. Lest there be any confusion, the Chair will be pleased to recognize the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) when the House sits again, assuming, of course, that he wishes to speak and is present.
It being six o'clock, pursuant to Standing Order 2(1) I do now leave the chair until two o'clock tomorrow afternoon.
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, October 29, 1981