1981-04-01

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. G. M. Gurbin (Bruce-Grey):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Since the government resolution on the Constitution will be heard by the Supreme Court of Canada on April 28, and since there are major economic problems in Canada affecting farmers, businessmen and consumers, and since the government is intending to limit debate through closure or other means, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the government adjourn debate on the Constitution and return to the business of running the country until the Supreme Court has completed its deliberations.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


SUGGESTED SUSPENSION OF DEBATE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Chuck Cook (North Vancouver-Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity affecting every member of this House. Whereas every barrister and solicitor who is a member of this House of Commons is also an official of the courts in his respective province and has taken a solemn oath to uphold the law, and whereas every member of this House who is a member of any professional society or association has also taken such a solemn oath, and indeed every member of this House who has promised to bear true allegiance to Her Majesty, Queen Elizabeth II, has by inference sworn a solemn oath to uphold the law, and whereas the Supreme Court of Newfoundland in a unanimous decision has declared the constitutional resolution before this House improper, immoral, offensive, unlawful and illegal, I therefore
move, seconded by the hon. member for Simcoe North (Mr. Lewis):
That the constitutional matters before this House be suspended and adjourned until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada may or may not remove the impediment to members acting against their solemn oaths by taking part in illegal proceedings and this House get on with the business of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BILINGUALISM
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Whereas a new study just released to me by the Vancouver school board shows that 44 per cent of public school students and 33 per cent of high school students have English as a second language, which is a startling statistic-the main first languages are Chinese, East Indian and Italian-and whereas these statistics have been confirmed in a recent city-wide conference chaired by the member for Vancouver East (Mrs. Mitchell), I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver East:
That the federal government recognize its responsibility to immigrants after their admission to Canada through adequate federal funding to English second language courses in Canada's largest cities so that both immigrant and native Canadian children get a fair chance for a proper education.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of today's expiration of

April 1, 1981
an RCMP contract with the provinces and the unlikelihood of a new contract being negotiated because of a deliberate attempt by some provinces to link the constitutional resolution to any such agreement, I move, seconded by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That this House condemns the governments of those provinces seeking to play politics with the peace and security of their citizens.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Gordon Taylor (Bow River):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas example means more than talk to Canadian young people, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Hastings-Frontenac-Lennox and Addington (Mr. Vankoughnet):
That the Prime Minister and his Liberals cease asking the members of this House to pass items that are contrary to the law and thereby set an example to our young people to uphold and obey the law.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Benno Friesen (Surrey-White Rock-North Delta):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of published reports that the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated its displeasure with the unilateral plan of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to push through Parliament his constitutional resolution before the Manitoba appeal can be heard, and that the Supreme Court of Canada has indicated that the dignity of the Supreme Court of Canada is being affronted by the process the Liberal government has initiated, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Richmond-South Delta (Mr. Siddon):
That, since the Prime Minister has finally admitted that the constitutional resolution should be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada for a decision, this House affirm the dignity of both the Supreme Court of Canada and the Parliament of Canada by urging the Prime Minister to cease his political posturing by referring forthwith the constitutional resolution to the Supreme Court of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Manly (Cowichan-Malahat-The Islands):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. Following several months of harassment, the Mohawk Inn on the Tyendinaga Reserve in Ontario has been raided by the Ontario Provincial Police and the Indian proprietor has been charged under an archaic section of the Indian Act which prohibits the sale of liquor on an Indian reserve. This is in spite of the fact that the inn has operated with the knowledge and consent of the band council. Considering the implications of this case for Indian business people right across the country, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Brant (Mr. Blackburn):
That the government recognize that the Mohawk Inn is a legitimate business, run by a responsible Indian businessman, and that the government treat this case as an important test and make the resources of the Department of Justice available for the defence.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. David Kilgour (Edmonton-Strathcona):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Noting that the Newfoundland Court of Appeal yesterday found the government's constitutional package to be illegal; acknowledging that by inviting this House to proceed with a proposal yesterday found illegal, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is inviting hon. members to enact something which five out of eight appeal court justices have already found to be illegal and which the Supreme Court of Canada will hear on April 28; noting that many members of this House who are lawyers are bound by the Canadian Bar Association code of conduct, one
April 1, 1981

provision of which requires lawyers to encourage public respect for the administration of justice, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House hereby adjourns the debate on the constitutional package until the highest court in the land can decide if it is legal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. John Campbell (LaSalle):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. As you know, Madam Speaker, the business of governing Canada is grinding to a halt as a result of the petulance and pique of the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and his colleagues preventing Parliament from doing its work. I therefore move, seconded by the hon. member for London-Middlesex (Mr. Bloomfield):
That this House condemns the tyranny of the minority in this House as exemplified by the Conservative party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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 for the Prime Minister. Can the Prime Minister tell the House of Commons whether he intends to instruct his officials to launch an appeal in the Supreme Court of Canada from the decision rendered yesterday by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, a decision which finds the government's constitutional resolution illegal?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, the position the government has taken after hearing
Oral Questions
the decision rendered yesterday by the court in Newfoundland and after learning, at the end of last week, that the Supreme Court of Canada had decided to hear the constitutional case before the end of this month, was to express the hope that these two cases would be brought before the Supreme Court of Canada, as well as the judgment of the Quebec Court of Appeal, if it is rendered in time. In other words, we would like to have the Supreme Court of Canada adjudicate all the cases which were brought before the courts by the provinces. How that will be done, I cannot say at this stage.


REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am sure the Prime Minister would not want this Parliament to be put in the position of voting on an illegal matter.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: We on this side of the House certainly do not want this Parliament to be put in the position of voting on an illegal matter, which is the situation now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: In light of that, and in order to protect and respect the rule of law in the country, I wonder if the Prime Minister would consider adjourning debate on the constitutional resolution, which has been presented to the House of Commons and to the Senate, so that we can get on with the other important business of the country. Will he consider adjourning this debate until the Supreme Court of Canada has decided the legality of the government's position, and then bring the question back to Parliament for whatever limited debate would be necessary, after the Supreme Court of Canada had ruled what constitutional matters it is lawful for the federal Parliament to decide?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition makes the assumption that Parliament would be voting on an illegal matter. I do not recall him making the assumption that the matter was legal after the Court of Appeal in Manitoba had made a favourable decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I think that establishes, once again, that the opposition is not as interested in establishing the legality as it is in causing delay.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The point is that we on this side are interested in knowing whether the measure is legal or not. That is why I made the suggestion, my offer, yesterday. The whole point is

April 1, 1981
Oral Questions
we do not know, in light of the Newfoundland decision, whether the matter is legal or not.
We thought it was legal after the Manitoba decision, and we thought it had been legal before; but now there is a doubt. That is why we are putting to the opposition a proposition which would permit us to determine whether a specific bill, a specific resolution-a joint resolution, as it would be-is legal or not. I repeat, if it is judged not to be legal, then we will not press for its passage in the United Kingdom.


Mr. Stevens:: Very big of you!


Mr. Crosbie:: Fantastic concession!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Well, the counterpart of that fantastic concession, as the hon. member for St. John's West called it, would be that, if the matter is legal, then I would hope that the opposition would withdraw their opposition.


John Carnell Crosbie: Not likely. Why should we? We oppose this process. It is unconstitutional. It is against the spirit of the Constitution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I hear the hon. member for St. John's West saying that he opposes the process, and that it is unconstitutional. That is why I am suggesting that we have the courts determine whether his opinion or ours is right.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister and the country know that the Prime Minister made his suggestion yesterday because he had no alternative.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He is trying to pretend that a position he is forced to take is an offer, when, in fact, all he is doing is admitting that he has been put in a box by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland which has decided that his constitutional position is illegal. That is now the law of Newfoundland. That is now the position with which this Parliament is faced.
The Prime Minister said that there was some doubt. There is no doubt, as it stands in relation to the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. That court has decided that it is illegal. This government is asking this Parliament to proceed with a matter which has been declared to be illegal by a court.
Will the Prime Minister of Canada seriously consider adjourning debate on this matter until the Supreme Court of Canada can assure the Prime Minister of Canada and this Parliament that what the Prime Minister is proposing is, in fact, legal or otherwise? Let me say to the Prime Minister that it makes no sense at all for him to say that he would not ask the British parliament to act on a matter which is illegal, but he wants the Canadian Parliament to act on a question which is illegal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question is quite simple. Why will the Prime Minister not apply to the Canadian Parliament the same practice which he applies to the British parliament? Why will he not adjourn discussion of this resolution until the Supreme Court of Canada has decided whether it is legally proper for the Parliament of Canada to act alone on the resolution?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition says that we have been put in a box by the Newfoundland decision. I repeat the same question. Why did he not find himself in a box by the Manitoba decision?


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It is a hypothetical judgment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Manitoba decision was to the effect that our action was legal, and we continue to act and the opposition continues to oppose. Therefore I argue that legality is really not what interests the Leader of the Opposition. It is obstruction that interests him. The Leader of the Opposition makes a suggestion that we adjourn the debate so that the Supreme Court could be seized-with what, Madam Speaker?


An hon. Member:: Whatever you refer them to.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It would be seized with something which the court of Manitoba, through the voice of its Chief Justice, said was hypothetical. We must seize the court with something certain.
Let me read, if I may have the permission of the House, what Chief Justice Freedman of the Manitoba Court of Appeal said. We had long readings from the Newfoundland judgment yesterday. If the House would bear with me, I should like to read a very important point which permits me to answer the question of the Leader of the Opposition. I quote Chief Justice Freedman as follows:
We therefore face a real likelihood that the amendments sought in the proposed resolution may be altered, deleted, or supplanted by other amendments before the resolution is deemed ready for transmission to Her Majesty. In this situation there is a danger that if we answer Question 1 ... we may later find that we have answered matters no longer before us and have not answered matters that emerged in their stead. The Court should not be exposed to the risk of such an adventure in futility.
The Supreme Court, in the past, has also frequently objected to receiving matters referred to it because of their hypothetical nature. Let me remind the House that we have now a resolution, with a proposed amendment from the hon. member for Provencher.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on, Madam Speaker, this-


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member for Provencher has moved that we delete a very important part of this resolution, notably the part dealing with the referendum and amending procedure. If we go to the courts now, would we go with or without the amendment having been adopted? If we went in the present state and the court made this kind of statement, then we would
April 1, 1981

have no solution. The court would say that there is an important amendment, there is another important amendment from the NDP, and we heard yesterday that the Tories want to introduce an amendment relating to property and certainly an amendment relating to the equality of sexes and to aboriginal rights. There are many amendments.
What would the Leader of the Opposition do if the court adjudicated on this hypothetical case? Would he then be prepared to pass that resolution judged legal by the Supreme Court, or would he say, "Give us a few more days. We have a couple more amendments to move."? If the latter, would he then say, "On these new amendments, nobody knows whether they are going to be legal or not. Let's go to the Supreme Court again to see if they are going to be legal." That is why, Madam Speaker, we have made a proposal to go to the courts, as it is our duty as legislators, with something certain. It has happened frequently in the past, and I have more than half a dozen instances in the past-


Some hon. Members:: Order, Madam Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in the past ten years where the Supreme Court has judged that Parliament acted in an ultra vires sense. This might or might not be the case. All I am saying is that our proposal has the advantage of going to the courts with something certain and final. If it is legal, that settles the matter; if not, it also settles the matter.
Why does the Leader of the Opposition, if he is interested in justice and right, not accept this course?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will not take a great deal of the time of the House pointing out to the Prime Minister that in relation to Bill C-60 he adopted exactly the procedure that he rejects in this case.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: He knows there is nothing hypothetical about the Newfoundland Supreme Court decision.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: What we are doing is proposing a way by which the Parliament of Canada could get on with the business of Canada rather than debating a matter which might be illegal.
I ask for the third time, is the Prime Minister prepared to consider adjourning this debate on a resolution which has been declared illegal by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland, to allow Parliament to get on with other business and to permit us to come back to consider this question, or those elements of this question which the Supreme Court finds legal, taking whatever limited time is necessary after the Supreme Court of Canada has decided which parts of the government's proposal are within the competence of this Parliament of Canada to enact?
Oral Questions
[DOT] (M30)


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, let us try to understand that proposal. The Leader of the Opposition says there is nothing hypothetical about what has been in front of the court of Newfoundland. The court of Manitoba, on the contrary, found that it was hypothetical.


John Carnell Crosbie: It made a judgment.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: But let me take the Leader of the Opposition's proposal. The resolution, according to this proposal, as I understand it, would go to the Supreme Court now in its present form, presumably without the Provencher amendment; presumably without the Indian amendment, and presumably without the amendment on women. It would be going with something not hypothetical but something absolutely final.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: That would be your choice.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If it is not going to be hypothetical, it has to be something which exists now if we adjourn the House. If we go with something that exists now, and the Supreme Court of Canada judges it to be legal and intra vires, is the opposition prepared to say that the very next day or days, without any further amendment, that thing will be passed and sent to the United Kingdom?


Some hon. Members:: No.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They say no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Therefore it means they want to change it in some way. That establishes our point.


Mr. Andre:: How do you know what a judge is going to say?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It is hypothetical until we have made a final decision, and that settles the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REPORTED WARNING BY BRITISH GOVERNMENT OF IMPOSITION OF ONE-YEAR HOIST
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, I direct my question to the Minister of Justice. However, I tell the Prime Minister that no matter what face he wants to put on the situation-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Is that my question or his?


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -he has a matter which has been judged illegal by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland now, and he has to deal with it now.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

April 1, 1981
Oral Questions


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Nevertheless, there is another matter beyond the legal question, and that is the judgment made by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland that the government cannot change the federation through indirect means, which obviously it is prohibited from doing through direct means. That being the case, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice this question. After his return from Britain, and in view of the news of today, was he or any minister of the government warned that the British government, regardless of when the British government would get the resolution before it, was contemplating a one-year hoist?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the member from Manitoba made some remarks to me. I presume he was asking a question of me. I put to him the same consideration that I put to his leader. He says that the Newfoundland Court made certain decisions. I would point out to the hon. member that the appeal court of his own province made contrary decisions, which establishes that there is some doubt as to where the legality lies. I do not think, in fairness, that he can quote only one judgment when we have two contradictory ones. That is why our proposal is to go to the Supreme Court of Canada so that the Supreme Court can adjudicate in a final way as to which of these contradictory decisions is the right one.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, I simply say to the Prime Minister that he could do that right now and give the reference.
As the Minister of Justice still has not had an opportunity to answer my question because of the Prime Minister's intervention, may I ask him whether or not that warning, namely, the warning that the British government would use a one-year hoist regardless of when it would receive the proposition, was given to him or to any other minister? As well, I remind the minister of the question that I asked him on his return from London, that the British parliament could not deal with the matter while it was before the Canadian Supreme Court. On those warnings we have asked the minister about, could he now answer those questions specifically?
[ Translation]


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, to the first question I answer unequivocally that at no time was it indicated that the British government intended to postpone the introduction of the House of Commons and Senate resolution in the British Parliament. Mr. Pym and I discussed the timing, and I am convinced that when we send the resolution of the Parliament of Canada to the British parliament, it will act as Mrs. Thatcher said it would, quickly and in accordance with the precedents and the law.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Prime Minister. Yesterday he made it clear that the constitutional resolution would be kept in Canada until the Supreme Court of Canada-


Miss MacDonald:: No, he didn't.


Walter David Baker: Too bad, Ed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: -made a ruling on its legality.


Mr. Nowlan:: You weren't here.


John Edward Broadbent: He also said that two proposed amendments from the New Democratic Party, one affecting the equality of women and one affecting native rights, ought to be included in that final resolution. In that he added to the commitment previously made by the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development and the Minister of Justice.
In order to ensure that these important amendments, to which the government has committed itself, are included in the final resolution, I ask the Prime Minister what steps is the government prepared to take in the House, given the procedural delays which have occurred, to ensure that they are in fact included?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am somewhat puzzled by the question asked by the Leader of the New Democratic Party. There is before the House now a proposal for allocation of time, which would permit us within a reasonable period-a few days-to dispose of the amendment of the hon. member for Provencher and to move the amendment concerning native rights, and hopefully an amendment concerning equality of the sexes, since it appears that all sides of the House would like to see those included.
There is a motion before the House now. The hon. member is asking me what steps we are prepared to take. At three o'clock we would like to get on with this motion and deal with it, Madam Speaker. That is the only answer I can give to the Leader of the New Democratic Party. But, in order to do that, we have to have the official opposition cease its attempts to hijack Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, given the commitments which the government has made on these two important amendments, and given the House is in fact being blocked from proceeding with these measures, an action which members of my party agree is taking place-


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Isn't that something?
April 1, 1981


John Edward Broadbent: -is the Prime Minister saying there are no options open to the government other than sitting back and witnessing the blockage of Parliament?


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: You are a great kidder, Ed.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, it seems to me that when Parliament has ceased to work, and not through a filibuster, because as I understand it a filibuster is on a specific question, but has ceased to work period-


Harvie Andre: Call an election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -we are in a situation of absolute disorder where the Parliament of Canada cannot work. It seems to me that the question should not be addressed to me, but to all members of this House. Is there some way in which disorder can be replaced by order?


Some hon. Members:: Yes.


Charles Joseph Clark: Adjourn the debate.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If that is the case, and the Leader of the Opposition nods in assent, I put it to you, Madam Speaker, perhaps you should call orders of the day forthwith and then we will get out of this hijacking process.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Good idea.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, that is certainly something which this party would strongly support.


An hon. Member:: Try again, Ed.


RULES GOVERNING PROCEDURE
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, my last supplementary question is for the government House leader.
Is the government House leader aware of any other rules in the rule book-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: Ask Stanley.


John Edward Broadbent: -that would enable the government to take action to ensure there is a vote on the amendment which the Conservatives have had before the House for six weeks, stopping all other amendments from being brought forward? Is the government House leader aware of that? Is he prepared to take any steps to ensure that we obtain the amendments for our native people and for women, which the government itself has promised?
Presence in Gallery


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the way the Standing Orders are drafted, an opposition party which is unsatisfied with a measure may, of course, resort to what is commonly known as a filibuster in parliamentary language. To put it another way, once the proposition has been introduced, that we have reached orders of the day and that it is debated, some hon. members prevent the question from being put, but by participating in the debate and constructively seeking to improve the measure.
However, there is a rule under which the government is allowed to propose changes to the existing Standing Orders with a view to ending a debate which, in this instance, has lasted for nearly six months. Under an even more drastic rule, we would be able to end it in less than 24 hours. Those are provisions contained in our Standing Orders and they can be used legitimately by the government. But there is a situation which is not covered in the Standing Orders, which does not belong to parliamentary practice and which is altogether improper and disrespectful to our institution and the Canadian people, and that is pure and simple disorder or any protracted filibuster which prevents the government from reaching the orders of the day and proceeding with the study of a given item. That is not what is commonly referred to as a filibuster, of which I spoke a moment ago. That is strictly a question of order or disorder, as the Right Hon. Prime Minister so aptly pointed out. In an even more popular language, it could be described as hijacking Parliament. Under the circumstances, Madam Speaker, when it amounts to a question of order or disorder you know full well that it is up to the occupant of the Chair to assume his or her responsibilities, as you have done so well until now and as we are confident you will continue to do.


PRESENCE IN GALLERY OF GOVERNOR LICENCIADO MARTINEZ DOMINGUEZ OF NUEVO LEON, MEXICO
Madam Speaker:: I would like to draw the attention of the House to the presence in our gallery the Honourable Licen-ciado Martinez Dominguez, Governor of the State of Nuevo Leon, Mexico.


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

April 1, 1981


RULING BY SUPREME COURT OF NEWFOUNDLAND ON CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION-EFFECT ON MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT FROM NEWFOUNDLAND
John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, apparently this is Sesame Street day for the Leader of the New Democratic Party on procedure. An easy way is to adjourn this debate in the House and carry on with all kinds of other business. My question is to the Prime Minister. The Supreme Court of Newfoundland on appeal has found this process to be unconstitutional-not some amendment, the whole process. It has found that the charter of rights and freedoms in this resolution must infringe upon the powers of the provinces to legislate in respect of property and civil rights. No amendment, except the very gutting of this resolution, would change the process.
Even if the courts find the process to be legal, and within the constitutional boundaries of the federal government, there would still be an argument as to whether it is proper in public policy terms to go ahead. We argue that it is not, that it would destroy confederation.
The Prime Minister, who was a professor, knows the difference between these two points. One is legality and the other is whether it is proper even if it is legal. It is not legal, and in our view it is not proper either.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. I just want to warn the hon. member that he must be short in his questions.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I allowed more than the usual time for questions at the beginning of the question period. The only way to help the Chair now is to be brief in the questions so that we can at least have a reasonable number of questions in this question period.


Harvie Andre: Be a little consistent.


Mr. Mitges:: What about the answers?


John Carnell Crosbie: In view of the decision by the highest judicial authority in Newfoundland, until the matter goes to the Supreme Court of Canada how can the Prime Minister ask the seven Newfoundland MPs to ignore the decision of their own court that this is beyond the power and jurisdiction of this House, illegal and unconstitutional, and go ahead and make a judgment, and vote on this matter in the face of the decision of our own court in Newfoundland?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for St. John's West points out that the Newfoundland Court of Appeal found the process illegal, he says. Then he wonders how members from Newfoundland
can debate this process. I remind him that when the court of Manitoba decided that it was legal-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Munro (Hamilton East):: Let him answer.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: It seems to me that this re-establishes once again ad nauseam that the question of legality is not settled. That is why we are proposing that it be settled. In so far as whether it is proper or not, a large part of my speech a couple of weeks ago dealt with that very matter. The question is that there is no precedent for what we are doing. The precedent in proceeding in the way suggested by the opposition has produced zilch for 54 years.


Some hon. Members:: Untrue.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: They say it is not true. I put it to them that since 1927 the governments of this country have been-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mr. Nielsen:: How about the length of the answers, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for St. John's West have a supplementary, a short one?


John Carnell Crosbie: My supplementary is this. The court of Manitoba by a majority found the process to be legal. That still left the question as to whether it was a proper exercise of its powers by this House to carry this resolution through. We do not agree that it is a proper exercise of the powers of this House.
The Supreme Court of Newfoundland on appeal said that the government is asking Parliament to arrogate to ourselves an authority we do not possess. They held it not to be a proper request to Her Majesty's Parliament in Great Britain. Is the Prime Minister going to try to encourage the seven Newfoundland Members of Parliament here to carry out an impropriety, to vote on a process found to be improper by the highest judicial authority in Newfoundland? Surely we can wait until this matter goes to the highest judicial authority of the whole nation before he requires that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in my previous answer I dealt with the matter of legality and how that could be determined. As to the matter of propriety, whether it is or is not, our whole point is that is a matter for Members of Parliament to decide, and then a matter for the Canadian people to decide. The courts are there to judge the illegality or otherwise. It is the Canadian people who are to judge whether our actions produce the effects that they want, and whether they are proper or not. That is our position.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
April 1, 1981


STATEMENTS MADE BY PRIME MINISTER
Hon. James A. McGrath (St. John's East):: Madam Speaker, I would like to get back to the replies from the-no, my friend, you are the showman of this House. We will wait for you to get up-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


James Aloysius McGrath: You always speak from your seat.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Will the hon. member simply ask questions. This is the question period.


James Aloysius McGrath: I am entitled to do so without interruption. The Prime Minister in reply to the Leader of the Opposition indicated that there is some doubt as to the legality. In other words, he was not accepting the unanimous decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. Then he went on to refer to the judgment of the Chief Justice of Manitoba when he talked about the situation being hypothetical. There is nothing hypothetical about the closure motion before this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


James Aloysius McGrath: And there is nothing hypothetical about the-


Madam Speaker:: Order, order. The hon. member for New Westminster-Coquitlam.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!

[DOT] (M50)


FISHERIES
Miss Pauline Jewett (New Westminster-Coquitlam):: Madam Speaker, I would like to direct a very urgent question to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. It follows the question yesterday of my colleague. Since the discussions yesterday between the Fraser River fishermen and the minister's Pacific coast officials apparently did not lead to any modification of the government's proposal respecting the closing of the 29 D section of the Fraser, will the minister now instruct his officials at their further meeting the day after tomorrow, Friday, to return to what was offered last December by the Pacific Salmon Commission, particularly leaving the Fraser open between the Pattullo Bridge and Mission Bridge and allowing a one day a week minimum fishery for the gill-netters?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I am sure the hon. member, who is interested in my giving her reliable information, will forgive me if I tell her that I have not been briefed on the meeting which took place yesterday. I hope this will be done later this afternoon.
Oral Questions
Obviously, I will be glad to give her by telephone an immediate answer and in the House tomorrow, if she so wishes.


Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, I particularly wish the minister would attend to the request about going back to what the Pacific Salmon Commission offered.


INVITATION TO MINISTER TO ATTEND MEETING
Pauline Jewett: Madam Speaker, may I further ask the minister why he has not replied to the invitation sent to him by the Fraser River fishermen to attend their meeting this Sunday afternoon? It will be a very large meeting held in New Westminster. Why has the minister not had the courtesy to reply, and is he in fact going to attend that major meeting they are so anxious to have him attend?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, it is very much because we are trying to find a solution that the meeting took place yesterday, and I hope that on both sides there was some element of flexibility which might find accommodation. In the case of the sport fishery, I think we are on the road to finding accommodation between conflicting views.
As for attending the meeting, I must say that we are somewhat paralysed in Ottawa these days. I have had travel plans which have been-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: Hon. members opposite are the reason for the paralysis.
I must confess that I have not found this type of issue is resolvable at mass public meetings where speech-making, and not discussion, is the order of the day.


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member for St. John's East now like to ask his supplementary question? I would hate to frustrate his right to ask questions, but I did want to indicate, in the only way a Speaker can, that it is important for the Speaker to maintain decorum and to maintain a balance between the different parties in the House of Commons who like to ask questions during the question period. This was the only way I had finally to bring the hon. member to realize this. If he would like to ask a supplementary question now, I will give him the floor.


THE CONSTITUTION
James Aloysius McGrath: Madam Speaker, frustration is something we on this side of the House are learning to live with. It took the Prime Minister almost five minutes-four minutes 57 seconds-to reply to the Leader of the Opposition. I was given less than a minute.

April 1, 1981
Oral Questions
How can the Prime Minister argue his case on the fact that the resolution now before the House is hypothetical when in fact the government refused in committee to accept any amendments on the process or any amendments on the amending formula? The government has placed a closure motion before this House to get the resolution through as it is-


An hon. Member:: With the support of Ed Broadbent.


James Aloysius McGrath: -with the passive support of the Leader of the NDP, who has gone into some kind of metamorphosis and turned into a powder-puff.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member for St. John's East should ask his question right now. I plead with him to conform with what I am asking him to do.


James Aloysius McGrath: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I find it very difficult to restrain myself. The unanimous judgment of the Appeal Court of Newfoundland, as opposed to the statement of one judge in Manitoba, had this to say-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


James Aloysius McGrath: The Prime Minister was allowed to quote.
The division of powers precribed by the Constitution excludes federal jurisdiction over provincial autonomy within their legislative competence, and thus a proper request to Her Majesty's Parliament in Great Britain to change such fundamental aspects of the Constitution can only be made after the provinces have agreed to such change.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member really think I can allow him to continue with such a preamble? I just have to cut him off and not allow him now to ask his question. I have to recognize members of the NDP because they must have the time allotted to them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kamloops-Shuswap.


ENERGY CONSERVATION
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker, my question is not about the Constitution. It is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It deals with CHIP. I would be surprised if there is not a member of this House who has not been approached by his or her constituents about CHIP and the fact that it is being seriously abused by a number of unscrupulous companies operating across Canada which are defrauding not only the Government of Canada but also individual citizens, as well as the Canadian taxpayer indirectly.
What steps is the minister taking to bring to a close these fraudulent methods and techniques presently being employed from one end of Canada to another?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, I must tell the hon. member that this indeed is a question about which I have had great concern over the last year. The overwhelming majority of contractors in this field are doing an honest job and a fair job for the citizens of this country and for the government of this country. Unfortunately, it appears there have been individuals who have abused the system, and in every instance where this has been reported there have been investigations. If necessary, prosecutions will be undertaken.
However, with respect to the general question raised by the hon. member, we have nonetheless decided to introduce a certification system for the contractors in this field. This certification system will ensure that the people who work in this field are properly qualified and meet the standards required. Already a high percentage of contractors have agreed and have received this certification. All the others will have to comply with this requirement by sometime next fall. This is in progress. We are monitoring the situation very carefully because it is a source of concern, and I thank my hon. friend for having brought this matter to the attention of the House.


INVOLVEMENT OF LOCAL ORGANIZATIONS IN CERTIFICATION PROCESS
Nelson Andrew Riis: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the steps being indicated by the minister. However, unfortunately this plan will not come into effect until well into the summer and perhaps into the fall. In the meantime these fraudulent activities continue.
Would the minister look into improving the inspection system by taking advantage of the existing municipal infrastructure, or perhaps even by inviting community organizations to participate in this program in the place of many small businesses so that the labour is local labour, so that abuse is minimized, and so that funds stay in communities? My concern is that this is putting a black mark on many small businesses across Canada, and essentially on the small business community.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, if you will permit me to answer, the program which was described by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources is undertaken in co-operation with the Canadian General Standards Board, which reports to me. We have signed a contract with the Royal Canadian Legion in order to accomplish exactly what the hon. member had identified. The Royal Canadian Legion will be involved in the process of the verification and certification of individual contractors at the local level.
April 1, 1981


THE CONSTITUTION
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, if I may, I would like to fine-tune the rather indistinct and vague answers given this afternoon by the Minister of Justice by asking the Prime Minister, if I could get his attention for a moment, if he or any member or official of the government, now that the Supreme Court of Canada is seized of the matter, has had any indication at all from the U.K. government that they do not desire in any manner, shape or form to deal with the constitutional package or resolution until the Supreme Court of Canada determines the validity or invalidity of it?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: No, Madam Speaker, I have not had any such notice from anybody in the United Kingdom, nor to my knowledge has anyone on their behalf said that to anyone on this side of the House.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wonder if the Prime Minister, as succinctly and briefly as possible, because I am afraid it passed over me, could explain once again why he is acting in a discriminatory fashion in respect of this Parliament by putting it in a subordinate position in that he is not insisting that the British parliament pass this measure until the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled on it, but he is insisting that this Parliament pass on it.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, on the contrary, I am proposing a course of action which would bring certainty to the courts. They would know what this House has decided in a final way. That is what I am proposing. Once the courts know that, they will decide whether it is legal or not.
In the case of the United Kingdom, Madam Speaker, they have no choice, in our view. They will pass whatever they receive.


An hon. Member:: Holding their noses.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: And that is what the British Prime Minister has told us and said publicly. She will proceed expeditiously with the introduction of the measure proposed by Joint Resolution of both Houses of Parliament.


PROCEDURE FOR REFERRAL OF CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION TO SUPREME COURT OF CANADA
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, in view of the response by the Prime Minister as to the kind of matter which the Supreme Court of Canada would be seized of, I would like to ask the Minister of Justice, in view of the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is now seized of the appeal on the Manitoba reference, which is on the proposed resolution prior to amendments by the committee and any that may arise on the floor of this House, and in view of the Prime Minister's so-called magnanimous offer, just how does he
Oral Questions
propose to have the amended resolution brought to the attention of the Supreme Court of Canada for adjudication?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: First things first, Madam Speaker. Let us vote here, it will be final, and after that we will find a way to transmit that to the Supreme Court of Canada.


REQUEST FOR ADJOURNMENT OF DEBATE
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, with an answer like that I would not ask the Minister of Justice to represent me in a small claims court.
My supplementary is to the President of the Privy Council. Maybe I can get some sense out of this garbage we have been getting from the government over the last little while. The Prime Minister has insisted on the immediate passage of the Joint Resolution on the Constitution and the lodging of the address at the first reading stage-this was confirmed by the Minister of the Environment this morning on "Canada A.M."-in the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, awaiting the adjudication of the Supreme Court of Canada on the Manitoba reference.
Since a judgment of the Supreme Court striking down the constitutional package would require a withdrawal of that address by Parliament and require the introduction of a new constitutional package on the floor of this House, and a new committee proceeding, why does the government House leader not now move the adjournment of the debate to avoid delay, because this will involve a rerun of a six-month debate when the court strikes down the constitutionality of this particular package?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I must say to the hon. member that I can hardly give an answer which differs from that of the Minister of Justice. I am surprised that the Saskatchewan lawyer would even attempt to teach law to the Minister of Justice by pointing out that he would not accept to be represented by the Minister of Justice in a small claims court. As a lawyer he ought to know that no one is allowed to be represented by counsel before a small claims court.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The House has now reached the point where it may hear questions of privilege. I just want to inform the House that I have several of them, nine on the Constitution, and I have tried to group them. I want to let the hon. members know how I propose to deal with these. The nine on the Constitution deal with the fact that the resolution on the Constitution places hon. members of this House in an unacceptable and improper position. They are worded nearly the same way, and most of them say that it violates the oaths that different members have taken before the bars of the different provinces. Although they did not all come in this

April 1, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
order, I propose to hear first all of the questions of privilege having to do with the Constitution.
I would enjoin the hon. members who want to speak on these particular questions of privilege, since there are quite a number of them, to restrain themselves so that I will not have to, and 1 ask them to pick their arguments very carefully because I have questions of privilege on other subjects that I have to deal with today.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order having to do with government business which may well facilitate proceedings in the House. It arises from an exchange between the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and myself today in which he posed some questions to me and, as Your Honour knows, it would be improper for me to respond during question period to questions posed to me by the Prime Minister. I would like to raise a matter which may well be of interest to the Prime Minister and the government House leader, because it would elaborate upon a way in which we can resolve the impasse now before the House. It would allow us to get on with other business and resolve this question of the legality of what Parliament is being asked to consider before it is asked to consider it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It really has to be a point of order and deal exactly with what the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) has said, and, of course, it should be as short as possible.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am prepared to wager that my point of order will be briefer than most of the Prime Minister's responses.
What we have done today is propose that the government adjourn debate on the resolution now before this House and thereby allow Parliament to get on to other urgent business of the nation. It would also allow the government to send to the Supreme Court of Canada, either by following the appeal procedure or by reference, a question which would determine the legality of the proposal we are being asked to judge. I would appreciate some attention being paid to this serious proposal by the government side.
The Prime Minister responded to my suggestion by posing a question to me. He asked me what questions would go to the Supreme Court. He asked whether or not it would simply be the resolution proposed by the Government of Canada or whether it would have appended to it the amendment proposed by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), the amendment on women's rights proposed by my party in the other place, the amendments which are apparently of interest to the New Democratic Party and certain other amendments. That question did not occur to the Prime Minister when he made a
reference in relation to Bill C-60, but apparently it occurs to him now. I am prepared to take it as a matter of some seriousness to him.
There is a way to resolve this problem, and that would be to have an agreement among the three parties in the House as to the amendments we would want to have seriously considered in the House, if it were judged by the Supreme Court of Canada that it was legal for the House of Commons to consider this question at all. For the consideration of the government and the House leader on the other side, we would propose consultations now to determine with which amendments the various parties would want to proceed.
Once it was agreed which amendments were of priority to us-certainly there is the one standing in the name of the hon. member for Provencher and there are a number of others that are priority amendments-there could then be an agreement that the reference to the Supreme Court of Canada could include those amendments as well, so that we would know the legality-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am having a bit of trouble-


An hon. Member:: He is the Leader of the Opposition, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Oh, yes, I am very conscious of that, but I am having a little trouble allowing this point of order. It seems to me that these kinds of negotiations are not covered by the rules of the House and that the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition is continuing debate on this whole question.
If the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has any proposal concerning the technical means at our disposal to get out of what other members-not myself-have called the "impasse", I could entertain this as a point of order after question period. But it seems to me that this kind of proposal ought to come out of the debate.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid it is very difficult for me to see a point of order in what the hon. member is now discussing.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, of course I will be bound by your ruling. I am trying to deal with House business. There was a suggestion put to me by the Prime Minister, which I took to be serious, as to how we could resolve the matter. I am not permitted under the rules to answer his questions, at least until after the next election.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 1, 1981


Charles Joseph Clark: So I was seeking this opportunity to respond to what I thought was a serious question by putting forward a proposal which I hope might be considered seriously by all parties. It would be the following: that all parties would agree on the amendments which would be put forward to the Supreme Court of Canada to determine their legality; that subsequently the debate in the House would, by agreement, be limited to those amendments submitted as a result of three-party agreement in the House which had been found to be legal and constitutional by the Supreme Court of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Blackmail.


Charles Joseph Clark: I suggest it is a way in which we could resolve the impasse with which we are now faced and get on with the business of Canada. It is a way in which we could ensure that the Parliament of Canada is dealing only with questions within the competence of the Parliament of Canada.
I raise it as a matter of House business in the earnest hope that the Prime Minister and the government House leader might consider it a means to expedite the business of Canada by the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, with your indulgence, I will attempt to deal with what seems to be a matter of negotiation between House leaders on this point of order. If the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is suggesting that there merely be agreement among parties as to what subject would be raised after the Supreme Court has adjudicated, I would point out that obviously that is not enough, because although we know the subject we still do not know in what form it will pass and so on.
If the Leader of the Opposition is suggesting we spell out in detail amendments which would be accepted by this House after the Supreme Court has judged, I ask him how we can spell these amendments out in detail, know how the various members of the House will vote on them, know what parties would align for or against, say, on the property amendment or on the aboriginal rights amendment, unless he asks the House for its opinion. It cannot be the House leaders who would decide the text of an amendment which we would accept the day after the Supreme Court judged favourably. Therefore, the Leader of the Opposition is putting a proposition which seems to me is supporting my point.


Some hon. Members:: No, no.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The only way in which the court can know exactly what will come out of this House is to have it come out of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I would also remind the Leader of the Opposition that he quoted in the House-I think it was about ten days ago-a judgment of Beauchesne to the effect that the
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
same subject matter should not be put before two public bodies, presumably at the same time. Now he is suggesting we do exactly that. We have before the House a joint resolution; he is now suggesting that we put it, at the same time, before the Supreme Court.


An hon. Member:: We could adjourn.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Whether we adjourn or not, it is still before the House. We have engaged upon the legislative process; that is the course we are on. If he is suggesting that we go before the Supreme Court at the same time, he is flying in the face of the very judgment of Beauchesne he quoted ten days ago.
Let me just remind the opposition that in the 1930s, when the Hon. R. B. Bennett proposed his "new deal", particularly unemployment insurance legislation, the Liberal Party, which was then in opposition, argued the illegality of it, but they let the matter pass. It went to the Supreme Court and the Supreme Court, in effect, decided that it was illegal.


Harvie Andre: What about 1978?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: This is what we are asking now. I can understand that the opposition thinks it is illegal, just as in the thirties the Liberals thought that the then Bennett "new deal" was illegal; but they did not systematically obstruct. They said, "Okay, we defer our opinions as to the legality; let us submit to the court something precise, something upon which it can judge, and we will rest by that judgment." I am just suggesting we continue that course.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to reply to what was said by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) and the constructive proposals put forward by the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark).


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: It seems to me that we might at last be reaching the basis of some serious co-operation in the House.
I listened to the Prime Minister with care. He said that there was a sort of hypothetical aspect to what the Leader of the Opposition raised. I would like to respond to the suggestion; I hope all of us on both sides of the House can take some time to give it thought. If we could reach an agreement that each party could put forward another amendment-and we have an omnibus one covering two subjects only which are well known in the House-it would not require a lot of debate.
The government has indicated that it is interested in four-day time tabling. Each party could put forward an amendment which could be quickly dealt with and spelled out by agreement, in perhaps one day. We could vote now and then there could be a reference before final reading to the Supreme Court. We could have a vote on the amendments and then a reference to the Supreme Court, with the original resolution as amended by votes in the House. Then we could have a final

April 1, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
vote in the House after hearing the judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should like to speak to two points. The first point is the one of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) concerning the program of R. B. Bennett in the thirties. The difference between R. B. Bennett's proposition and the proposition we have before us is that in the 1930s, when Parliament moved to pass that program, it was not faced with a judgment of the Supreme Court of a province which held the program to be illegal; that occurred afterwards.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: That is absolutely correct.


Walter David Baker: This is why I suggest the analogy of the Prime Minister does not apply.
With respect to the program itself, what has concerned us from the outset has been that Parliament would be asked finally to make an adjudication with respect to the matter before it had been considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. It appears that we see a split coming in the irresistible force meeting the immovable object.
With respect to this issue, I must say that we would be prepared to discuss an arrangement which would accommodate the constituencies represented by the various proposals for amendments before the House, provided, of course, that as a bottom line of those discussions it was understood that there would be no finality with respect to this matter until after the Supreme Court of Canada had adjudicated the issues which are before the court, or which may well be before the court.
We must remember, of course, that the Government of Canada must enter as a respondent in the appeal. It must defend itself in the appeal from the ruling of the Appeal Court of Manitoba, remembering that however it is resolved the Government of Canada must find itself in court. Finding itself in court, then, allows me to underscore to the Prime Minister, to the government House leader and to the Leader of the New Democratic Party the importance of the arrangement, which is that no final decision will be taken by this Parliament until the highest court in our country has ruled upon the constitutional validity of the proposals before it.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, in the proposition which is being put forward at this time there is one problem, and that is that the court would not be faced with a final decision.
Earlier in the question period the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn) asked me how we intend to transmit the resolution, or whatever it is, to the Supreme Court. I would like to advise the House of Commons that the Supreme Court of Canada must take judicial notice of anything which has been passed by Parliament. If we accept the
proposition put forward by the House leader of the Conservative Party, the Supreme Court of Canada will not be considering something which has been finally decided upon by the House of Commons. That would be one of the problems; the Supreme Court of Canada would be faced with a resolution which would not have been finalized. It would still be a hypothetical question to them because, coming back to the House of Commons after adjudication, someone could propose some amendment and the question of legality could be reopened completely.
If the Conservative House leader wishes to be serious in his proposition, he should recognize that we should help the work of the Supreme Court and give them something final, or have a very definite agreement that when the question has been decided by the Supreme Court, we pass it right away without debate.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) listened with care. If he did, then I am not at all persuaded by his reply. As I heard the proposal of the Leader of the Opposition, there would be very specific amendments agreed upon by all the parties.


Walter David Baker: That is right.


John Edward Broadbent: The only nuance that I added to the suggestion, and there seemed to be agreement on this side of the House, was that we could take the votes on the amendments here in the House before the package was sent to the Supreme Court for adjudication. There seems to be unanimity on this side of the House on that point. I simply cannot understand the argument of the Minister of Justice.
If there was a solemn agreement entered into, perhaps by a special House order passed in the House and supported by all parties, then that would be the definitive resolution that we are asking the Supreme Court to pass judgment upon. Surely there is no problem with that whatsoever. As I see it, the only problem is that the government is not responding in a reasonable way to a fair-minded proposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, I would like to respond to one argument that was made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) on this question of the reference and the fact that there may be amendments still outstanding. I would draw to the attention of the Minister of Justice the provisions of the Supreme Court Act respecting references. Perhaps the Minister of Justice may like to read Section 55(1 )(d), which reads:
55. (1) Important questions of law or fact concerning
(d) the powers of the Parliament of Canada, or of the legislatures of the
provinces, or of the respective governments thereof, whether or not the
particular power in question has been or is proposed to be exercised;
What is being suggested in the House by the Leader of the Opposition is simply that we, as a chamber, decide what amendments we wish the Supreme Court of Canada to consid-
April 1, 1981

er as part of the resolution. Elaving decided that question, having determined quickly and expeditiously in this House what the final form of the resolution will be, it is then completely within the jurisdiction of the government, and I suggest would be desirable, to refer this resolution with the proposed amendments to the Supreme Court of Canada, pursuant to the provisions of Section 55 of the Supreme Court Act, and await their ruling on the jurisdiction question and on what lies within the powers of the federal government as opposed to the provincial governments. Having had a determination on that question, we in this House could then take our responsibilities.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, the two parties of the opposition have put forward two proposals that are not quite identical. To be as constructive as possible I would suggest to my hon. colleagues opposite that the House leaders meet this afternoon at which time we can examine more closely what has been proposed. I note a fundamental difference between, on the one hand, the proposal of the Progressive Conservative Party which gives no indication whatsoever about the length of the debate following the decision of the Supreme Court, which is essential. On the other hand according to the NDP proposal there could be an order of the House and one of the Senate, presumably, whereby when the decision of the Supreme Court has been handed down, the debate in the House would be extremely limited, no amendments would be allowed, and the resolution would be adopted probably within a set period of time, something like 24 hours. That is not clear in the Progressive Conservative proposal.
So, I feel that if hon. members are serious, they will accept the suggestion I am putting to them right now. Today, we have a motion that must be considered, ten minutes have already been used up and about two hours remain under the name of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). We would promise not to introduce today the motion providing time allotment to limit the debate on the Constitution provided the Minister of State for Finance is allowed to have the debate on his motion completed today and that motion put to a vote before six o'clock.
We would not introduce, today, the time allotment motion to limit the debate on the Constitution provided we could proceed with the study of the other motion under the name of the Minister of State for Finance. While the House proceeds presumably, with that study, and not being a victim of an opposition party trying to tie up the system, the House leaders in good faith would look further into the two proposals put forth by their respective party leaders.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, there have been two House leaders' meetings and I am neither alarmed nor surprised by the proposals put forward by the Leader of
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
the Opposition today, nor should my hon. friend be. Of course, I am prepared to meet with my hon. friend to explore the areas upon which we can find agreement, from the point of view of, hopefully, reaching agreement. That has been my position from the outset, and we can begin that meeting, or series of meetings, today.
I note his undertaking with respect to government business. He said he will move ahead with the motion under 75c, which is agreeable, and that he will not call the motion in his name because a point of order is already outstanding with respect to that matter. Perhaps we can sit down and begin the process of exploring a way out of a position in which I regret to say the Parliament of Canada should never have been placed in the first place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, may I indicate that we are also prepared to sit down with the representatives of the other parties to assess this matter. 1 dare to express the view that we are making progress right here. The Prime Minister's (Mr. Trudeau) principal objection to the initial proposal made by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) was that he was asking that a number of subject matter amendments be included in the reference, some of which might be hypothetical because they would not get passed down the road.
My leader offered something which corrected that. We could have a brief debate, one day each, on the various amendments so that we would be submitting to the Supreme Court only those amendments which actually have the support of the House. My leader also suggested that we could agree to a limited debate following the decision of the Supreme Court. I think we could also agree that there would be no further amendments unless amendments were necessary because of the ruling of the Supreme Court to strike certain matters out. I dare to believe we are making progress. I hope it will continue.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: If I understand the terms of that proposal, it would be that today we would go to the business of discussing the motion under the name of the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres). I am in the hands of the House, but if we need two hours to discuss that motion, I would have to be asked by the House to defer the numerous questions of privilege or points of order which might be raised until after that discussion has taken place.
I am in the hands of the House, but if the point is realistic, if that debate requires two hours, and if it is to take place today, it would have to begin almost immediately.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: This is agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No, no!
8854

April 1, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. I heard, "Agreed." I will hear the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Walter David Baker: I do have a question of privilege which I would like to bring forward. I was conferring with my leader and my colleagues around me, and I confess that I did not hear you, and I also did not agree. If you are proposing to go to orders of the day, or something like that, I would say no.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, come on!


Walter David Baker: I do have a point to raise.


Madam Speaker:: That is fine. There is no agreement. I am in the hands of the House. It is simply that I was listening to the proposal. I tried to calculate the time that the House need to agree with that proposal; but if the House does not agree, I have no other course but to follow the proceedings as I usually do. The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I do not know how-the question never having arisen before, in my experience-our House leader or our leader can speak for whatever number of questions of privilege you have before you raised by individual members. That will take time in itself to canvass. Assuming that you have six or seven questions of privilege to deal with, there are at least six or seven members who will have to be consulted before we can come to any party conclusion on the matter. But surely neither our House leader nor any one of the officers of the party can take a position on the spur of the moment as to whether the rights and privileges of individual members on routine proceedings will be set aside.
While our House leader, who has a question of privilege filed with you, is speaking, I might take it upon myself to see you, Madam Speaker, to see what questions of privilege you do have, and then to speak to the members of this party, who might be involved. Others in the other two parties might do the same.


Madam Speaker:: I certainly was not suggesting that the Leader of the Opposition or the Leader of the Conservative Party in the House would make a determination regarding other hon. members who have questions of privilege. They are individual questions of privilege, if I understand the concept. I was merely implicit, but I would not have gone up to that point, inviting the hon. members to allow me to do that. But if that is not allowed, that is final.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, there is a way out of this, and it is very clear under Standing Orders. If the hon. members in the party of my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), are serious and are in good faith, and I believe that, maybe they will then accept the proposal I have to make. If they are serious in saying they are interested in negotiating a way out of this situation, then you have the power, Madam Speaker, under Standing Order 17(1) to defer all questions of privilege to a time which is suitable to you. Since the debate on the motion of the Minister of State for
Finance has on hour and 58 minutes to run, the debate would end at about 5.15, a division would be taken and there would be at least half an hour before six o'clock in which the questions of privilege could be heard.
Standing Order 17(1) allows you to defer all questions of privilege. If we look at Beauchesne's fifth edition, the Standing Orders are reproduced in Appendix 2. If you read it, Madam Speaker, you will see you have the right to do that. If the hon. members are sincere, they will agree that the questions of privilege today should be postponed until after the vote on the motion of the Minister of State for Finance, and then we could have the meeting. But if delay is what they want, they will have delay.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: No delay. I have privileges in this House and you cannot deny them.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think you put the matter very correctly in terms of what privilege is. It is an individual matter and not a party matter. As you know, I have put in a notice with respect to a question of privilege which I want to pursue because I believe it is important to me and to other members of the House. I will do my best to be as short as possible.
The bottom line of rule 17(1) is this:
Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately.
We have always done our best to take them into consideration immediately after the question period and to dispose of them. Then the rule goes on to deal with notice. Technically, under our rules now, they can be taken during the question period. This procedure has not been followed, because nobody wants to interrupt the question period, I suppose. I am not quarrelling with that decision today. However, the custom in the House has been to proceed with the matter. I think that as we go forward you will find that my privilege is germane to the position we are in the moment. At least, I hope you will so find, Madam Speaker.


Yvon Pinard: The House leader of the Tory party read from Standing Order 17.


An hon. Member:: That is the Conservative party.


Yvon Pinard: Let me bring to your attention, Madam Speaker, what is contained in Beauchesne's fifth edition. The Standing Orders are reproduced and on page 305 I read:
Question of Privilege
17. (1) Whenever any matter of privilege arises, it shall be taken into consideration immediately or at a time appointed by Mr. Speaker.
The important words are "or at a time appointed by Mr. Speaker". I agree with my colleague that in an earlier edition of the Standing Orders dated June, 1978, those words were not included. But I submit that this is an error in printing, and I have grounds for that.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!
April 1, 1981


Yvon Pinard: If hon. members are serious, they will listen. In the January, 1976 edition, those very words "at a time appointed by Mr. Speaker" are included. When we go to the 1978 edition, as I just mentioned, the words are not there. This is an error, since in the latest edition of Beauchesne, which is subsequent to the Standing Orders of 1978, those words of 1976 are restored.
If I may, Madam Speaker, I would draw your attention and the attention of the Clerk of the House to the fact that at the very beginning of the edition of 1978 there is a foreword which says: "The changes in the Standing Orders since the printing of January 1976 are as follows:". That appears at the very beginning. Then there are five changes and Section 17 is not included. So it is obvious that Section 17 should not have been changed. This is an error of printing and Beauchesne is correct in reprinting what was printed in 1976.
That is the explanation why my hon. colleague, by quoting from the edition of 1978, could not find the words in Beau-chesne's fifth edition but which were in the Standing Orders of 1976, words which are not quoted as having been amended at the beginning of the 1978 edition.
This is all very technical, but in fact never in this House was there a decision that permitted Standing Order 17 to be altered in the way it has been altered in the 1978 edition. That is why, Madam Speaker, I am saying that you have the power and the right to postpone, under the Standing Order, all questions of privilege to an hour that is suitable to you.


Madam Speaker:: On the point of order, the hon. member for Edmonton West (Mr. Lambert).
[Translation\


Hon. Marcel Lambert (Edmonton West):: Madam Speaker, in 1976 we tried out something. An order determined that for the remainder of a certain period the Speaker could defer any question of privilege to avoid them during the oral question period. Unfortunately, the temporary order was not renewed and this is why-


An hon. Member:: For what reason?


Marcel Joseph Aimé Lambert: What are the reasons? I do not know, but the order was not renewed nor were the amendments incorporated because the present Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), who was then government House leader, refused to do so. He absolutely refused to refer any procedure matter to the Committee on Procedure and Organization to enable us to refer the recommendations to the House for approval. There are now more shortcomings in the Standing Orders on account of that. It is merely a matter of shortcomings because the Standing Orders of 1978 as printed are correct.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I submit, first of all, that the little green book that I
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
hold in my hand and which you also hold in your hand is the official "Standing Orders of the House of Commons." Nowhere else will they be found than in this book. Similarly with statutes across the country.
I suggest, secondly, Madam Speaker, that any appendix, which is what my hon. friend the government House leader was referring to when reading from Beauchesne, cannot be regarded as the official version of the Standing Orders contained in this green book. There is another explanation than the one given by him; he suggested there was a misprint and that the error occurs in the official edition and not in Beauchesne.
The other explanation and the more logical one is that this Rule 17(1) in Appendix 2 of Beauchesne blends the two occasions upon which privilege is raised. One, we find, is in 17(1) of the official Standing Orders, namely, that it must be heard immediately. The other aspect of it, "or at a time appointed by Mr. Speaker", deals with those questions of privilege that may be raised on occasions not contemplated by 17(1), of which, for instance, notice need not be given if the question of privilege arises out of the question period. The Chair has the power to deal with those at some other time.
The ultimate argument, and I suggest to you, Madam Speaker, the one that you must accept, is that this green book, the "Standing Orders of the House of Commons", is the official rules of this House and cannot in any way be supplemented by any appendix printed in Beauchesne, or anywhere else, for that matter.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. [Translation]


Madam Speaker:: If I may, I shall try to clarify this first point. The 1975 version of the Standing Orders of the House of Commons did indeed include in Standing Order 17 a provision under which the Speaker of the House had to or could hear questions of privilege at the time specified by the Chair. This was included in Standing Order 17 following a temporary order made by the House which remained in effect from 7 April, 1975, to October 17, 1977.
Later on, this provision was removed from the first paragraph of Standing Order 17 because, if my information is correct, the parties involved had not agreed to have it maintained. However, on the basis of this temporary provision which had been included in Standing Order 17, my predecessor, Speaker Jerome, ruled that questions of privilege could no longer be heard during the oral question period, in all likelihood because the question period was going on indefinitely and Members of Parliament could not arrange their schedule on the basis of what was going on in the House.
He therefore determined on the basis of the temporary order which had then expired that questions of privilege would be heard at three o'clock after the Oral Question Period. After a trial period, he once again determined that his decision seemed to be appropriate, that it was likely to promote the orderly

April 1, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
conduct of the business of the House, and he decided to maintain it.
If I were now to decide without the consent of all the parties involved in this House that such or such a question of privilege should be heard at another time than three o'clock, I would have to do an exercise of gymnastics that I refuse to do and declare that, since Mr. Speaker Jerome had ruled on the basis of a temporary order of the House which has now expired, I shall now, on the basis of another order of the House which has also expired and of the precedent created by Mr. Jerome when he took it upon himself to determine at what time the questions of privilege would be heard, decide that questions of privilege will be heard at another time. I believe that this would be a much looser interpretation of this provision of our Standing Orders than the Chair can be allowed to make. In my opinion, the 1978 version is the official version, the one I have followed until now, and if another version appears in another volume and another edition, it could be used as a reference if the House decides to amend this provision and allows me to determine at what time the questions of privilege should be heard, but I would not want to go against a custom, or rather a practice of the House which was set in more or less legitimate circumstances and conditions by my predecessor if we consider that the temporary order of the House on the basis of which he had ruled had then expired, and I would not want to take it upon myself to go further than what the previous Speaker had decided at that time. Now the fact that there are so many questions of privilege to be heard at a time when the House or certain members of the House would like to proceed with the orders of the day certainly is a problem. I must say that I quite understand this legitimate desire of some members and the frustration of others who want to expound on their question of privilege. However, the Chair must be guided strictly by the rules, and unless someone can give me undeniable proof that this is a printing mistake, I shall need the unanimous consent of the House to defer questions of privilege to another time than three o'clock. The hon. President of the Privy Council.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, for our part, we would agree that the questions of privilege be deferred until after the vote on the motion of the Minister of State responsible for Finance (Mr. Bussieres).


Madam Speaker:: Do the hon. members wish to debate the proposal? The hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen).


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I thought I made it clear before, and I certainly did to the Chair because you understood me, that there is no way we as a party can defer the rights and privileges of individual members who have filed questions of privilege with the Chair. I intend to speak to you, Madam Speaker, and to find out who those members are on this side. I will then see those members and see what can be done. In the meantime, negotiations between my House leader
and the government House leader will not be impeded. As soon as I can get things together with the individual members, then I will come back to my House leader who can convey that information to his other colleagues. I will come to you, and we can take it from there.


Madam Speaker:: Obviously, there is no unanimous consent.


Some hon. Members:: No.


Madam Speaker:: We will then proceed with the questions of privilege. The first one I have is in the name of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


PRIVILEGE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege was set forth in the correspondence of which I gave you notice as required by the Standing Order. I base it on four matters. My letter to you of April 1, 1981, reads:
It will be my contention that the use of the House of Commons as part of a process for making amendments to the Constitution of Canada, amendments which have been found illegal as to both substance and process, by the Newfoundland Supreme Court, places all members of the House, and particularly members of the Bar, in an unacceptable and improper position.
Until we have satisfied, if we can, the negotiations-and that is by no means certain at this point-I think the matter is still germane. I meant to say that to you at the outset. I am speaking for myself. This is a matter of personal privilege which may affect others.
I am a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada. As such, upon my call to the bar I took three oaths. The first is the general oath of allegiance, which I took as well when I became a member of the House of Commons. The second was the solicitor's oath. The third, and the most important because it applies to this matter, is an oath which I took in 1957 as a member of the law society as a barrister upon my call to the bar. In that oath are these words:
You shall not pervert the law to favour or prejudice anyone, but in all things shall conduct yourself truly and with integrity. In fine, the Queen's interest and your fellow citizens, you shall uphold and maintain according to the Constitution and law of this Province. All this you swear to observe and perform to the best of your knowledge, belief and ability.
That was the first oath I took which the proposals before the House still affect. The second arises out of the statute. I will give Your Honour these precedents so that you can look at the matter from my point of view, recognizing that I am an Ontario barrister. There are nine other jurisdictions in Canada and it may affect lawyers differently, but at least from the point of view of Ontario, as a member of the Law Society of Upper Canada the law society act of 1970 applies to me. There are certain regulations and rules under the law society act.
April 1, 1981

That act sets forth the oaths I have taken. These are matters not just of the law society deciding what should be done, but statutes of the province of Ontario stipulating which oath I must take and to what I bind myself.
The Law Society has produced a professional conduct handbook which is binding upon members of the law society in the sense that it is used by the law society and its members. It is a self-governing profession by the benchers of the law society who judge the conduct of members as members of the bar.
Certain rules bear on the position I hold as a member of the bar and a member of this House. I want to refer to rule 9 at page 26 of the rules of conduct of the law society, which reads:
The lawyer who holds public office should, in the discharge of his official duties, adhere to standards of conduct as high as those which these Rules require of a lawyer in the practice of law.
The commentary of these rules issued under the authority of the law society act, 1970, reads, in part:
The Rule applies to a lawyer who is elected or appointed to a legislative or administrative office at any level of government-
It applies to a Member of Parliament, a member of the legislature, a municipal councillor and so on. The commentary continues:
He must bear in mind that he is in the public eye and therefore the legal profession can more readily be brought into disrepute by failure on his part to observe its ethical standards of conduct.
It then goes on to deal with certain other matters which are not germane to this issue.
Commentary 9 on page 27 of those rules which govern me in the conduct of my private, professional and public duty, read in part:
-if his conduct in office reflects adversely upon his integrity or his professional competence, he may be subject to disciplinary action.
That is the first oath. I repeat briefly part of the oath which I took in 1957 which binds me:
You shall not pervert the law to favour or prejudice any one, but in all things shall conduct yourself truly and with integrity. In fine, the Queen's interest and your fellow citizens, you shall uphold and maintain according to the Constitution-
I am now in this position. Unless there was some arrangement made as an officer of the court-and I happen as well to be an officer of the court and no such arrangement has been made-it is my respectful submission that I would be flying in the face of the oath I took as a barrister if I agreed to the following procedure. I contend it would be a contempt of the Supreme Court of Canada to require me and the government-and the Prime Minister indicated to me yesterday that is what he intended to do, and he did not back off from his position today-subject to negotiation, to ensure that the resolution go through this Parliament in face of a judgment of the Court of Appeal of Newfoundland, which court has unanimously and clearly held that those very constitutional proposals are illegal. That is the first point on which I rely.
The second point flows out of the first but it is separate and distinct. I am an officer of the court. I am an officer of all the courts before which I have a licence to practise, namely, the provincial courts, the county court having federally appointed
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
judges, the Federal Court of Canada and the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I tried to say in the debate when we were discussing the question of judges' salaries, all Members of Parliament have a duty with respect to the courts. This point has been covered also in the documents I will leave with you with respect to the rules of conduct of barristers and the statutes which govern them. I suspect they would probably apply to others across the country, but you will have to examine that. The oath requires that all of us conduct ourselves in a way that respects the integrity of the court.
My second proposition is that it is an affront to the court. It is a practice in which barristers, members of the Law Society, lawyers who happen to be members of this House of Commons and indeed other Members of Parliament are not to persist in and ought to resist. It thereby affects my privileges as a Member of Parliament.
I am subject to certain other things that are affected because of my membership in the bar. It is important to look at that and how it affects me here in the House. I am a member of the Canadian Bar Association. Membership in the Canadian Bar Association has no magic in itself. However, the code of professional conduct of the Canadian Bar Association is binding upon, affects, and is a burden upon barristers, whether or not they are members of the Bar Association, because the rules in the code of conduct are the kinds of rules that will move the minds of the disciplinary bodies of law societies across the country. In other words, that rule of conduct can be pleaded in the event there is an allegation of a breach of it by a member of the bar.
I am going to read from their rules to indicate to you the strictness of application. I quote from chapter IX entitled "A Lawyer in Public Office":
The lawyer who holds public office should, in the discharge of his official duties, adhere to the standards of conduct as high as those which these Rules require of a lawyer in the practice of law.
This is the commentary on that:
The Rule applies to a lawyer who is elected or appointed ... He must bear in mind that he is in the public eye ... The lawyer who holds public office must not allow his personal or other interests to conflict with the proper discharge of his official duties.
I suggest that applies to me and, incidentally, also to the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien).


Mr. Blais:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am a member of the bar and I have listened with a great deal of interest to the comments being made by the hon. gentleman. I would like to point out that there is about as much foundation for what he is advancing-I am getting to my point of order- as what he advanced on Friday, March 27. There is a point of order that I would like to address at this time.


Madam Speaker:: Will the minister please address the point of order and not argue the case.


Walter David Baker: Let's not waste time.

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Madam Speaker:: If the hon. member wishes to argue the matter, I can recognize him later, but not on a point of order.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I am suggesting that the hon. member, in raising a spurious question of privilege, is breaching the order of this House. I would like to set the stage and quote the authorities upon which I base this particular point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I just heard the minister say that he was expressing the opinion that this was not a serious question of privilege. That has not yet been determined. The person to determine that in the House is the Speaker. If the minister has a point of order that is perfectly in order, I can hear him, but not to argue the case. That can come later, if I decide I want to hear him on it.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, the point I am making is that there is an orchestration being conducted by the opposition of which the hon. gentleman's spurious or alleged question of privilege is but one part. In order for me to establish the point of order, I have to draw to Your Honour's attention the behaviour of the opposition since Tuesday, March 24. I might point out-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is not a point of order. A point of order has to refer to something presently happening in the House. It is true we are discussing questions of privilege every day in this House. If the minister wishes to raise a point of order, it has to be directly related to what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is presently saying; but it has to be a point of order, not debate.


Jean-Jacques Blais: The point of order I am bringing to your attention is the obstruction of the House.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry-


Jean-Jacques Blais: That is happening now.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. I gave the minister three chances to state his point of order. I do not think he has one. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton.


Mr. McRae:: I rise on a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Kempling:: Here come the heavies.


Paul Edmund McRae: My point of order is simply this. The hon. member has risen as a Member of Parliament dealing with the privileges of Members of Parliament. He has not spoken about this privilege. He spoke only about privileges of members of the Bar Association. That has nothing to do with this House.


Walter David Baker: Just so the hon. member for Thunder Bay-Atikokan (Mr. McRae) will be clear, I did not couch it in that way. I said exactly the opposite. I said it is a duty that falls on all Members of Parliament, and falls particularly heavily on members of the bar. That is the only contention.
I regret the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) is imputing motives to me. I have always spoken very kindly of him. I do not think I am going to be that long, Madam Speaker. If the minister will just contain himself, he can then argue the case.
I think I was at the point of having dealt with the lawyer in public life. I indicated that the proposition put by the Prime Minister in question period yesterday-


Jean-Jacques Blais: I rise on a further point of order, Madam Speaker. It is related directly to the comment just made by the hon. member. Your Honour will recall, and it is recorded at page 8714 of Hansard for last Friday, the categorical statement of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that "we are going to use parliamentary time and we are going to waste it." It is that statement that I want to relate his present behaviour to, in terms of the systematic obstruction of the business of the House. That is the point of order I would like to draw to Your Honour's attention so that you can competently rule on it.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The minister will have to point out to me where the hon. member has violated a rule of this House. The minister may have an opinion of something that is going on, but that is not a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order arising from what the minister has just been saying. I would like him to be very specific. Who does he feel is the obstructionist in this House?


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member who has just spoken is part of the attempt to obstruct the business of the House. Because in effect we are not dealing with the obstruction-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The minister made that point in another point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I have a question of privilege of which I would like to give you notice. I asked who was the obstructionist.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We are already discussing a question of privilege.


Walter David Baker: He is giving you notice, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: In the middle of a question of privilege? I do not need oral notice; I need only written notice.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It is coming.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should point out, because the Minister of Supply and Services is also a member of the bar, the difference between the circumstances on Friday and those of today. In the intervening time, the Supreme Court of Newfoundland ruled that what Parliament, all of us, are being asked to deal with is illegal. The court ruled that the approach of the Prime Minister with respect to
April 1, 1981

federalism and with respect to the Supreme Court is illegal. The court said his approach is wrong. That is the difference.
Yesterday questions were put to the Prime Minister in which he was invited to take a course of action other than engaging Parliament in voting or acting upon an illegality. He said no, he would not depart from his course, and we have no indication today that he will depart from that course. The only indication we have is that we are going to sit down and discuss how we might mutually agree to depart from that course. The position of the Prime Minister has not moved one inch, but the circumstances have changed in that as of Friday there was no decision. Today there is a decision which says that what this Parliament is being asked to deal with is illegal.
My position is that all Members of Parliament have a duty, but it is a breach of my personal privilege when I as a member of the bar have to participate in what appears to be the perpetration of an act by Parliament which flies in the face of a judgment which says that what the Prime Minister is attempting to do is illegal. That is simple. I am a lawyer in public office, and I am subject to certain disciplines. That is the position.
If I could get back to the argument I was making before I was interrupted by the hon. gentleman:
The lawyer who holds public office should, in the discharge of his official duties, adhere to standards of conduct as high as those which these Rules require of a lawyer in the practice of law.
It says that if he does not, that lawyer would be subject to disciplinary action.
My second point is that the whole code of conduct-which I am prepared to leave with Your Honour if you wish to consider the point, because it may apply to other members of the House-makes it clear that a lawyer in public office has a particular responsibility.
I took an oath as a Privy Councillor. 1 took that oath on June 4, 1979. Your Honour has taken the oath of a Privy Councillor. The Minister of Justice has taken the oath as a Privy Councillor. The Minister of Supply and Services has taken the oath as a Privy Councillor. A number of members have. The Prime Minister has taken the oath of a Privy Councillor. It is a very serious oath. I am sure Your Honour took a look at it, after it had been read to you by the Clerk of the Privy Council, and said, "My God, what have I taken?" Because what it said in your case, Madam Speaker, is that you could not even tell your husband, for instance, what was happening if your husband was not a Privy Councillor. That oath is a very serious oath. It is different from any other oath we have to take.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: He took one too.


Walter David Baker: The difference in Your Honour's case, as I know, is that Your Honour's husband is a Privy Councillor as well. Nonetheless, the Privy Council oath is a very serious oath. It puts a burden on certain members of
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
the House. It certainly does on me. That burden does not rest upon certain other members of the House.
I will read the oath in part. I will not read the words that terrified us when we read it the next day; I will read only the part which refers to the judgment.


An hon. Member:: Read it all.


Walter David Baker: My friend wants me to read it all. He can read it for himself some day, if he is so fortunate. The oath reads, in part, as follows:
You ... do solemnly promise and swear that you will serve Her Majesty truly and faithfully in the Place of Her Council in this Her Majesty's Dominion of Canada-
There are two small phrases. First:
You will in all things to be moved, treated and debated in any such Privy Council, faithfully, honestly and truly declare your mind and opinion to the honour and benefit of the Queen's Majesty, and the good of Her Subjects without partiality or exception of persons-
That oath has been taken by the Attorney General of Canada, as argued by the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) yesterday. It places the Minister of Justice in the particular position in which he is. He must advise and take a particular position with respect to all other ministers when he takes that oath, as he did.
Then the oath goes on:
In general you will be vigilant, diligent and circumspect in all your doings touching the Queen's Majesty's affairs; All which Matters and Things you will faithfully observe and keep, as a good Councillor ought to do to the utmost of your power, will and discretion.
What that means to me as a Privy Councillor is that when I see something which flies in the face of all reason, which holds the Supreme Court of Canada in contempt, which offers the Supreme Court of Canada a fait accompli, which asks Parliament to debate something which is now before the court and which has now been held illegal in another court-it is before the Supreme Court on the appeal from Manitoba, but it has now been held illegal by the court in Newfoundland-then as a Privy Councillor I think all of us have some duty to be vigilant.
I have a question of personal privilege which must be considered, and that question is whether I, as a Privy Councillor and as a member of the bar, having taken the oaths I am supposed to have taken, ought to be placed in the position-


Mr. Peterson:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is wearing so many cloaks of unctuous rectitude that I am wondering if, in the opinion of Your Honour, this is proper dress for a Member of Parliament.


Walter David Baker: The one coat I am not wearing is a coat of many colours, which my friend is wearing.
I was going to finish. My contention is that those of us who are members of the bar-and particularly myself because this is a question involving me as a member of the bar-those who have taken the oath as Privy Councillors, those who are bound, as I am, by the rules of the law society act of Ontario to which

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I must adhere and by the rules of conduct of the Canadian Bar Association, to the extent that they can be pleaded against us in a breach-they have set a standard of conduct-are being placed in an invidious position with respect to the proposition which is being put to the House by the Prime Minister, namely, that we must-not necessarily support or reject, but must-deal with a matter which has been declared to be illegal and on which an appeal is now pending before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Finally, as an officer of the court I am put in a position which is different from the position of those who are not officers of the court. As an officer of the court I am bound by rules to uphold the integrity of the court. My duty to the court is important to me because I happen to be a member of the bar. The Minister of Justice, who is also a member of the bar, has a duty to the court as well. The Minister of Justice and the government-the Minister of Justice particularly because the resolution stands in his name-are in violation of their duty to the court-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: -in putting that matter and suggesting that Parliament must deal with it, as the minister has said. It is still the government's position that we must deal with it before it goes to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Madam Speaker, in conclusion, none of us who is a Privy Councillor or a member of the bar will be in exactly the same position as members who are not if we are put in the position of having to deal or treat with this resolution in any way. The only way our particular rights and privileges can be dealt with-and some members may not feel so bound but I do; otherwise I would not have raised it-is if the matter is withdrawn now until the Supreme Court of Canada deals with it. There is nothing in that suggestion which departs from the idea of meeting and discussing how it would be dealt with later, but it can be withdrawn now. That is the proposition.


Mr. Collenette:: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: On the question of privilege?


David Michael Collenette: On this question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: We have several questions of privilege and therefore I do not think I would like to entertain another speaker on this particular one.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton understands that whether something is legal or illegal is not within my purview. Whether it is or not, I am sure the hon. member knows he has a privilege in this Parliament and if he, as he says, were forced to do something which is illegal through the actions of this Parliament, he would be protected precisely by that privilege. The House would protect him. That has to be the case because he is a member of the bar, and he would have to be disciplined precisely because he is a member of the bar and a member of the Privy Council. Other members would not be equal in this
House in the sense that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton would be doing something illegal and another member who is not a lawyer would not be doing something illegal.
So the privilege to discuss matters freely in this House is protected; it goes back as far as 300 years ago. I quote from the British Bill of Rights:
-that the freedom of speech and debates or proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament.
I understand the hon. member's feelings about this question, but he would be free in this House to debate, amend or vote against whatever he feels is illegal or wrong. The point that he raises might be an argument for a course of action he may choose to follow if and when this question arises in the House, but it is not an argument that I can entertain as a question of privilege.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, since you have ruled on that question of privilege, may I ask at this time if the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) or somebody else on behalf of his party has checked to see whether or not we have the permission of those members who have given notice of privilege to defer consideration on that matter so we may proceed with the business of the day as described earlier?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have indeed canvassed those members on this side. I gave the undertaking across the way and to the Chair that I would inform my House leader of the result, who in turn would inform the government House leader and that is what I intend to do. He has been on his feet and that is why I have not been able to do it until now.


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. During routine proceedings yesterday when you called presentation of reports from standing and special committees, I rose, sought and got unanimous consent to present the third report of the Special Committee on a National Trading Corporation and that report was concurred in. Madam Speaker, I note that the Votes and Proceedings indicate that indeed I was given unanimous consent when I presented the report, seconded by the hon. member for Huron-Bruce (Mr. Cardiff), for concurrence of the House.
I note as well that Hansard for yesterday does not even mention that this report received the concurrence of the House. I would like to make that correction immediately because it seems that, since the report does not appear as having been concurred in, the operations of this National Trading Corporation may have been interrupted pursuant to our terms of reference.
April 1, 1981


Madam Speaker:: That is a fact, I am being advised that there was an error in Hansard and it will be corrected. I thank the hon. member for bringing this to our attention.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, just to clarify, I understand you ruled there was no question of privilege because the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) had claimed that because he was in the legal profession he was being placed in a special position, and he was trying to distinguish himself from other Members of Parliament in that context. Surely-


Madam Speaker:: Order. This is a commentary on a ruling, not a point of order and I cannot accept it at this time.
The hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) on a question of privilege?


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Yes.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I have many more before the hon. member's.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from the notice that I was attempting to give you with respect to the comment made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). I know the question of privilege that I gave you notice of is coming up later, but I feel we can clear up this question of privilege very quickly.


Madam Speaker:: I would think it is a point of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: No, it is not.


PRIVILEGE
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is this. As we know, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) made certain random comments about members of the House, and presumably of my party, being obstructionists. He said we were obstructing the progress of the House. You will recall I rose on a point of order and asked him to be specific and name the obstructionist that he was referring to. His reply was: "Well, you for one are obstructing; you are an obstructionist." 1 do not know whether he used the word "obstructionist", but I draw your attention to a precedent on this word "obstructionist" and generally obstructing progress of the House. I refer you to Hansard of May 6, 1961, page 4459. Mr. Churchill, the House leader, said:
Those are his words, and the hon. members of the opposition are certainly showing themselves as obstructionists today.
Then Mr. Chevrier said:
I rise on a question of privilege, to take issue with what has been said by the House leader, who referred to our tactics as obstructionist.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
Madam Speaker, I suggest this precedent will give you absolutely no trouble. Mr. Speaker said:
I think perhaps the minister would like to modify the word "obstructionist". I will give him the opportunity to do so. As far as the question of privilege arising out of the intervention of the hon. member for Bonavista-Twillingate is concerned, I have disposed of that. Really the discussion was continuing on that basis, and I would ask hon. members to desist.
Mr. Chevrier then said:
I rise on a question of privilege. We have been charged by the House leader and another hon. member with using obstructionist tactics. What we have been doing is supporting the rules of this House and asserting the rights of Parliament. I ask you, sir, to invite the House leader and the hon. member for Calgary South to amend their language when they direct their attacks on us as obstructionists.
The House leader then said:
Mr. Speaker, if the word "obstruction" is objectionable-I do not think it is contrary to the rules-to hon. members on the other side I-
-will make an appropriate substitution.
Madam Speaker, that is the thrust of my question of privilege. We have a clear precedent on the word "obstructionist". I asked the minister who is an obstructionist in this House, and he named me. If you find that I have a prima facie case for my question of privilege, I would put the appropriate motion to you asking the hon. member to withdraw his statement.


Hon.   J.-J. Blais@Minister of Supply and Services: Madam Speaker, on that point, I would be pleased to document the facts upon which the allegation relating to obstructionism by members opposite was made.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. We are not discussing whether some people are obstructing or not obstructing. By the way, it is a point of order. The question of unparliamentary language is not a question of privilege; it is a point of order and I will treat it as a point of order.
I think I can rule on it quite easily. The word "obstruct" without any context-and I am forever having trouble with Beauchesne's list; somehow the word is on both lists, the list of words which are unparliamentary and the list of words which are not unparliamentary. I am forever having trouble with that list.
The hon. member quoted a precedent. It depends very much upon the context of the debate in which the word was used this afternoon. It did not strike me as being particularly offensive, because my recollection is that the word was applied to a group of people, not to an individual. I refer to Erskine May which indicates that expressions which are unparliamentary when applied to individuals are not always so considered when applied to a whole party.
In the words pronounced by the Hon. Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), I did not hear anything unparliamentary. But, of course, there is always the reservation that I will look at the blues, and if it appears to be unparliamentary, I would proceed to get the normal redress for the hon. member.

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on what you have accepted as a point of order: I am very pleased to hear that you will examine the blues.
The sequence was that I asked a direct question: Would the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) be specific as to who is the obstructionist. He came back and named me as the obstructionist. Nothing could be more individually-oriented than what the Minister of Supply and Services has done.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Withdraw it.


Madam Speaker:: I will look at the blues. That is final; I will look at the blues.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not want to belabour the point, but I want to return to the point I made a few minutes ago. I see the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) is just about to enter the House. I would hope perhaps he has had those discussions, so that we may be able to defer the questions of privilege and proceed to the motion under Standing Order 75c which is under discussion.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, as I undertook, I have had consultations with my House leader who, I understand, will be getting in touch with the government House leader.


Madam Speaker:: Then we will proceed with the question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Durham-North-umberland (Mr. Lawrence).


MR. LAWRENCE-CONFLICT OF INTEREST IN DEBATING RESOLUTION ON CONSTITUTION
Allan Frederick Lawrence: At the
very beginning I would like to assure Madam Speaker that the question I am raising is not a frivolous one; it is a very sincere one. I have never, do not now, or will never raise questions of privilege designed merely to delay the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Oh, come on!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I can be no more sincere than this. My question of privilege today is a very personal and a very sincere one. I emphasize the word "personal". Perhaps some of the material the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) prepared in respect of his question of privilege may appear, on the surface, to be the same as mine. 1 understand Your Honour will be hearing from other members today in respect of similar questions of privilege. Whether they are similar or not should be immaterial. Mine is a personal one; my feelings are sincerely held in this regard. I would hope, when the rulings come out on this and if you find prima facie cases have been made, that each one of them will be treated individually by Your Honour.
1 would like to outline for the benefit of the House-not for Madam Speaker's benefit because you have already received my letter-the actual notice I gave early this morning. I think I might have been the first one on this point to give notice of
my question of privilege. It is dated April 1, this morning, and reads as follows:


Madam Speaker:: Would you please take notice that I wish to raise a question of privilege in the House today on the government's determination to proceed with their constitutional package in spite of a very clear finding of a Supreme Court of one of the Provinces that this proposal is illegal.
My personal point of privilege is that as a Barrister and Solicitor, as a Queen's Counsel, as an ex-Law Officer of the Crown at both the provincial and the federal level, and a Bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada I have a sworn duty to uphold the law and indeed could be disbarred and heavily penalized if I didn't do so.
The rule of law must be paramount and we now have found that the very matter that the government is insisting that I debate and form a judgment on is illegal and this puts me in an impossible position as far as my rights and privilegesas a Member of Parliament are concerned.
The letter continues:
I intend to raise this in the House today with your permission.
That was my notice to Your Honour today respecting the question of privilege which I would like to come to very briefly and very sincerely in a moment. In case there is any problem in Your Honour's mind about the validity of the notice or the validity of my raising it today, I would like to say that I raised this with you and gave you notice.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I simply draw to Your Honour's attention, on a point of order, that you have just ruled on a matter which in essence was the same as that which is being brought to your attention by the hon. member. I would suggest that, contrary to his allegations or his swearing that this is not a spurious question of privilege, it is in effect such, and raised in order to delay the process and the business of the House.


Donald W. Munro: Spurious, take that back.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) just told me that his question of privilege was slightly different. I am listening to his arguments to hear what differences there are, compared with the one previously ruled upon.
But I caution him that new arguments, if he has any, would be useful in my deciding this. I would ask him not to dwell on the question I just decided, because as he knows one cannot raise a similar question of privilege to the one which has been ruled upon.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I agree with Madam Speaker's proposition that we certainly should not be repetitious and not raise duplicate arguments. However, I did not quite understand Your Honour's comments at the end of the presentation of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton to be a ruling. If I am mistaken, I am sure you will correct me. In respect of your comments, I believe you mentioned that no matter what happened, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was protected.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think Your Honour did not grasp the comments of the hon.
April 1, 1981

member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) who maintained that your last order or decision with reference to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) did not constitute a finding on the question of privilege. I think the hon. member ought to be disabused on that point.


Madam Speaker:: Well, the hon. minister may raise all the points of order he wishes; of course he is perfectly free to do that, but perhaps he would allow me to listen to the hon. member for a while so that I can ascertain that. It is more than a courtesy; there is an obligation on the part of the Speaker to listen to questions of privilege. I am trying to do just that, although I have been somewhat distracted. Many members have been sending messages to the Chair. I must listen to hon. members and read the notes at the same time. I must say that it is quite difficult. I will continue to listen to the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland to understand whether he does have a question of privilege.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I wanted to indicate to you, of course, that any member rising in his place on a question of privilege must obviously prove to you-I know you know this, I am saying it more, perhaps, for the minister than for the Chair-that it is a personal matter and that it vitally and obviously seriously affects that individual's riding. I would like to claim that the question of privilege I am raising with you affects not only me but the other 100 members of both these chambers, who are also practitioners and who are qualified to practice in the law.
I would like to submit to you that the question of privilege I am raising does affect them all. By the way, Madam Speaker, you may not be aware of this, and it is somewhat of an oddity, but there are exactly 100 members of the other place and this place who are today qualified to practice law. I think you certainly understand, Madam Speaker, if the hon. member does not, that when I rise in my place, I must speak in a personal way and point out to you what is happening or what has happened which effects my own personal rights and privileges in this House.
Having said that to you, Madam Speaker, I feel, and I hope you will agree, that the notice which 1 gave to you is in order and that there is no defect or question which arises in relation to it. I did give the notice to you at the very earliest possible time, namely, early this morning, when, for the first time, I received a copy of the judgment of the Newfoundland Supreme Court. Of course, both that decision and the continued determination of the government to proceed with the matter before the House, form the grounds for my question of privilege.
If I may say so, I feel that I have three burdens upon me to prove to you. The first one is that the matter the government is determined to bring before this House, and to which 1 am objecting, is a matter which, at the very least, is now of questionable validity, as far as the law is concerned. I would go further and say that the matter the government is forcing upon
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
us has now been proven to be illegal and, at the very least, it is not valid in law. That is the first burden which falls upon me to prove to you.
The second, I would say to you, apart from the 99 other practitioners in both of these chambers, and apart from the other members of the House of Commons, puts me in a difficult position, perhaps even more so than other members. I say this because I am sworn to uphold the law of this country. Other members may feel that they are equally-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If that is the basis of the hon. member's-


Allan Frederick Lawrence: No, I have three burdens.


Madam Speaker:: -question of privilege, that is to say, that he has been sworn to uphold the law and he feels that to deal with the resolution on the Constitution is to do something which will cause him to be disciplined as a lawyer before the bar association of his province, then I am afraid it is very much the same question of privilege which was raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). The hon. member for Northumberland-Durham is using the same arguments used by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I cannot hear those same arguments again.
It will be difficult to deal with these questions of privilege, which are similar, without referring to the ruling I have made on a previous one. It will be even more difficult for hon. members than it will be for the Chair. I just warn hon. members that they must choose their arguments extremely carefully in order that I may continue to listen to them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, in the very brief time I have been on my feet I was trying to outline to you a brief summary of the arguments I intend to proceed with. I appreciate that of necessity, you were engaged in a conference with the law clerk, and perhaps you did not hear me argue that I have three burdens upon me, as I understand it, to prove to you.
I will go back to the first burden very briefly, which is that the government intends to force upon me, as a member of this House, a question, to debate and upon which eventually to form a decision, which is of questionable validity in the law today. I claim it is illegal. In any event, as a massive understatement, I would say that it is a matter which has now been held by the Supreme Court of one of the provinces to be invalid and that there is a seizing of this general concept of this constitutional package before the Supreme Court of Canada to decide exactly the same thing. That is my first burden. I must prove to you that it is invalid in the eyes of the law.
My argument bears no relationship whatsoever to that of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I feel that I have a few more onerous responsibilities inside and outside this House, to the government and people of Canada and to the government and people of Ontario, which is my native province, than the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I am in a different and

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
more difficult position than he is by virtue of the oaths I have taken to uphold the law of this province and this country. My question of privilege bears no relationship at all to the penalties, supposed or otherwise, to which I may be subjected in dealing with this matter here. I am now talking about my integrity, my reputation and my responsibility as a citizen of this country, as a Member of Parliament and as a professional man.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not dealing at all with the penalties which may or may not flow from what I consider to be an ill-advised and now illegal action of the Government of Canada. That is the second burden which I intend to prove to you this afternoon, Madam Speaker.
The third burden upon me is that there is a conflict with my personal rights and privileges in that I am being forced to debate and decide upon this question in this House.
Those are the three burdens that are upon me. If you will be patient and tolerant with me-and I have not taken up very much time in the last little while-I will attempt to go through those three burdens, if I may.
First, may I point out to you that apart from what anyone may claim about hypothetical questions of law, the Supreme Court of Canada, which is the ultimate appellate jurisdiction in this country, is now seized with the question of the validity or invalidity of the constitutional package which is before this House and which forms the basis of the argument which I am now presenting to you. It matters not whether it is hypothetical-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I ruled on that point when I ruled on the point of order of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark). The fact that the matter is before the Supreme Court must be ruled out of this particular discussion.
I have already ruled on that.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am merely pointing out that it is a question of legal validity which is before the supreme appellate court of this country. That is my first point.
Second, there is also the very clear and unequivocal unanimous decision released yesterday-this matter has not been brought before you-by the Supreme Court of Newfoundland. It is not only a unanimous decision, it is a decision-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Yes, I have ruled on that, too. The hon. member for St John's West (Mr. Crosbie) and the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) raised a question of privilege on that particular point, and I have ruled on than too.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: You have not ruled on the comment made this afternoon by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) of this country in this Chamber just an hour or so ago-I know you have not, because I have been here since then and the matter
has not been placed before you-that the moment, the Government of Canada is not appealing the decision of the Supreme Court of Newfoundland; ergo, the unanimous ruling and the unanimous decision of that supreme court is binding beyond the boundaries of the province of Newfoundland. There can be no question whatsoever but that that decision, because it is not being appealed at the moment, is therefore the rule of law. It is the law of this country.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has to prove to me that that particular decision is binding on this Parliament to the point where it would not allow the Parliament to proceed with a resolution which some feel is illegal vis-a-vis that particular decision. We have decided that this Parliament is supreme- and that has come in my rulings-and that it can entertain matters of this importance. I did say that matters of national importance ought not to be prevented from being discussed in this House because something pertaining to or relating to that happens to be before the courts. I have ruled on that. That is the sub judice aspect of the question, and the hon. member must find other arguments. I know it is difficult for him, but the questions of privilege I am receiving are all pretty similar, and that is the difficulty. However, I have not created it.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I do not know if the other questions of privilege before you are similar to mine or to those of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Quite frankly, it is irrevelant and immaterial so far as I am concerned. I am claiming that my personal rights and privileges in this House have been abridged, not because of any sub judice rule. If you have already ruled on that, that is up to you, Madam Speaker.
I have not researched your ruling carefully, clearly and in depth. But whether I have done so or not, I cannot question it. I am claiming that there is a continued insistence and determination of the part of the Government of Canada to place its resolution before this House and, in particular, to force me, as a representative of the people of my riding whom I attempt to represent in this House, to debate and to make a decision on a matter which is very clearly illegal and invalid according to the existing law of the land. The existing law of the land is the clear decision which was announced yesterday and of which I received a copy only this morning. I am sure no part of it has been read into the records of the House, or presented to you, Madam Speaker. That is the point I want to make so far as the first part of my question of privilege is concerned.
The second burden upon me is the very peculiar situation in which I find myself, because it is not only as a barrister and solicitor qualified to practise within the province of Ontario that I have taken an oath to uphold the law of this land. Again, I come to you with my question of what the law of the land is. I also happen to be a Queen's Council in this province, which also imposes further responsibility.


An hon. Member:: That is your handicap.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I also suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that as an ex-law officer of the Crown at both the provincial and the federal level, I have had to take several extra responsibili-
April 1, 1981

ties which perhaps exceed or perhaps do not exceed the attitude, the rights and the responsibilities of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. However, they affect me, they affect my public responsibility, and they are a continuing responsibility. I know of no way to determine the end of an oath or a special oath in that respect as yet, so far as my practice of law is concerned.
As well, I have taken another oath. I have taken an oath as a member of the Queen's Privy Council for Canada. That was referred to earlier. I suggest to you that that is a lifetime oath. It will always be with me unless this House sees fit to strip me of it in a very peculiar and unique way. That duty and that responsibility which I took is upon me, and it certainly affects me. It may also affect the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton but, by golly, it affects me. I have a very sincere and high regard, not only for that right, but also for the responsibilities imposed upon me.
I would like to make another point which I know the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton cannot claim, but I do. In the province of Ontario there is a very special regulatory and licensing body for those who are qualified to practise law in the province of Ontario. It is called by the quaint old name which you will recognize: the Law Society of Upper Canada. That is the licensing and regulatory body of the people who are qualified to practise law in the province of Ontario.
There is another quaint term, Madam Speaker. The people who guide the fortunes and who guide the administrative policies of the Law Society of Upper Canada and, who are therefore, the people who set the regulations and licensing provisions for those who are qualified to practise law in this province have another quaint name. They are not called the directors, they are not called the board, they are called the benchers of the Law Society of Upper Canada. They also form a disciplinary body so far as people who practise law are concerned.
Madam Speaker, I am a bencher of the Law Society of Upper Canada, an ex officio one, but nevertheless, a bencher of that august body. I have an extra responsibility so far as the code of ethics is concerned, so far as the regulatory provisions are concerned, and so far as the disciplinary regulations of that body are concerned. I therefore have an extra responsibility to this House as well as to the people of this country and to my constituents in particular.
As well. Madam Speaker-and this was dwelt on very briefly by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton-his membership and my membership in the Canadian Bar Association which also has a code of ethics-


Paul Edmund McRae: What is being argued here, Madam Speaker, is that one Member of Parliament, because he is a member of the bar, has special privileges or special encumbrances which the rest of us do not have.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Paul Edmund McRae: I cannot accept that. I believe that that kind of argument is out of order.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence


Madam Speaker:: Order. I pointed that out to the House a minute ago in my ruling.


An hon. Member:: Yeah, wake up!


Madam Speaker:: I will hear the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland now. However, he is repeating the arguments brought forward by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I would ask him to conclude because he has been taking quite a lot of time. I have asked hon. members to co-operate with the Chair and to try to expose their points of privilege inside of five minutes, if it is at all possible-


An hon. Member:: He has exposed himself long enough.


Madam Speaker:: -because of the great number of questions of privilege.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I hope you are not penalizing any of us as individual members of this House-and I mean this most sincerely-simply because of the stupid and arrogant attitude of the government which is attempting to ram something through this Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not the cause of my standing up today to speak to you about my privileges and my rights in this House!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order. Nor is the Chair. Let us discuss these questions of privilege calmly so that we can get through with the business before us. It includes questions of privilege and many other matters. So the Chair is not responsible for the situation in which Parliament finds itself at the present time. I am patiently listening to all of your arguments. I am only asking hon. members to co-operate. If hon. members do not want to co-operate and try to accept what I am suggesting as a normal schedule to deal with the business we have before us, that is up to them of course. I am just appealing to them.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, with all deference I point out to you that if the rights and privileges of any single member of this House of Commons are abridged in any way; if you find that there is a prima facie case, then certainly in your mind and certainly in your predecessor's mind and I hope in the mind of any successor in the high office that you hold, this would certainly take priority and paramountcy as far as the normal business is concerned, or what might be termed the normal business of any government, no matter what its political complexion.
The question of a personal right to raise a question of privilege concerning the very high office that we all have in this House, is a very, very important one. I am not being frivolous. Believe me, I hold very sincerely and very deeply the responsibility I have, not only as a Member of Parliament but

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
also, Madam Speaker, as an officer of the court of this land. The reason I am indicating to you-


Mr. Kristiansen:: Madam Speaker, a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen).


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, in spite of your continual rulings that the sub judice argument was out of order and not acceptable; in spite of your continual references that the matter of somebody's obligations or duties as a member of the bar or as a member of the IWA, or as a member of the tin canners' society or something else, has nothing to do with our obligations and duties as members of this House, the member goes on and on and on.
Surely, Madam Speaker, there must come a point where the majority has some rights as does the minority.
Members have talked about impeding progress, Madam Speaker. These members are impeding the progress of a number of very important items through this House, not only the matter to which they make constant reference but the other matter on which here was an attempt to get an agreement so that we could proceed today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: I suggest, Madam Speaker, that the hon. member who raised the last question of privilege has been pursuing those matters which you have already ruled out of order to the extent that it could almost be said that he is showing contempt for the Speaker of this House, and I think that is abominable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I hope I have achieved the first two burdens that there are upon you. I now come to the third burden, the one that is upon me. That third burden, Madam Speaker, is-
[ Translation]


Mr. Tousignant:: I rise on a point or order, Madam Speaker.


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


Henri Tousignant: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the hon. member, for whom I have much esteem, we have been hearing for over an hour and a half exactly the same question of privilege word for word as that raised by the previous speaker. I wonder why the hon. member would feel bound by the judgment of the court in Newfoundland and question that of the Manitoba court. Moreover, I would appreciate that the hon. member stop labouring the point that he has many responsibilities compared to those other members who are not lawyers. It seems to me that the hon. member is applying a double standard concerning the oath of office made by the
members of this House. It makes me sick to hear this and I would appreciate that he stop doing it.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Durham-Northumb-erland must realize that some other members of the House are becoming somewhat impatient with the fact-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The Speaker has to satisfy everybody in the House. The hon. member knows he is repeating arguments which have been brought forward by his colleague. I hate to get up every other minute. I have had to rise several times in the course of the hon. member's intervention. That must be a message to him that something in his discourse is repetitive or not totally in order, considering that I have already ruled upon a certain question. The hon. member is of the bar and he knows all these rules; he knows how they should be applied in order to conform to the question of privilege itself.


Mr. Howard Crosby (Halifax West):: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order. Being a great admirer of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) and having been in this House a few years ago on one of the few occasions when the hon. member was successful in bringing a question of privilege to this House which was recognized by the Speaker then in the chair and which was debated at length in this House, I think that when he speaks on a question of privilege, he knows whereof he speaks and we ought to listen to him.
I do not want to leave unchallenged the words put on the record by the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen) and the member on the other side of the House. The hon. member for Durham-Northumberland has said that he is a member of that august body, the Law Society of Upper Canada. No more should be said. That society operates under a statute of the province of Ontario which is binding on people in the province of Ontario and which, in particular, is binding on the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland.
In answer to the hon. member across the way, let me say there is a difference. Those members of this House who are bound by provincial statutes with respect to the administration of justice in their province, have an obligation to observe the terms of those statutes and are affected in a different way. To that extent, if he wants to term that a double standard, then there is one.
I happen to be a member of the bar of Ontario and the bar of Nova Scotia so I am very much interested in this question of privilege. I think it should go forward without interruption by those who do not know better.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: May I-I hope forever-get off this point. Obviously there are people in the House who do not understand that there is discrimination in this House. We are not all
April 1, 1981

equal in the eyes of the courts of this land. There is a heavier duty, especially upon some of us who are officers of the court, to uphold the law. That may not be accepted by some but it happens to be a fact.
The second point that I want to re-emphasize is simply this:
I am not talking about the rights and privileges of the hon. member across the way.


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, a point of order.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am not talking about the hon. member for Kootenay West (Mr. Kristiansen). I am talking about my rights and privileges. If they also want me to talk about theirs,
I shall be glad-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: A point of order.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry but there is another hon. member who is rising. Does the hon. member have a point of order?


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: Madam Speaker, my point of order is this. The hon. member continues to go on about his special obligations and says that there is somehow a conflict between his role as an officer of the court and his role as a member of this House of Commons. If that is the case, there is always an opportunity available to him to decline one or the other, but in this House, in order for him to be able to claim a question of privilege, it must be his role as a member of the House of Commons which has been placed in dispute, not his capacity in any other realm. I happen to be a member of another organization and I owe loyalty to that organization. If I ever find myself in a position of conflict, I can resign my post here or resign my membership there. The hon. member has the same avenue open to him. I wish he would stop wasting our time, as his House leader said the other day.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Allan Frederick Lawrence: This is one of the points I was coming to. I cannot resign some of these positions. I cannot resign from my oath to the people and to the monarch of this country as far as being a Privy Councillor is concerned. I am sworn to uphold my oath. There may well be a conflict; that is the point I am making. But the conflict is not of my making whatsoever. There are other people in this House who are now caught in this bind. There is no question about that. But there is no way out of it. Until the Supreme Court of Canada clarifies the validity of the law of this land and the law that we are being forced to discuss and on which we will be forced to make a decision, I suggest that Your Honour should make a ruling that would somehow or other postpone or adjourn the hearings, the debates, the decision that affect so many of us in this House who are faced with this conflict.
That was going to be my summation to you, Madam Speaker, because it is a very special duty; there is no question but that it is a very special duty.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
I wonder if the actual terms of the decision of the Newfoundland court have been brought to your attention. If I may, just to emphasize to you the illegality and the lack of validity of the constitutional package that is before the House, I should like to quote a few particulars of that decision of the Newfoundland court which is the resolution-


Madam Speaker:: In the interests of the business of the House, I would ask the hon. member not to do so. Whether I read the decision ten times or 50 times, and even if I were convinced and had the same opinion as the court of Newfoundland, it is not for me to decide whether what is going on here is legal or illegal, constitutional or unconstitutional. That is a decision the Chair must never take. It is really irrelevant to this question of privilege. Therefore, it is not necessary to quote it to me.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I hope you understand that I am not attempting to force you, by any means, to make an interpretation of the court's decision or give a legal decision with respect to the law of the land. What I wanted to do was to bring to your attention, in the most forceful language that I could use, the actual terms of the decision of the Newfoundland court-


An hon. Member:: What about the Manitoba court?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: -to point out to you that it is the law of the land. My friend across the aisle speaks about the Manitoba court. That decision is exactly the same with respect to the whole question of the validity of the resolution and is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. I did not intend to get into that language. If my hon. friends want me to, I can. It is a fact already that there is a question as to the validity of the constitutional package as far as the Manitoba decision, being brought to the Supreme Court, is concerned. But the existing law of the land today, here in the House of Commons at this hour on April 1, is such that it is the law of the land today. The constitutional resolution which forms the four questions before the Supreme Court of Canada is today the law of the land because, as far as we know, it is not being appealed by the only group which can appeal it, namely, the cabinet and the government of this country.
You have indicated that you do not desire me to go through the actual wording of the decisions. I will not do that, Madam Speaker. I do not know, however, how official notice can be drawn to your attention of the law of the land which forms an integral part of the three points that I feel are a burden upon me to prove to you concerning my rights and privileges. But if you desire not to hear the words nor to see them, that is your decision and, of course, I must abide by it. I must say to you that the decision is in very straightforward language. It is in very clear and unequivocal language. It is the law of the land which I am bound to uphold. Without being impertinent, Madam Speaker, I would say to you that you as well are bound to uphold that law by virtue of the various oaths you have taken during the course of your public life.

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
Therefore, because I am forced to take part in a debate, to take part in a decision to judge that, I feel that this very clearly affects my rights and privileges to act in a clear and unequivocal way in this House as a Member of Parliament and as a representative of the people who elected me here.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I will rule on that question of privilege before I hear points of order.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I wanted to speak on my colleague's question of privilege.


Mr. Cousineau:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: I will not allow another speaker. There are too many speakers to be heard. I am sure that all the other members will canvass the argument.


An hon. Member:: It does not matter how many there are.


Madam Speaker:: I am prepared to rule on this question of privilege.
I have listened very carefully to the arguments which were put before me. The main request, which the hon. member made of me, was to postpone the resolution before the House of Commons for reasons that it is illegal and that it would place him in a very embarrassing situation with regard to the different oaths he has taken during the course of his life.
In order to postpone this particular measure, I would have to make a determination that the resolution is illegal or unconstitutional. 1 repeat to the hon. members of this House that it is not up to the Chair to determine the legality or the constitutionality of any particular measure. As a matter of fact, the Standing Orders are quite clear and they enjoin the Speaker not to do that.
The hon. member feels that although some of the terms of his question of privilege were "the same as or similar to"-and those were the words he used-the question of privilege raised before his, he thought that was immaterial because this particular question of privilege, in his words, "was personal". They all are. I did treat the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton as personal. The fact that they are similar, or that they are the same is not immaterial. The only way for me to judge whether there is foundation for a question of privilege, is to look at them one by one.
The hon. member explained to me that a question of privilege should have precedence over all business of this House. That is precisely what I am doing. I am hearing questions of privilege first. We are dealing with these questions of privilege before any other matter which might be before this House. We are giving precedence to questions of privilege. That is exactly what we are doing this afternoon.
The hon. member feels that this resolution before the House will force him to discuss, debate or decide on something which is illegal or in conflict with other loyalties and other oaths he has taken in the course of his life. I repeat to him-and I think
I have to correct the hon. member-that as members of this House we are all equal and our responsibilities are equal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I pointed out in my ruling that if I should discriminate in this House between those members who have taken an oath as members of the bar and those who have not, then that would be discriminatory. All members in this House of Commons are equal with regard to their responsibilities. Whatever responsibilities we have as fathers of five children, 15 children or as members of another society, is an added responsibility which is not, of course, covered by the rules of this House. It is not an argument that I can entertain. I cannot entertain it because it reflects on the equality of all of us in this House. First, in dealing with the point that this measure is forcing the hon. member to do something which is illegal, I say that I cannot determine whether it is illegal. Second, the hon. member is protected by any disciplinary measure which might be taken against him because he has taken part in a debate in the House of Commons. That is a provision which is 300 years old. It is the basis of parliamentary democracy, and contained in The Bill of Rights of 1688. We find that freedom of speech and debate and proceedings in Parliament ought not to be impeached or questioned in any court or place outside of Parliament.
If the hon. member were in any way harassed or brought before any other kind of tribunal because of something that he had done in this House, of course the House would want to protect him. We are all protected against that.
The hon. member has brought forward many arguments. He said this would be an attack on his integrity if he dealt with the matter which is before the House. The hon. member knows that in this House he has the opportunity of protecting his integrity by debating a question, by trying to amend to measure before the House, by arguing, by amending it and finally by voting against it. It is open to the hon. member to protect his integrity and to make sure that he does not have the kinds of conflicts he has evoked.
The hon. member has perhaps given us many arguments which might cause him to vote against this measure, but he has not given arguments that I can consider under the aegis of a question of privilege.
Therefore, I rule that the hon. member for Durham-North-umberland does not have a question of privilege.


MR. KILGOUR-SUGGESTED ILLEGALITY OF THE RESOLUTION ON THE CONSTITUTION
David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, we are obviously both going to think that my question of privilege will be very similar to the ones you just dealt with. May I start with your ruling. You indicated that you disagree with the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) with respect to his question of privilege because it requires you to rule whether the measure is legal or illegal. With the greatest of respect, Sir Edward Coke established
April 1, 1981

many hundreds of years ago that nobody's head is above the law, including the king. With respect to the questions of privilege of members of Parliament, I wish to quote the following passage from page 67 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May:
Parliamentary privilege is the sum of the peculiar rights enjoyed by each House collectively as a constituent part of the High Court of Parliament, and by members of each House individually, without which they could not discharge their functions, and which exceed those possessed by other bodies or individuals. Thus privilege, though part of the law of the land, is to a certain extent an exemption from the ordinary law.
Because of the resolution brought forward by the government, we in this body have fewer rights than those outside this chamber. Your Honour tells those of us who are candlestick makers, lawyers or whatever, that we can vote no to the resolution. The simple fact is that party discipline overrules any votes that might be taken in terms of the government party.


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


David Kilgour: One of the weaknesses is that party discipline has become virtually absolute in this House of Commons. You might ask: what about the hon. member for Montmorency (Mr. Duclos) or the hon. member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) who have indicated they are going to vote against their parties? The result is those members opposite will vote for it because the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told them to vote for it, whether or not their constituents are opposed to it.


Mr. Evans:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. That is clearly making inferences about other Members of Parliament and is absolutely out of order.


Mr. Hawkes:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. We have before this chamber the records of the constitutional committee. They are now part of our proceedings. I think you will find that when amendments were proposed in committee, the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) indicated which way government members would vote. They did in fact vote that way. That is confirmation of the statement made by the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour).


Mr. Rossi:: Madam Speaker, the hon. member on the side of the opposition has risen on a question of privilege and he has said nothing to this point which would justify his doing so. You have made a ruling, Madam Speaker, and the hon. member should address the question of privilege.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: I would like to reply, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, this is not a debate. If the minister has a point of order, he should indicate that to me. If he rises on a point of order, I can recognize him, but he cannot debate across the floor.
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The hon. member said I gave instructions to the members of my party in committee. I did no such thing. I would like to tell the House of Commons that of all the amendments I presented on behalf of the government, nine out of ten were approved by the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp). He even did that in the House because they were good amendments which improved the charter of rights. What is happening in the House of Commons at this time is an affront to Parliament and to you, Madam Speaker. For the last five days we have been deprived of the opportunity to deal with the business of the House of Commons because of questions of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Order. In the First part of the minister's intervention, he had a point of order. In the second part, he was debating, so I have to call him to order.


Mr. Thacker:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I cannot let that pass. The Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) is indicating that he had not talked people into changing their minds, but he has. On Friday they agreed to property rights, on Monday they did not.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member is debating.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I am happy to see the members are paying attention. Further to what I said, the hon. member for Montmorency, for whom I have the utmost respect, said on Sunday night that 70 per cent of his constituents were against this resolution. The fact that he is the only one who has enough courage to stand up and say that he is going to vote against it, in my respectful submission, means that those members opposite have given up all sense of conscience, all sense of what their constituents feel-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member has to argue the question of privilege. Whether there are party whips on or off is not relevant to the question of privilege. I wish to remind hon. members that when discussing a question of privilege, I have to apply more strictly than in ordinary debate the matter of relevancy of arguments.


David Kilgour: Let me take a hypothetical situation.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


David Kilgour: An analogy is the only way to make this point because members opposite do not understand the point that is now directly before the House. Let us suppose we had a resolution which proposed that all women in Canada be shipped to the moon.


An hon. Member:: Let's hope not.


David Kilgour: That simply points out, Madam Speaker, the fact that you could not vote for that resolution, nor could any female Members of Parliament. I am trying to point out the fact that you can have motions or resolutions which patently

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
touch individuals or groups of Members of Parliament. We cannot vote for those resolutions because they violate our personal oaths which were referred to by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland. They violate a concept of propriety, a concept of equality of the sexes, or whatever. I appreciate the fact that you may feel that the cases of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) and my own are not distinguishable. I submit that every day in this land there are cases of impaired drivers. There are about 10,000 such cases a year in the courts and every one is distinguishable on the facts. I submit, on the same basis, that the cases of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton and myself may be distinguishable on the facts. May I simply put my own situation which I believe is different from that of the other two members to whom I just referred.
May I first refer briefly to the letter I wrote Your Honour. I quote:
The subject matter is that the government's constitutional package is requiring me to violate the oath I took when admitted to the bars of British Columbia, Manitoba and Alberta, all of which require me to uphold the rule of law.


Jean-Jacques Blais: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. The hon. member is basing his argument on exactly the same foundation alleged by all the other lawyers, the glorified gentlemen in the opposition. I suggest it is another piece of evidence in the obstruction puzzle for which the opposition is laying the groundwork.


David Kilgour: The barrister's oath in Alberta says, and I quote:
"That I will be faithful and bear true allegiance to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II-"


Madam Speaker:: Order. I have made it quite clear that arguments regarding oaths of members of the bar of any province are not relevant. I have assured hon. members that if they were doing something in this House which was in conflict with those particular oaths, they would be protected by the House, so I cannot accept that argument. I ask the hon. member not to develop it. It has been developed twice, and I have said twice that it is not relevant.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I will leave that one.
The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton referred to the code of professional conduct of the Canadian Bar Association. He referred to the chapter dealing with the lawyer in public office. If I may, I wish to refer to the chapter dealing with the lawyer in the administration of justice. Will Your Honour permit me to speak about that?
I point out to hon. members opposite who are lawyers, but may not be aware of it, that the chapter says, and I quote:
The lawyer should encourage public respect for and try to improve the administration of justice.
It talks about a basic commitment to the concept of equal justice for all within an open, ordered and impartial system. The important part is this:
-judicial institutions will not function effectively unless they command the respect of the public ... because of changes in human affairs-
And so forth. It talks about a duty to the court.


Mr. Cossitt:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member, but just a moment ago the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) rose on a point of order and, if I heard him correctly, he used the word "obstruct" or "obstructionist". According to page 109 of Beauchesne's rules, that has clearly been established as an unparliamentary word, and the references are House of Commons Debates of November 19, 1957 and May 6, 1961.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I already ruled on that at a time when the hon. member probably was not in the House. The word "obstruct" is in both lists of Beauchesne, so my second method of determining whether that is unparliamentary is to look at the context and to look at some other precedents which I quoted from Erskine May. When the word "obstruct" or "obstructionist" is applied to a group of people or to a party and not to a person, it is not considered to be unparliamentary. I have such doubts about the use of that verb, which is so useful in a debate, that I would say that it is only in very, very rare circumstances that it would be considered to be unparliamentary.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I intended to rise on a point of order just after the hon. member for Edmonton-Strathcona (Mr. Kilgour), but now that this matter has been touched on again, let me remind Your Honour that you indicated, in response to my last point of order concerning the unparliamentary statement made by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), that you would consult the blues. I have had an opportunity to consult the blues now, and, in addition to what I have already put on the record, I point out that the Minister of Supply and Services made a second unparliamentary statement in reference to me.
In response to my question, "Who does he feel is the obstructionist in this House," he replied, "Madam Speaker, I would point out that the hon. member who has just spoken is part of the attempt to obstruct the business of the House because-" And then he went on. That phrase was found to be unparliamentary on November 19, 1957 at page 1295. At that time a Mr. Broome was speaking in the House of Commons. He said:
Our hon. friends over there on the other side of the House are doing as much as they can to harass-
And so forth.
-and to obstruct the operation of government-


Mr. Speaker:: Order. I would remind the hon. member that we are speaking on an amendment which has to do with health ... May I also say that I do not consider it to be according to the best parliamentary practice to impute motives to hon. members and say that their actions are simply to obstruct. I would ask the hon. member to revise that statement.
April I, 1981


Mr. Broome:: Mr. Speaker, I apologize to hon. members. They are not obstructing.
Now that we have two clear precedents that the minister in his one statement used two unparliamentary words or statements, I ask that he be asked to withdraw those statements and apologize to the House.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Mr. Speaker, I have attempted all afternoon to put on the record some of the facts upon which the allegations I made are founded. Your Honour did not find that I should do that. 1 would be pleased to do that at this time in order to show that there has been a systematic attitude taken by the opposition in order to prevent the House and the government from carrying on their normal business.
For the past five days we have been unable to carry on government business. The opposition has systematically, with every premeditation, interrupted the procedures of this House with spurious points of order and spurious questions of privilege in order to prevent us from proceeding. If Your Honour wants me to document it, I will point out that there have been until today 25 questions of privilege, none of which were recognized by Your Honour. There have been 21 points of order, none of which were determined to be valid, and over a long-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Does the hon. member for Leeds-Grenville have a new point of order?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Arising from what was said, I presume it would be a new point of order, yes.


Madam Speaker:: I think I can rule on that one. Beauchesne says it is not out of order to say that a member has obstructed the business of the House or that a speech is an abuse of the rules of the House. That is from Beauchesne page 130, the fourth edition.
In addition, the context in which something is said has to be taken into account. The hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) said that he looked at the blues. The idea is that I should look at the blues. I will do that, but in the meantime I am referring this commentary of Beauchesne to hon. members. I will look at the blues. I will spend the whole evening looking at the blues, and I will determine whether the hon. Minister of Supply and Services has used unparliamentary language.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in addition to looking at the blues-I hope you do not spend all night looking at them but just a brief time-may I also ask you to look at the fifth edition of Beauchesne. Your Honour referred to the fourth edition, but I think the more recent edition makes it very clear that the two references to which I have referred are both unparliamentary.


Madam Speaker:: I am happy to assure that the officers of the Table will put before me all the references that are relevant.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. My point of order arises from what I consider to be-after refer-
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
ring to Beauchesne-a further unparliamentary expression used by the Minister of Supply and Services when he used once-maybe it was twice-the word "spurious". I refer to Beauchesne at page 113. The debates of the House of Commons for October 13, 1966, at page 8598 and October 18, 1966, at page 8784 establish that the word "spurious" is unparliamentary. I ask whether I am correct in this regard and, if I am, that the minister be asked to withdraw his remark.


Madam Speaker:: The word "spurious" is considered to be parliamentary. According to Beauchesne's list, that has been so since 1958. At any rate, it is used very often in the House, and no one has objected to it, so I suppose the practice is that the word "spurious" is parliamentary.


Mr. MacKay:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have been listening fairly closely to the exchanges, and I want to say that it is my understanding that the word used by my hon. friend, the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais), was "scurrilous". If that is the case, that word was used and withdrawn by the House leader of the New Democratic Party.
However, my point of order really relates to the remarks the minister made with respect to a systematic attempt-outside the rules, as he indicated-by hon. members on this side of the House to obstruct the business of the House. We all know that you, Madam Speaker, have publicly stated that the conduct of hon. members on this side of the House has been perfectly in order. I would suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that the Minister of Supply and Services by making that kind of statement has contradicted what you have said publicly, and I think he should withdraw that remark.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, the term I used is defined as meaning immaterial or unsubstantial, and the word was "spurious" not "scurrilous". In addition, I never said that they did not use the rules in order to obstruct; I know that they are. However, I would draw to your attention page 440 of Erskine May where it is stipulated quite clearly that members are being disorderly when they are obstructing the business of the House, even though they use the rules.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Elmer MacIntosh MacKay: I wish to apologize to my hon. friend. I now see what he was referring to; it is the points of order that he has been making all afternoon.


Madam Speaker:: For the record, I just want to say to the hon. member that I said publicly that none of the members of this House were violating the rules. I would not allow myself to have any kind of opinion on the proceedings of this House. I did notice in the same article, though, that some hon. member had said that some of my judgments or rulings were nonsense, but I am sure they were misquoted.

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour


Harvie Andre: Madam Speaker, on a point of order in regard to the remarks by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). He was inaccurate in one part and I am sure after l bring it to his attention he, being the gentleman that he is, will be more than willing to rise and withdraw those particular remarks.
He indicated that spurious points of order were being raised and that not one was legitimate. I bring to his attention the point of order 1 raised on March 24, at page 8557 of Hansard, on which Your Honour rendered a decision on March 25 which indicated that indeed my point of order was in order and that the government's supplementary estimates were out of order. So I hope the minister will withdraw his remarks that my point of order was spurious.


Jean-Jacques Blais: As the saying goes, Madam Speaker, the exception proves the rule, and that was the exception. Indeed there have been 21 points of order which were unacceptable to the Chair. One was acceptable and Your Honour took the right decision under the circumstances.


Erik Nielsen: I just want to inject one sentence here-


An hon. Member:: That is still too much.


Erik Nielsen: -because I am not going to comment on something that the Chair has reserved. I would just point out to the minister that when he was sitting on this side of the House a very short time ago, he and his honourable gang of 231 members raised 130 questions of privilege and points of order. And, of course, he is saying none of them were spurious, it was not obstructionism; no, not at all. There is a name for that kind of conduct and those kinds of words, but I have too much respect for Parliament to use unparliamentary expressions in describing them.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Blenkarn:: Madam Speaker, the impression has been given to this chamber by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) that we have not co-operated. I point out to the minister that last evening two very important reports of special committees of this House were filed and tabled by a deliberate effort of the House leader on this side. Not only that, Madam Speaker, this House managed to begin consideration of a closure motion improperly brought by the government, but nonetheless a closure motion. All in an effort to expedite the terms of-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Members are debating this point of order. Let us close the matter. I will look at the blues and we will see whether there was anything unparliamentary said. Members can express opinions about everything that goes on in this House, that is quite legitimate. The hon. member for Lethbridge-Foothills (Mr. Thacker) on a point of order.


Blaine Allen Thacker: With respect to this afternoon's procedure, Madam Speaker, concerning my question of privilege, may I please ask you when I might expect to be heard?


An hon. Member:: Wait in line.


Madam Speaker:: I will deal with points of order one at a time. I cannot give the hon. member a time when he should be in the House. There is no question of turns. It is up to me which hon. member I recognize.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I referred to some quotes from the code of professional conduct for lawyers. I am embarrassed to admit that I used to work for the department that the hon. Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) represents.


An hon. Member:: Is that before you were fired?


David Kilgour: It is humiliating to me that the department has been reduced to such a low point. Everyone in that department takes an oath-I think they did when I was there-that they will uphold the law. Everyone in this House, every school boy and school girl, knows that what has happened is that a matter has been found to be illegal-and I am not asking you to rule on that-by five out of eight appeal court judges in two provinces. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) is the one who is trying to stay one step ahead of the law by getting every member in this House to vote for a proposition which is obviously of questionable legality. But I am not asking you to rule on that, Madam Speaker, because you feel very strongly that you must find on these points of privilege. What constitutes a question of privilege? What privileges do we have in this House? It seems to me that by your ruling or that of previous Speakers, we have less privileges here than the people out there. An example was referred to yesterday in Stewart's at page 58 of the Speaker having been notified by the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid) and two other hon. members that they wished to raise questions of privilege as a result of an allegation in a Montreal newspaper that the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River had leaked tax information. It goes on to talk about how this was found to be a question of privilege.
Well, Madam Speaker, if you are going to rule that the lawyers in here cannot be bound by their oaths or their understanding of what their duties as lawyers are-and that ruling affects 100 members-what about the doctors or the women in the example I gave to you? Are we supposed to take the view that: no, we go ahead, we can vote against it? If that is what the privileges of members amount to, they do not amount to anything, in my respectful submission. In other words, anything can go on in this place. The vessel which contains the privileges of a member is empty. What privileges do we have in here if those of us who feel strongly that this gang across the way are trying to make us vote on something which is patently illegal at this point in our judicial history, can only vote or be absent when the matter comes up?
A long time ago Sir Edward Coke showed that nobody's head was above the law, including the king's. It seems to me
April 1, 1981

that if this is the ruling you are going to make, we have gone full circle to the point where Members of Parliament can be forced to do anything, that only this so-called Prime Minister across the way is above the law. That is the effect of what he is trying to get the hon. members here to do on this motion. It boggles the mind. I have often said that I made a mistake in taking a course in logic at university, because in my respectful submission there is no logic, if that is what the privileges of members amount to, if Your Honour rises and says that you do not want to rule on the legality of the matter because the rules indicate that you should not.
I believe you said earlier to the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland that we are all equal and lawyers should not have special privileges. Every member in the House who has gone to high school, university or law school knows that there is a concept in the country known as the rule of law. In my respectful submission, the Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development does not have the faintest understanding of the concept, the Prime Minister does not have the faintest understanding of the concept, but every boy and girl outside this room knows the rule of law.
Hon. members opposite laugh; I see the hon. member from Fort William is smiling. He thinks it is a big joke. The consciences of those people are so small that they will vote for this, they will push through closure and force us to vote on a matter which, I submit, is illegal as of yesterday.
If those of us in this chamber who are lawyers were asked for advice by clients concerning the situation as it was yesterday and as it is today-and the matter will be going to the Supreme Court in approximately a month-we would be disbarred if we advised them to go ahead and do what hon. members opposite want us to do; certainly we would be sued for professional negligence.


Mr. Irwin:: That is absolute nonsense.


David Kilgour: I hear a member opposite saying that it is absolute nonsense. Apparently the hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie (Mr. Irwin) is a lawyer, although I have seen no sign of it. If he were to so advise a client, in light of what happened yesterday in the Newfoundland court, he would not have any clients; I suggest he would be guilty of professional negligence. It is that simple. Members opposite do not understand because the whip has told them to vote for it.
I should like to give an extreme example in the hope of making my point clear. If members opposite were asked to vote in favour of a resolution asking that the ceiling on this side of the House be lowered to ground level-


Some hon. Members:: Yes!


David Kilgour: I hear them saying, "Yes"; they would vote for it. What I am trying to say is that Your Honour's ruling ignored the point of party discipline which is emasculating the House.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Sit down, you are mixed up.
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is repeating arguments which have been brought forward by other hon. members. I ask him to summarize his point so that I can determine whether or not he has a question of privilege.


David Kilgour: This afternoon we were invited by the Prime Minister to pass this resolution, to send if off in final form so that the court might consider it.
In all three provinces where the matter is presently being heard, there are constitutional questions acts which allow their lieutenant governors in council to refer the matter directly to their courts of appeal. This has been done.
I should like to refer to Section 54 of the Supreme Court Act which reads in part as follows:
(1) The Supreme Court shall have, hold and exercise exclusive ultimate appellate civil and criminal jurisdiction within and for Canada-
Two of the appeal courts have made their decisions; one has been appealed to the Supreme Court of Canada. The matter referred to those courts will be heard at the end of this month, but today the Prime Minister told us that we should pass a different package so that it can go in final form to the court to be heard.
It all comes back to basic legal concepts. How can any honest lawyer not say that it is perfectly clear, if we have any respect for the rule of law, that we should wait until the Supreme Court of Canada decides whether or not this question is legal? Either we respect the rule of law or we respect the rule of the Prime Minister. If the rule of law has any weight in the country, if what Sir Edward Coke decided 400 years ago has any weight-


Lyle Stuart Kristiansen: How long ago?


David Kilgour: -we can wait one month to see whether what is going on here is legal.
No one is asking Your Honour to decide whether or not the question is legal. Why do you interpret our allegation that the package offends the privileges of members, particularly those who have legal training as requiring you to decide on whether or not it is legal? It offends the hon. member for Okanagan-Similkameen (Mr. King) who does not have legal training.


Henri Tousignant: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


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


Henri Tousignant: Madam Speaker, I appreciate that the hon. member opposite entertains high expectations. He wants to get closer to the front benches in the not too distant future. He takes this opportunity to do some practice but he is the third speaker on that side of the House who has delivered the same speech and debated the same issue. They are now holding a unilateral constitutional debate and we on this side of the House have no opportunity to take the floor. We are debating the constitutional question, solely and strictly. Therefore the

April 1, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Kilgour
hon. member opposite ought to stop telling us about his responsibilities toward members of the bar. He is the third one who has done that.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, I disagree completely with the hon. member opposite. This is a matter of abiding by the rule of law. You do not have to decide whether the matter is legal or not, but rather, in my opinion, whether there is a valid question for the Supreme Court of Canada to rule on. I think that if you agree with this, you can say that the rights and privileges of the members of this House are involved and that the Speaker cannot force the hon. members to vote on this motion and to proceed in this regard. With all due respect, I am asking you as a Member of Parliament and as a lawyer like many others to extend the application of our rules. Yesterday evening, 1 asked whether you could give a larger definition of the word "obstacle." Would it be possible to also extend the meaning of our rules? If not, as I noted earlier, we are placed in a rather ridiculous position. May I call it six o'clock, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member still has a few minutes. If he wants to conclude before six o'clock, he would have to do it now.


David Kilgour: Madam Speaker, as I said yesterday, you are not a lawyer and you do not have much experience in legal
matters. Every day of their life, judges decide matters from a rather narrow position. Could we extend this position? In my opinion, it would be much better for this House if you could take a larger view than you have done so far. I believe that it was not necessary in the interests of the members of this House that you make a ruling from a rather narrow position. Madam Speaker, may I call it six o'clock?


Madam Speaker:: I believe that if the hon. member could conclude in two minutes, we could obtain the agreement of the House so that-
I will hear the hon. member for a few minutes more, if he is able to conclude. I think he should be able to conclude since he has been talking on this point for quite a while. I will hear him for a few minutes, but not for too long.
Is that agreed?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


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


An hon. Member:: Six o'clock!


Madam Speaker:: It being six o'clock, I do now leave the chair until 2 p.m. tomorrow.
At 6.01 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Thursday, April 2, 1981