1981-03-27

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development members of this House were subjected to a litany of examples of the complete and utter abrogation of the government's obligations to the Cree and Inuit under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Given the devastating effect that this abrogation has had on the health of the Cree, and specifically in light of the fact that tuberculosis is rampant in at least one Cree village, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulkley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare admit her residual responsibility for natives as outlined in Chapter 955 of the Indian health regulations under the Indian Act, and not withdraw health and social services to the Cree as is presently scheduled for March 31, 1981, until all commitments under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are fulfilled by both governments involved.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


JAMES BAY AGREEMENT-TABLING OF ANNUAL REPORT-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Lome McCuish (Prince George-Bulkley Valley):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Whereas the James Bay Agreement stipulates that the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) must table an implementation report within 60 days of January 1, 1978, followed by annual reports for the following 20 years, and whereas the first of these was submitted 22 months late and the one currently due has still not been tabled, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the Minister of Indian Affairs immediately table this overdue report and that failure to report this year and any subsequent year as per the agreement shall be considered contempt of Parliament.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


JAMES BAY AGREEMENT-APPOINTMENT OF IMPLEMENTATION COMMISSIONER-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my motion under Standing Order 43 is on the same matter. In view of the fact that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement sets a critical precedent for future land claims settlements, and that the terms of this agreement have not been honoured by either the federal or Quebec governments, a situation that has created great hardship and resentment among the native people this agreement was designed to benefit, I moved, seconded by the hon. member for Wetaski-win (Mr. Schellenberger):
That this government appoint an Implementation Commissioner with powers of the type enjoyed by the Commissioner of Official Languages and Human Rights, in order to oversee the implementation of this agreement and any further similar agreements between this Parliament and Canada's native peoples and that no further transfer of responsibilities from the federal government to provincial and native governments occur until this Commissioner tables an annual report to Parliament showing that all federal responsibilities to the James Bay Cree and Inuit peoples have been fulfilled.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


JAMES BAY AGREEMENT-GOVERNMENT IMPLEMENTATION OF AGREEMENT-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on this same important and urgent matter. Since it is now clear that the James Bay and Northern Quebec Native Claims Agreement has been breached repeatedly by a government acting in bad faith, with flagrant disregard for legal and moral responsibilities under the agreement, and since this government is presently threatening to abrogate health responsibilities as of March 31, 1981, withholding essential core funding to the Cree Regional Authority and quibbling over responsibility for

March 27, 1981
improving desperate living conditions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent):
That the government stop this shameful performance and immediately implement the agreement according to the spirit and the letter of the law.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


FISHERIES
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question under Standing Order 43 is on this same important subject. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) has demonstrated a lack of concern for the well-being of the northern fisheries as well as the Inuit people who depend on that fishery for 70 per cent of their diet, by licensing six fishing vessels, in spite of inadequate environmental and ecological information, and the fact that the Inuit developed the fishery. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta):
That the minister suspend all non-Inuit fishing licences in the James Bay and Ungava area pending an environmental impact study.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Mr. Stan Schellenberger (Wetaskiwin):: Madam Speaker, whereas the federal government has failed to deliver services as provided in the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement, and since the result of this failure is that the Cree and Inuit have spent a total of $37 million of their own funds to provide such services to their people, I move, under Standing Order 43, seconded by the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway):
That the government reimburse in full the Inuit and the Cree for moneys spent, by the end of this fiscal year.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


NATIONAL PENSIONS CONFERENCE
Mr. Bruce Halliday (Oxford):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. The mayor's task force on disabled and elderly in the city of Toronto has been denied a seat at the National Pensions Conference scheduled for next week in Ottawa. In view of the large number of people that they represent in Toronto, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley East (Mr. Smith):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare be asked to reverse her decision and invite representation from the mayor's task force.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Bob Rae (Broadview-Greenwood):: Madam Speaker, whereas this House has been debating a Conservative Party amendment on the Constitution for six weeks-


An hon. Member:: Who wrote this, Bob?


Bob Rae: -and the Conservative Party has been engaged in a systematic strategy, which it is continuing now, of preventing other parties from presenting their own constitutional amendments on women's rights and native people,-


An hon. Member:: Go to the Senate, Bob.


Bob Rae: -and preventing this House from even considering its own business, thereby gagging Parliament, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose):
That this House reaffirms its obligation to the country to consider, with full and fair debate, all matters of substance and concern to the people of Canada, and regrets the systematic obstruction of any improvements to the constitutional resolution currently being carried on by the Progressive Conservative Party of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 27, 1981


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. Walter McLean (Waterloo):: Madam Speaker, due to the cutbacks announced in the Canada Manpower Training Program, Connestoga College, centred in Kitchener-Waterloo, and other community colleges across Ontario, will have to discontinue programs abruptly in midstream, dashing the hopes of trainees for employment. Many of the affected courses have a 100 per cent employment record with great support from local industry. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer):
That this House call upon the Minister of Employment and Immigration to explain to Parliament why these programs have been cancelled at a time of high unemployment and shortage of manpower with basic skills.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Doug Neil (Moose Jaw):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that uncertainty still surrounds the decision on compensation to prairie grain producers for losses arising from the Russian grain embargo, and in view of the fact that there has been no relief from the high interest rates and input costs facing the grain producers, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Mackenzie (Mr. Korchinski):
That cabinet make a decision on the amount of compensation immediately and arrange for the mailing of cheques within ten days in order that the producers will have some cash on hand to meet spring seeding costs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


LABOUR RELATIONS
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, whereas the fishermen in New Brunswick, Prince Edward Island and Nova Scotia are presently denied even basic collective bargaining rights by the regressive legislation in those areas, and whereas
Oral Questions
the fishermen in New Brunswick are presently peacefully demonstrating in favour of that provincial government changing its legislation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Kootenay East-Revelstoke (Mr. Parker):
That this House express its solidarity with the fishermen in the maritime provinces and supports their right to negotiate a fair price for their catch.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROCEDURE RELATING TO WRITTEN QUESTIONS-MOTION UNDER S.O. 43
Mr. Dave Nickerson (Western Arctic):: Madam Speaker, I wish to move a motion which I think might very well receive the unanimous consent of the House because it expresses sentiments which have already been expressed by spokesmen for all parties.
Whereas last night and on previous occasions it has been suggested by the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), and agreed to by spokesmen from the opposition parties, that improvements might be made to the rules of the House dealing with written questions, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Bow River (Mr. Taylor):
That the Standing Orders and practices of the House of Commons relating to written questions be referred to the Standing Committee on Procedure and Organization for study and that the said committee be instructed to report back to the House with recommendations.


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, through the Chair I would like to direct a question to the Prime Minister. The Prime Minister will know that the Supreme Court of Canada has now set April 28 as the date on

March 27, 1981
Oral Questions
which it will begin to consider whether the government's constitutional resolution is within the competence of Parliament to enact alone. Rather than having Parliament risk acting illegally and rather than running the risk that Parliament would act in defiance of our own customs, will the Prime Minister respect Canadian custom, and will he withdraw his resolution until the court has decided whether it is lawful for Parliament to deal with that resolution?


Right Hon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister):: Madam Speaker, perhaps the Leader of the Opposition could elaborate a little bit on what he calls the custom. As far as I can study Parliament, it is customary for Parliament to deal with matters, and it is also customary for citizens or various parties to disagree in the courts. This process has always happened, and if Parliament were to interrupt its work every time somebody claims that its work is illegal, then we would be doing no work at all. That is the custom in this land. We do our work. The courts do theirs.


REQUEST FOR FEDERAL-PROVINCIAL MEETING
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will naturally accept the invitation of the Prime Minister to argue that case later in the day.
The Prime Minister will know that Premier Blakeney has now indicated that eight premiers expect to discuss today or, if not today, very, very soon-but probably today-details of a new constitutional proposal, which was discussed in general terms in Winnipeg on Tuesday, a constitutional proposal which would let Canadians decide our Canadian conduct here in Canada.
In light of this statement by Premier Blakeney and in light of the meeting which has occurred in Winnipeg this week, is the Prime Minister prepared to set aside his own stubborn deadlines, and is he prepared, in the national interest as the leader of the national government, actively to seek a meeting on constitutional change with the Canadian premiers before he bulldozes this resolution through Parliament and takes the Canadian question to another country?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, we have been discussing this subject with the premiers since the spring of 1968, in a constant fashion through the decade. We discussed it very intensively beginning, I believe, around June 5 of last year. We had a first ministers' meeting.
We have, in the resolution now, a provision that discussions must go on for the next two years in order that we agree on an amending formula, following which, if we still cannot agree after that fixed period of two years-which hardly seems like bulldozing, to use the phrase of the Leader of the Opposition-then the people will be asked to decide for us in a referendum. Discussions are not only wanted; they are called for in the resolution before the House.
The Leader of the Opposition goes on to make the point, I think his words were "let Canadians decide". Madam Speaker, that is what we are asking: let the Canadians in this House decide and let us decide-


Some hon. Members:: Call an election.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are prepared to let this House decide any time. We will even let an amendment come to a vote.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


INITIATION OF DISCUSSIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: The
Prime Minister appears to be under the illusion that his resolution has already passed and that the provinces are today without the power which his resolution tries to take away from them as he moves this nation towards a unitary state. That is not the situation in this country today.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The Prime Minister has not yet succeeded in his goal of changing the fundamental nature of this country. There are provincial governments which represent the people of Canada as well as this Parliament does. They have a role to play in constitutional discussion. My question to the Prime Minister is this: since we know that he has his representatives over in Britain trying to make a deal with the government of another country, I should like to ask him whether he personally, or through his senior representatives, since the meeting in Winnipeg of the eight premiers on Tuesday, has been in touch or has initiated discussions with those premiers, to see if it might be possible to arrange a meeting which would allow all the governments of Canada representing all the people of Canada to come together here in our country to agree on a Canadian Constitution in a Canadian way, rather than following the practice which the Leader of the NDP in the province of Saskatchewan has said leads to bitterness in this country.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Prime Minister is whether he personally, or through any of his intermediaries, sought a meeting with the premiers since the Tuesday meeting in Winnipeg.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition talks about taking power from the provinces to make Canada a unitary state.


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Surely if there is any shift of power in this resolution before the House, it gives more power to the provinces-
March 27, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: That's a lie.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in two areas, Madam Speaker-


An hon. Member:: At least blush a little bit.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -more powers to the provinces in defining the role which they would play in any amending formula in the future. It gives more power to the provinces-


An hon. Member:: Just tell the truth, Pierre.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -in giving them greater jurisdictional resources by having what they do not have now, the power to levy indirect taxes and the power to regulate interprovincial trade. So if there is any shift of power from one government to the other, Madam Speaker, in these two areas it is a shift to the provinces.


An hon. Member:: Answer the question.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I am told to answer the question, Madam Speaker,


An hon. Member:: Have you sought a meeting?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition, in asking his question, made the assertion that there was a shift of power from the provinces. I fail to see how the opposite side lets the Leader of the Opposition make allegations before posing his question but would not let me answer those allegations before the question is answered.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The question was whether I had sought to communicate with the premiers since the meeting in Winnipeg last Wednesday. The answer is no, nor have they attempted to communicate with me.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, by the Prime Minister's logic, he must have believed he was giving more power to the people he had incarcerated when he introduced the War Measures Act.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Why did the Prime Minister not seek a meeting with representatives of provincial governments after the meeting on Tuesday? Will he tell the House of Commons whether he will initiate those discussions, as the leader of the national Government of Canada, to see if we can find a way to change our Constitution in our country, rather than shipping our business off to the British?


An hon. Member:: You are rather desperate, Joe.
Oral Questions


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the Leader of the Opposition refers to the people incarcerated under the War Measures Act.


An hon. Member:: Four hundred and fifty persons.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Let me remind him that his party and his leader supported the invocation of the War Measures Act.


Mr. Andre:: We believed you; that was the problem.


Mr. Hnatyshyn:: It was the last time we believed you.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Other hon. members of the House want to ask questions. I have already allowed the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition an extra question, which is not unusual. But we need the co-operation of the House so that I can allow everybody who wants to put a question today to be included in the Question Period. So, I would ask hon. members not to shout; we must conduct this debate in a serene fashion-


An hon. Member:: Serene!


Madam Speaker:: -and I would like members to co-operate-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: -with me.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in so far as incarcerating people under the War Measures Act is concerned I would remind the Leader of the Opposition that they were incarcerated by the administration of justice of the province of Quebec; that they were in their prisons, by their policemen, by their acts; and that this was recognized when the government of Quebec paid damages to many of the people who had been incarcerated by them as a result of the War Measures Act.
The Leader of the Opposition asked if I would initiate discussions with the premiers. I have replied to that. We have been discussing for many months. A time comes when somebody has to make up his mind. The premiers seem unable to make up their minds because they have been meeting since October trying to find some alternative that they would even agree with among themselves. They have not communicated any such agreement to myself, to the press or, I take it, to the Leader of the Opposition. But I will initiate discussions with them, as soon as Canada has its own Constitution and as soon as Canadians have given themselves the means to improve that Constitution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


REQUEST FOR REMOVAL OF REFERENDUM PROVISIONS IN CONSTITUTIONAL RESOLUTION
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. He said that he is giving more powers to the provinces; it is passing strange that eight of them would be rejecting those additional powers.

March 27, 1981
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: But I want to ask the Prime Minister-


An hon. Member:: Say no more.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: In his press conference yesterday the Prime Minister said, "What I want is the provinces to find some agreement among themselves", and he also said that he was willing to reduce the seven provinces to six, as well as the 80 per cent requirement. In view of the fact that the provinces have asked for the power to remove the odious referendum provisions in his proposals-


Mr. Lalonde:: Not Ontario, not New Brunswick.


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: -is he now willing to remove the referendum provisions and, in fact, bring about the kind of consensus which he said yesterday he was willing to accept?


An hon. Member:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: More applause?


Charles Joseph Clark: Not for you.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Pro-vencher said that it is passing strange the provinces would reject the additional powers we are giving them. I found that strange, too, and I said so in my speech on Monday that, in a sense, I regretted the amendment moved by the Leader of the NDP which would give more power to the provinces, because the provinces have still not said that they accepted those additional powers. They want even more powers yet. This proves my point that until the whole shopping list of powers is given to them they will find no agreement. They have not found agreement since this process began and they are not finding agreement now, for the reasons I have stated. They might agree on an amending process, but they will not agree to let it go forward until Mr. Peckford has the offshore-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -until Premier Levesque has had the right to declare the sovereignty of his province written into the Constitution-


Charles Joseph Clark: That is not true.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says it is not true, Madam Speaker. If he had been watching the conference-


Mr. Fraser:: You are not an expert on truth!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -held in September, in Ottawa, he would have said that is exactly the situation which the premiers presented then-


Charles Joseph Clark: And on the Friday morning?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had no evidence of whether they have changed that position now. Has the Leader of the Opposition heard Mr. Peckford say that Canadians could have the Constitution with an amending formula and a basic charter of rights without getting his offshore?


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, because I have asked.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The Leader of the Opposition says yes. I wish that Mr. Peckford would state that publicly.


Charles Joseph Clark: Ask him.


Mr. Beatty:: What would you do if he did?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I wish Mr. Peckford would state that publicly rather than through his little buddy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


AGREEMENT ON HUMAN RIGHTS
Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: My supplementary question is to the Right Hon. Prime Minister. Frankly, it seems to me from his answer he hopes the provinces do not come up with any consensus. That is the argument he has been using all along. If that consensus is, in fact, reached, even beyond the requirements of his press conference of yesterday, then would he not accept again to go to the bargaining table and try to reach a consensus among Canadians?
I now ask about positive action. In view of the amendment moved in the Senate yesterday, whereby the charter would apply equally to men and women, has the Prime Minister instructed his government House leader and his supporters in the other place to support that amendment expeditiously?


Mr. Broadbent:: What hypocrisy! Speed it up for them.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I am very happy to accept that suggestion and to state quite unequivocally that, if the House leaders of the other parties would agree with ours, then we will instruct the Senate to accept this amendment on women. We will instruct them to accept an amendment which has been negotiated on aboriginal rights.


Mr. Stevens:: How about property rights?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We would let these amendments pass in the Senate and in this House, if we can all agree to do that within the next few days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 27, 1981


POSSIBLE EXPORT OF OIL TO JAPAN
Mr. Ray Skelly (Comox-Powell River):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. It pertains to an announcement that five months ago the Japanese put together a consortium of the five largest shipbuilding companies in Japan to build the world's largest ice-breaking oil tanker-they are not LNG tankers, they are oil tankers. The intention is to use those tankers to carry oil from the Beaufort Sea in Canada's Arctic. Would the minister state categorically in this House that the government has not made a deal, or given an understanding, that there will be an export of Arctic oil to Japan?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, very definitely there is no such deal. There has never been any conversation along those lines. Canada is an oil importer, not an oil exporter.
The time when Canada would have a surplus of oil to export would be the time for the National Energy Board and the government to decide if exports should be authorized, and to which countries.
I can assure the hon. member that there has never been any indication to Japan that they could count on the import of oil from Canada's Beaufort Sea. On the contrary, I had meetings with a number of Japanese ministers when they visited Ottawa from time to time, and I went out of my way to make it clear that in the foreseeable future Canada was not in a position to consider exports of oil from the Beaufort Sea or the offshore.


ASSURANCES SOUGHT RESPECTING USE OF CANADIAN SHIPS
Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the question which then arises is that the Japanese appear to be spending hundreds of millions of dollars and have the designs in place to carry out this work. They have targeted the Beaufort Sea and the Arctic as the locations in which these ships will work. Dome Petroleum has a financing agreement in one phase of it which apparently allows the Japanese a quarter of the oil there. Would the minister categorically indicate that the ships used to exploit and transport Arctic resources and offshore resources will be Canadian ships, built in Canada and operated by Canadian crews?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, that would certainly be my hope. However, this would again be a matter which would have to be examined in terms of the competitive bidding and also the ability of our shipyards to build the kind of ships which are required. The ability of our shipyards to build the size of ships which are required must be examined. The size of ships which are involved are very large ones indeed. We will have to see whether our shipyards, taking into account all the orders that are expected to go to our shipyards with offshore development, etc., will be in a position to handle this kind of order.
Oral Questions
Indeed, Bill C-48, which is before the parliamentary committee at the present time, indicates that we certainly hope that arrangements would be made with developers to ensure that the Canadian people and Canadian business would be in a position to compete on very favourable terms with any foreign bidders in this regard.


Raymond John Skelly: Madam Speaker, the Japanese are about seven years ahead of where we are in building this equipment. We are so slow to move. Bill C-48 is so weak in the Canadian content provisions that you could drive a truck through it-


An hon. Member:: You could drive a tanker through it.


Raymond John Skelly: All humour aside, the provisions are extremely weak and the Japanese are very far ahead. I think the minister should stop playing dog in the manger here. We must either tell the Canadian people-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member put his question?


Raymond John Skelly: The government should be prepared to tell the Canadian people that either the Japanese will build that equipment or tell them clearly, and Dome Petroleum, that Canadians will build that equipment, and that no more of the equipment will go offshore, and that the Japanese may as well stop their production.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, the Japanese business community has been very active since the end of the war in many fields. The hon. member is aware of this. Rather than complain about the initiative of the Japanese, we in Canada ought to encourage Canadian business to show the same type of initiative and dynamism which has been shown by business communities in other countries. This is what the government is trying to do under the leadership of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As far as the question raised by the hon. member is concerned, I would like to remind him that, while he complains that the provisions of Bill C-48 are inadequate, in effect it is those very provisions which have given rise to protests from members of the OECD countries. On the contrary, those countries are protesting to the effect that the measures we are proposing in this respect are going too far. We have been the ones to defend those provisions in the international community by saying what was required for Canada.
Far from being found weak or inadequate, those provisions are viewed as severe by Canada's allies and friends. Indeed, we have had to fight in the international community to defend those provisions. I hope we will get the support of the hon. member in the committee in order to have those provisions passed by this Parliament soon.

March 27, 1981
8690____________________________________
Oral Questions EXTERNAL AFFAIRS


POLAND-RESPONSE BY NATO COUNTRIES TO THREAT OF RUSSIAN INTERVENTION
Hon. Flora MacDonald (Kingston and the Islands):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. He will remember that on Monday I asked him if it was the government's intention to meet with other member countries of the NATO alliance to formulate a western alliance response to the growing threat of Soviet intervention in Poland. At that time the minister dismissed the need for any talks by the NATO countries, but I am sure that even the minister would have to admit that the threat to Poland from Soviet intervention is growing daily.
[DOT] (U40)
Given the concern that is being expressed now in western European capitals and in the United States, and given the statement yesterday out of Moscow that the U.S.S.R. will not tolerate chaos in Poland, I should like to ask if he has since been in touch with his NATO counterparts and what action the Canadian government is contemplating, or is he just going to remain silent in the face of this grave threat by the Soviet Union to Poland and to world peace?


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, it is certainly common ground between us and, I think, in all of the western world, that the situation in Poland is serious and is of great concern to all of us. But surely the hon. member realizes that the solution to the problem is not for some dramatic action by the western powers which could be interpreted to be the very kind of intervention that we are telling the Soviet Union it does not have the right to engage in. This is a matter for the Poles to solve, not for the rest of the world to solve. That has been our consistent position. This is a Polish problem, and we want all countries in the world to keep their hands off Poland.


ACTION TAKEN BY CANADA
Flora Isabel MacDonald: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the minister is with regard to the threat to Poland from the Soviet Union, not within Poland itself. Surely he will have seen reports yesterday that the Soviet-led Warsaw Pact manoeuvres in Poland, which were to have concluded yesterday, have now been extended indefinitely. He will have heard the report, I am sure, that Moscow has said it will not tolerate chaos in Poland and reported this week that Polish and Soviet soldiers were capable of issuing a suitable rebuff to hostile ideological diversions.
Given that kind of threat to Poland and given the statement by the minister in December that his government's policy is clearly one that there will be a strong and appropriate reaction to any intensification of the crisis with respect to Poland, I should like to ask the minister what that reaction is? What is he prepared to do? Is he prepared to try to work out some kind of collective action with the other members of NATO, or will
he remain silent, as he seems to be doing? Will he just take no action in this regard? Will he not understand the gravity of the situation?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, as I said, this is a matter of great concern to all of us. We are in touch all the time, through NATO, with all of our partners in the western alliance. I want to assure the House and tell the hon. member that this government puts the peace of the world and the freedom of the Polish nation ahead of political posturing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of the Environment. In view of the fact that the Canada-U.S. memorandum of intent on acid rain, signed in Washington last summer, committed both countries to enforcing vigorously existing environmental laws, does the minister interpret that commitment to mean that the Reagan administration is not now free to weaken substantially environmental laws to control acid rain-causing emissions?


Hon. John Roberts (Minister of State for Science and Technology and Minister of the Environment):: Madam Speaker, I am not sure if I exactly seized the intention of the question. It is true that we are pressing ahead vigorously with the United States to conclude an international agreement on trans-boundary air quality. Those negotiations are proceeding on track. We expect and the United States expects to begin the formal stage of those negotiations early this summer or late this spring.
I shall be in Washington on Monday to meet with the Secretary of the Interior to explore with him the American views in relation to that agreement as well as in relation to the Clean Air Act and other environmental matters. We intend to maintain that pace. There is as yet no indication that the United States wishes to withdraw it, if I understood the question correctly, and if the hon. member is asking whether we feel that the United States will not be held to previous agreements. There is no indication that they wish to escape from such agreements.


ANNOUNCEMENT OF ACTION BY UNITED STATES ADMINISTRATION
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, I have a supplementary question for the Minister of the Environment. The Reagan administration has made it clear this week that it plans to weaken, quite substantially, the U.S.
March 27, 1981

Clean Air Act relating to acid rain control. In view of the fact that the memorandum of intent, signed between the two countries last summer, committed both countries to enforcing existing environmental regulations vigorously pending completion of a more formal accord, does the minister not view those actions as a breach of the spirit if not the letter of the memorandum of intent signed by the two countries last summer?


John (Moody) Roberts: Madam Speaker, I do not think that the assumption which underlies the hon. member's question is accurate. There have been some press reports of a desire to separate consideration of the Clean Air Act proposals from the acid rain agreement proposals. Whether that is in fact the intention of the United States administration, and whether there are moves to do that in Congress, are things that I hope will become clear to me in the course of my discussions on Monday. Neither is it yet clear, even if such an action were to be taken, whether such action would make it more difficult or would be helpful in terms of the acid rain discussions.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, I should like to address some questions to the Minister of Agriculture regarding the administration of federal payments to farmers. As the minister knows, the value of these payments, particularly in periods when interest rates are as high as they have been, is of most use when they are made promptly. This has been a problem for the department on a couple of occasions. The program that I want to mention first is the hog stabilization program which was announced last May. In November the minister said that the payments would be out before Christmas. A number of producers still have not received payment. Will the payments be completed by March 31 and, if not, how many will still be outstanding at the end of this fiscal year?


Hon. E. F. Whelan (Minister of Agriculture):: Madam Speaker, as of March 20, 1981, 26,871 applications had been received; 25,630 had been processed and paid. To date, payments have amounted to nearly $40 million under that program.
We are still receiving applications from producers from different parts of Canada, as many as 200 per month. They did not all come in last May, they were coming in by several hundreds or several thousands each month. As late as December there were 500 new applications. It takes time to process these to make sure that they conform to the guidelines put forward by the comptroller and the auditor general.
Some of the receipts that farmers produce and some of their bookkeeping leave a lot to be desired. If the hon. member has
Oral Questions
any influence with them he could suggest that they should not write illegible receipts on the back of match boxes and expect the stabilization people to make payment on that kind of document. This leaves a lot to be desired and has made things difficult.
Some of the payments to producers have been as much as $20,000. We have to be doubly sure what we are paying. We recognize that there is inconvenience to some farmers because of the high interest rates and their need for the money, but we have to be doubly sure that we are spending taxpayers' dollars in a proper fashion.


HERD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-REQUESTS FOR RETURN OF PAYMENTS
Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: Madam Speaker, I would remind the hon. minister that most hogs are sold through computer sales techniques under marketing boards. The tapes were available to the government and it could have requested them. That would have helped handle the bulk of the program.
My follow-up question should probably be addressed to the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion, but the Minister of Agriculture is also partly responsible for the herd maintenance program on the prairies. It has also had its share of administrative problems, first in determining who should receive payments, then who should be rejected, and finally, the newest wrinkle, which of the people who have received cheques should be asked to return them. How many producers have been advised that they should return their cheques, and for what reasons?


Eugene Whelan: Madam Speaker, in reply to some of the comments that the hon. member has made, I am sure he is aware that payments to piglet operators do not go through computers. This is where we had some of the greatest difficulty. There are also sales between producers and the small entrepreneurs in the slaughtering business, etc., who do not use the big computer system. The provinces do not all use the same system for keeping records and this makes things difficult. No payment has been made on hogs for ten years but we know a payment will have to be made for the year 1980. This will be easier because the system will be much better.
The hon. member talked about the payments under the herd maintenance program. From the applications which have been received, I believe 23,000 farmers have been paid. Criteria have been set down, and they are adhering to the criteria as closely as possible.
The hon. member also asked how many people who were improperly paid and have been requested to return the cheques. If I understand the figures correctly which were given to me, around 100 farmers in Manitoba and Saskatchewan have done so. I do not have the exact figures in front of me,

March 27, 1981
Oral Questions
but under that program we have already paid out around $40 million to farmers.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Alexandre Cyr (Gaspe):: Madam Speaker, I should like to ask the right hon. Prime Minister whether it is his intention to order a separate reprint of the Debates of March 23 with a view to sending to all provincial premiers, to the leaders of the provincial political parties, and particularly to the members of Parliament of Her Majesty the Queen in London a copy of the speech he delivered in this House on the patriation of the Constitution.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, I will be very pleased to consider the excellent suggestion of the hon. member. Perhaps we might all agree to make sure that the speeches on the same subject made by the Leader of the Official Opposition and the Leader of the New Democratic Party will be printed at the same time at the expense of the Crown. We could then send them to all the people mentioned by the hon. member.


NATIONAL DEFENCE
Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Defence. It concerns recent press reports that pressure from the Quebec liberal caucus has caused bidding to be reopened on the contracts for the F-18 fighter because there would be little work for Quebec and all bids had come from Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. As Quebec has been promised $1.5 billion worth of work on the F-18 by the Liberals, the rules will change to allow an unsolicited bid from Canadair, a Quebec-based Crown corporation. Can the minister inform the House if these allegations are correct? If so, what is the point of calling for bids if, six months later, the bidding is reopened to accommodate partisan political practice, in other words, pork-barrelling?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, I think it is well known to all members of this House which were the commitments made when we chose the F-18 aircraft about a year ago. The bidding has been going normally. Nothing has been changed on the international principle of the bidding. Actually, the management of the contract itself is done by the Department of Supply and Services or the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce.
As far as I am concerned, nothing either illegal or erroneous has been done.


Mr. Crosbie:: Answer the question.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, if the minister alleges that the bids have not been reopened, what is the reason for the delays which constitute a loss of work for Canadian plants?


Mr. Lamontagne:: Madam Speaker, I would suggest that the hon. member ask McDonnell Douglas about the delays if any.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: They are not in the House. Let's ask Herbie Gray.


FISHERIES
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the hon. Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. At the present time the size of scallops is smaller than usual being caught on Georges Bank. This has resulted in fisheries officers carrying out a survey of landings and some eleven ships have been found to have scallops of a size below the present legal limit.
In light of the resulting controversy, will the minister consider decreasing the catch limit per trip from 30,000 pounds to
20,000	pounds? At the same time, will he consider increasing the scallop count per pound from 40 to 50 pounds in the hope of stabilizing this section of the Canadian fishing industry? Also with the minister make proposals to his U.S. counterpart to the effect that the United States consider taking similar actions on Georges Bank?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, we have known for some time that the scallops stocks were under heavy pressure. This is not only related to what we consider heavier than usual fishing on the part of U.S. fishermen. Biologists have been warning us about this for some years.
However, the possibility of a breakdown of conversation, attitudes and measures, would obviously significantly increase the problems of all fishermen, Canadian and American.
In the conversations we had with Secretary Baldrige when he was here we tried to develop a conservation plan for all Fishermen from both countries.
As to the suggestion from the hon. member, we have been meeting with the fishermen and processors in the area. We will be looking at the recommendations which they have made to us, with an open mind, and I hope that I will be able to announce some changes in the days to come.

March 27, 1981


DECLINE IN CATCH OF INSHORE LOBSTERS
Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, in the same area, fishermen along the south shore of Nova Scotia are complaining about the decline in their lobster catches. They are blaming some of the decline on the larger boats using larger traps, that is, fishing trawls with 20 traps on a line, in deep water on the offshore banks where the catch has been heavy with what we call seeded or berried lobsters.
Is the minister aware of these facts, and will he consider carrying out biological studies to determine whether the heavy offshore catches are affecting the inshore stocks?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could add one phrase to my previous answer before answering this second question. The Canadian catch of scallops this year has shown a significant increase over last year.
On the hon. member's second question, the problem is a long-standing one. Scientific opinion now is that there is an effect on the inshore lobster fishery more directly linked than we had assumed in the past. We are looking at more restrictive measures. This is part of the balance of trying to find a fair and equitable distribution of the benefits between the interests of two competing groups of fishermen.


CIVIL RIGHTS
Mr. Svend J. Robinson (Burnaby):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Solicitor General. As the minister knows, the government of Quebec recently amended its provincial elections act to permit prisoners the right to vote. Despite the fact that some 3,000 prisoners in provincial institutions are being granted this right to vote, 2,000 prisoners in federal institutions are being arbitrarily denied this fundamental democratic right by the minister, on administrative grounds.
In view of the fact that imprisonment involves the loss of liberty, but surely not the loss of all other fundamental civil rights, will the minister reconsider this decision and permit federal prisoners in Quebec to exercise the franchise extended to them by provincial legislation and not subvert the will of the Quebec provincial legislature, allowing these prisoners the right to vote in the upcoming Quebec election?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Solicitor General):: Madam Speaker, in this matter there is a problem of order and security in the institutions.


John Carnell Crosbie: Free them for the day.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: It is quite right that it is a matter for the province to determine. However, we were able to permit the officials of the government of Quebec to conduct the referendum in the prisons, but conducting a referendum is much less
Oral Questions
complicated than conducting a full election. Votes go many hundreds of miles from prisons to polling booths around the province. Candidates also hundreds of miles away have the right to access to individuals in prisons.
I do not mean to indicate to the provinces that we would never allow elections to be conducted in federal institutions, although it is a fact that no other province or the federal government gives the right to these people to vote in their elections. I am anxious to see whether the problems of inmates' privacy, order in the prisons and security can be successfully dealt with in one case in this country, that is, the conduct of this Quebec election in Quebec provincial institutions. If all of the problems which I have indicated-and there are others which I cannot describe in the format of the Question Period-can be met and dealt with satisfactorily, we would in the future be prepared, as we were in the referendum, to allow federal institutions to accommodate provincial election machinery.


REASONS FOR POSITION TAKEN BY GOVERNMENT
Svend Johannes Robinson: Madam Speaker, naturally it is rather interesting to note that somehow order and security can be maintained in provincial institutions but not in the federal institutions.
The minister agreed at a recent session of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution that the proposed charter of rights may very well extend the right to vote to all prisoners at both the provincial and federal level. Why is the government now, naturally with the support and encouragement of the Quebec Liberal leader, Claude Ryan-and it is not surprising in view of the 80 per cent result in favour of the PQ position in the referendum campaign last fall-denying this fundamental right to vote to prisoners, and very likely violating its own charter of rights and freedoms?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, when the hon. member says that matters of order and security do not seem to arise in the case of the provincial institutions in the province of Quebec, he is taking quite a lot for granted. The vote has not yet been held. There are a lot of problems still to be resolved. I do not know whether those institutions will be able to conduct fair elections consistent with order and security. Even if they do, the institutions for which Canada is responsible tend to contain more dangerous and violent offenders because they have been sentenced to two years before we get them, whereas in the provinces there are often people who have just been sentenced to 30 days. It is a totally different problem.
As to whether the right to vote is accorded by the charter of rights and freedoms to inmates, I speculated in front of the committee that it might. I do not know how a court will interpret, whether it is reasonable, as our Elections Act provides, to withhold the right to vote from inmates. I indicated it would be a matter for the court to decide. Certainly if the
8694

March 27, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
court did decide that inmates should have the right to vote, we would proceed in the way we are proceeding now. Because Quebec made that decision we will try to accommodate that decision as best we can.


ROYAL CANADIAN MOUNTED POLICE
Mr. A1 MacBain (Niagara Falls):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Solicitor General. It deals with the RCMP negotiating contracts, particularly with the municipalities, and the extra cost that will result to municipalities as a result of bringing the RCMP fee for service into line. I do not necessarily ask the Solicitor General that they stop proceeding in that manner, but will he consider phasing in those additional costs over a period of, for example, four to six years? As a former municipal alderman I can tell hon. members that any big budget item that changes drastically in any one year upsets municipal financing.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, Canada has provided the services of the RCMP to provinces and municipalities for almost 70 years. The contracts, which expire every five or ten years, will expire at the end of this month. I have begun a process of negotiating with my provincial counterparts, who not only speak for the provinces but who represent the municipalities as well. I think we have resolved virtually all questions except the financial question. I indicated last week that I was prepared to discuss a generous phasing-in arrangement for municipalities, but not because the offer we made is unfair.
I think the offer we have made will still give them cheaper police service than they would have, for example, if they chose to establish independent police forces. Recognizing that the increase is substantial, I am prepared to discuss with them a phase-in proposal. I am only waiting now for my counterparts to agree to some date. I would be ready to meet them tomorrow or at any time, at any place in Canada, in order to try to settle these financial arrangements as quickly as possible.


POINT OF ORDER
Madam Speaker:: Yesterday the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) raised a point of order to the effect that the House cannot debate the motion of the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) since, in his opinion, the matter is presently sub judice.
I listened to his arguments and I promised that I would rule narrowly on the basis of the arguments he presented in the House. In his argument he quoted Citation 338(4) of Beauchesne's fifth edition, which I need not repeat here. I should point out, however, that this citation deals with bills referred to the Supreme Court of Canada-bills, I repeat-and not with motions.
Sub judice is a convention which is "a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interests of justice and fair play", as stated in Citation 335 of Beauchesne's fifth edition. I have not been persuaded by the particular argument brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition which he offered in his presentation yesterday, namely, that the House cannot debate that motion because the matter has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.


MR. CLARK-NOTICE OF INTENTION TO RAISE POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a very brief point of order. As I indicated yesterday, and as the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) again invited me to pursue today, there is a second point of order on this question which I wish to pursue after any questions of privilege that might be before the House are heard. I will be pursuing that matter because it does not deal with the questions that have been covered by your judgment.


Madam Speaker:: I will take that as notice. I want to remind hon. members of what took place in the House last night. I remind them that points of order have to be pertinent to the matter before the House. The only reason I could accept the point of order of the Leader of the Opposition yesterday was that it flowed from the deliberations of the House yesterday. If that is the case again today, of course, I will be able to hear his point of order. I would hear it now, but I understand the Leader of the Opposition defers to the other questions of privilege.


Charles Joseph Clark: Yes, Madam Speaker.


PRIVILEGE
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege, as I mentioned yesterday, relates to answers given to me by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources (Mr. Lalonde) to a question I posed on Wednesday and other questions relating to the National Energy Program and drilling activity by oil drilling companies in this country, questions dating back to December and January earlier in this session.
On each occasion that I put questions relating to the expectations of the energy program, the minister repeatedly stated that we were taking a very gloomy view of the effects of the National Energy Program. He said our fears were unfounded. On a number of occasions he used the words "doom and gloom". We on this side, as well as members of the drilling
March 27, 1981

industry and the oil industry itself, have been trying to draw attention to the shortcomings of this program and the very serious dangers it will have for Canada.
The minister continually contradicted me in answers to questions that I asked in this House. I want to make specific reference to the questions and relate them to the answer he gave me on Wednesday where he clearly reversed himself. He indicated that he knew all along that the caution we were expressing and the dangers we were drawing attention to in the energy program existed, but he continually cast these aside. It was clearly an attempt to force the legislation through before these dangers became readily apparent.
I want to draw specific attention to the contradiction in what he-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I am sorry to interrupt the hon. member but I would like a bit of silence in the chamber if that is at all possible. It is very difficult for the Chair to follow the hon. member who has the floor.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Thank you very much, Madam Speaker. I was saying that the minister had clearly reversed himself. In so doing, I believe he has misled the House. I will show in the references to the answers he gave to me on a number of occasions how he clearly misled the House.
I take to heart the caution that Your Honour stressed to me on Wednesday, that this must not be a dispute between two members, but that we must be looking at a clear change in the direction that the minister has taken, stating one thing on one occasion and something else which is diametrically opposed on another occasion.
I think it is important that he accurately portray his judgment on the impact of the NEP because it is such a far-reaching policy. We are in the middle of deliberations before two committees and I understand there will be further legislation brought in. If we are unable to get an accurate judgment from the minister, it makes it very difficult to judge the merit of the legislation before us. The impact on Canada is tremendous and far-reaching, and will be so for decades ahead.
On Wednesday I asked the minister about the decline in drilling activity announced in Oilweek, which he said he has specifically referred to as his main guide on drilling activities, and I pointed out that the latest issue stated there was a drop from 480 wells last year to 467 this year. I subsequently received an edition showing the number has dropped even further.
The minister responded to my question on page 8598 of Hansard, March 25, 1981, where he said:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member is confirming that he and his colleagues on the other side are certainly very slow readers if they only discovered in the last few weeks that there would be a decline in the activity of rigs in Canada.
Well, Madam Speaker, we have been trying to get the minister to comment on this expected decline because we have
Privilege-Mr. Wilson
been calling for one, and it is only now that he acknowledges he knew there would be a decline. He continued:
As a matter of fact the drilling contractors association said, before the budget and the National Energy Program were announced, it was predicting a 30 per cent decline in drilling activity this year due to a surplus of natural gas in this country and an over-building of drilling rigs in Canada in the last three years. This was announced and published by the drilling contractors association quite independently of the National Energy Program in the October 28 budget.
Clearly he is saying to the House he has been aware of this decline for some time and he implies he was aware prior to the October 28 budget embodying the NEP. On January 12, 1981, at page 6079 of Hansard in reply to my question he said:
Madam Speaker, supposedly the hon. member is comparing the figures for last year and this. The hon. member knows that quite frequently in winter there are fewer drilling rigs operating than during the rest of the year.
Clearly his information was wrong; drilling activities are higher in the winter, and we drew that fact to his attention. But then he goes on to point out the difference in drilling activity in 1980 and 1981, and draws the very clear conclusion that drilling rig activity is very healthy. He says there has been no decline and implies it will continue to be strong for the balance of this year.
On January 28, at page 6644 of Hansard, in answer to a question from my colleague the hon. member for Assiniboia (Mr. Gustafson), he said:
Madam Speaker, the hon. member contends that oil rigs are leaving the country. As of the last count by Oilweek magazine, 36 more rigs are in operation-
Then he goes on to say:
So the gloom and doom picture which the hon. member is trying to paint does not seem to be supported by the facts.
Clearly he again implies everything is healthy in the industry.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is obviously debating the question. I have to remind him that not being satisfied with an answer, for whatever reason, does not constitute the basis for a question of privilege. I would ask him to try to come to terms with what he feels is the question of privilege so that I can make my determination.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the clear question of privilege that I am trying to develop for you is that the minister has misled the House by his answers in December and January; I have other examples to give you. The question of privilege involves the question whether he was mistaken or had misjudged that information, or he was deliberately misleading the House. That is the question of privilege you must respond to.
I wish to give further examples-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I really do not need further examples. If the minister has given the hon. member an incomplete, unsatisfactory, misleading or, for that matter, even a mistaken answer, that is for the minister to live with; it is not for the Chair to determine whether that is so. The Chair cannot make a judgment on the quality of the answer, and what the hon. member is doing now is debating the points on which he disagrees with the minister. That does not constitute a question

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Wilson
of privilege. If that is the basis for his question, I would ask the hon. member to conclude in a few sentences so I may rule.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, the basis for the question of privilege is that the answer he gave on Wednesday last is diametrically opposed to those given previously, and I have five different references to make. He is misleading the House, and I think the question is in the context of whether the minister has been deliberately misleading the House. I would like to give specific references apart from those I have just given you.
On October 29, the day after the NEP was announced, we pressed the minister as to his expectations of its impact and he said, as reported at page 4210 of Hansard:
-we on this side of the House will not subscribe to the gloom and doom predictions of the hon. member or his colleagues on that side. As far as we are concerned, the energy program which has been put forward is one that is good for the industry, good for the producing provinces, good for the consumer-
And so on. As reported on page 4884 of Hansard, in response to my question, he said that the energy program is:
-quite normal and I am quite confident this will work out to the satisfaction of everyone.
Clearly it is not.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is a very logical person and I am sure he realizes he is now debating the question. The minister expresses an opinion that something is going well and the hon. member disagrees. This is obviously a matter of divergence of opinion on a particular government program and does not constitute the basis for a question of privilege. If the hon. member feels that the minister has deliberately misled the House, he has to come forward with that very serioua charge and only under those circumstances will I be able to pursue this matter.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, you say I am a very logical person. I am, and my logic was clearly offended on Wednesday last by the minister's response. It was clearly opposite to what he has been saying in this House for six months. It is on that basis that I am putting the question to Your Honour as to whether Your Honour feels that the minister was mistaken or was deliberately misleading the House. That is the question I put to Your Honour. I believe it is supported by the facts.
I have one other reference. It is taken from the speech which the minister made when presenting Bill C-48, the proposed Canada oil and gas act, to the House. He referred to the National Energy Program and said:
We did so with a determination unmatched by any previous federal government, and we believe we have found a solid way in which to build our energy house.
A solid way to build our energy house, and at the same time drilling rigs are leaving the country. The minister tells us that drilling activity will increase, but we know that has turned around. It will decrease. It will decrease further by the end of the year. The minister is now admitting that he knew this
earlier on in October prior to the announcement of the National Energy Program.
How can we as members of this House deliberate on the three pieces of legislation which are before us or are expected to be before us in the next little while? This legislation will have a very serious impact on the energy future of this country. There have clearly been contradictory statements by the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. We have to rely on the judgment of the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources in a number of ways in coming to the conclusions that we as Members of Parliament must come to in considering these pieces of legislation.
In my judgment the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has misled the House. That is clear from the statement he made in answer to me on Wednesday. I have pointed out five different illustrations in statements he has made in the House in the last six months which clearly contradict what he said to me on Wednesday. I say that he has done so at a very crucial time in the development of the energy policy of this country. We are considering this energy policy at a very critical time. The cost to this country is very high. That is why I say this is a serious point for Your Honour to consider.
If Your Honour believes that the allegation I have made today on this question of privilege is well founded, I would be prepared to move the appropriate motion to have the matter referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: I must give the hon. minister a chance to reply.


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I will be extremely brief. I think it is quite obvious that this is another in a series of spurious questions of privilege and points of order the official opposition has raised. The official opposition is quite clearly obstructing the work of the House. It has been doing it for days and intends to go on doing it. I think the people of Canada clearly see through this. The allegations of the hon. member are clearly unfounded. His own argument shows that. Every time I was asked about drilling activity I answered using statistics provided by Oilweek magazine.
I confess to having misled the hon. member yesterday but, indeed, it was unintentional. In my answer I said that the drilling contractors' association had forecast a decline of 30 per cent in drilling activity this year. I apologize to the hon. member for having misled him. On October 16 the Association of Oilwell Drilling Contractors made the declaration that that association expected the use of drilling rigs in Canada to drop to 59 per cent of available capacity over the next 15 months from full utilization in 1980. That was two weeks before the budget and the NEP were introduced. That forecast was made completely independently of the NEP and the budget. So I apologize to the hon. member for having told him that the decline expected by the industry, independently of the NEP,
March 27, 1981

was 30 per cent. I apologize. The decline forecast was 41 per cent.


Madam Speaker:: The logic I was asking the hon. member to use was that which should have applied to what he knows is the foundation of the question of privilege. If he feels that the minister has given him answers which offend his logic, that is another matter. It is a matter of debate and of divergence of opinions with regard to what I recognize to be a very serious question, but it certainly is not a question of privilege.


MR. BAKER (NEPEAN-CARLETON)-USE OF PUBLIC FUNDS TO ASSIST POLITICAL PARTIES
Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege. The issue in this question of privilege is the probability that public funds have been used to support one political party only.
I will be referring to judgments of Your Honour's predecessor, Mr. Speaker Jerome, during the period of time in which our government was in office, and certain quotations from members of the New Democratic Party and members of the Liberal Party about the impropriety of using public funds and resources where caucus research funds should be used.
The case arises out of a news report in this morning's Globe and Mail which I am going to read, in part in any event, to frame the case.


Mr. Collenette:: "Frame" is the right word.


Walter David Baker: The report is datelined Ottawa and reads as follows:
It's a rather embarrassing coincidence, but it appears that New Democratic Party leader Edward Broadbent and Liberal Justice Minister Jean Chretien have the same ghostwriter.
The evidence turns up in a study paper Mr. Broadbent sent to British Labour Party MPs a month ago commenting on an internal Labour Party document, Canada and the Constitutional Question.
The story is referring to the contribution of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). He is described as "Mr. Broadbent" in the article.
Mr. Broadbent's contribution, entitled Comments by the Office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada, contains several long passages-
This the point, "several long passages".


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I do not object to the Conservative Party's engaging in a filibuster, but I think hon. members opposite should observe the rules. As Your Honour knows, hon. members cannot refer to other hon. members by their proper names.


An hon. Member:: He was quoting.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, a few days ago-perhaps it was last week-I drew the attention of the Chair to the fact that even when such language is used indirectly in quotations, it is clearly out of order. One cannot do indirectly what cannot be done in the House. I ask Your Honour to caution the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that he cannot refer to members
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
of this House by their proper names. He must refer to them by their party designation, their ministerial designation or their constituency name.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am aware that there has been a conflict for some time on that particular point. Because it has been raised by my friend-and I have great respect for his helpful attitude and helpful interventions in relation to the rules, and this is one of them-I want to lay out why I believe it is appropriate for me to proceed in the way I did.
As all hon. members know, when a member completes an argument to the Chair, the Hansard messengers ask for all the notes and documents referred to by hon. members so that those items can guide Hansard in producing an accurate record. While it is inappropriate for me to identify an hon. member by his name in any other context, in order that Hansard will depict precisely what did occur on the floor of the House of Commons, I believe it is appropriate in those circumstances-when I am quoting from a document-to quote the words precisely.


Mr. McGrath:: The Prime Minister does it all the time.


Walter David Baker: It is inappropriate, of course, for me to do it in any other way, I suggest with respect. Cognizant of the issue which has developed, you will note, Madam Speaker, that when I tried to deal with the matter I identified the hon. gentleman by his constituency and then proceeded to read the quotation and refer to his name. I know there is a difficulty there, but I think it is one which perhaps the House would want to clear up.
I would have no objection to having this matter argued, since it has been raised by the parliamentary secretary in his usual helpful way, but I do reserve the right to complete my question of privilege. Your Honour may be prepared to rule on the matter now, but I hope we can expedite the proceedings of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -by your allowing us to continue with my question of privilege. I am in your hands, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: There is a considerable divergence of views as to the time when a member can be referred to by his proper name, whether a member, in the course of reading a quotation, can refer to another member by his proper name rather than by the name of his constituency. I tend to think that when a member is quoting, he might be allowed to quote the article as it is written, and if the name of a member appears in a quotation, it would be acceptable to read it that way since it is in the body of the quotation. Also, if the name of a member is used as a reference, such as, for instance, the MacEachen budget-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Or the Trudeau disaster.

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Madam Speaker:: -or the Trudeau plan, or something of that nature, I would tend to think it is acceptable. However, there is considerable controversy about this and I am researching the matter. I will rule on it when I am ready to rule, but for the time being I would ask the hon. member to respect the parliamentary secretary's sensitivities and refer to the hon. member, when possible, by the name of his constituency. For instance, when quoting, he might have said "the hon. member for Oshawa's contribution", etc.


Walter David Baker: I have read the precedents, and, as a matter of fact, I have had an opportunity to discuss this matter informally with the government House leader. I know the hon. member for York East, the Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette), is interested in this matter and I will do my best to abide within what I guess is a temporary ruling until the research has been carried out. I am sure Your Honour was not considering adjourning the House while this research is being carried out. No, I did not think so.
I should like to go back to the argument and identify it for Your Honour. It is a report in The Globe and Mail of today, March 27, 1981. I will not read what I read prior to the intervention by the parliamentary secretary, for which I thank him, but I will carry on reading the quotation referring to the hon. member for Oshawa, the Leader of the NDP. It is as follows:
Mr. Broadbent's contribution entitled Comments by the Office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party of Canada contains several long passages that turned up again verbatim three days ago when Mr. Chretien tabled an official government reply to the report of the British Parliament's foreign affairs committee, headed by Sir Anthony Kershaw.
The article continues:
Both Mr. Broadbent's and Mr. Chretien's papers use the same examples and arguments to explain British convention in dealing with the requests from the Canadian Parliament and use nearly identical words to describe their respective interpretations of last September's first ministers' conference:
At this point there is a quotation in the article, which I point out for identification by Hansard reporters. It reads:
"Some premiers accepted some of the Prime Minister's proposals, the Prime Minister accepted some of the premiers' proposals, some premiers rejected the proposals of other premiers and some premiers rejected some proposals of the Prime Minister. When a summary of the position of all first ministers on each of the 12 items was made, it became clear that there was not unanimous consent on any of the 12 items, but, as explained above, the reasons for this lack of consensus were many and varied, and blame for the failure to reach consensus cannot be assigned to any single individual."
The only difference is in the last sentence. Everything else in what has been described as the Chretien paper is exactly the same as what has been described as the Broadbent paper. The only difference-I have to point this out in fairness-is the following:
(The Chretien document closes by saying " ... blame cannot be assigned to anyone").
I should just like to contrast the position taken by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), when he deals with the British, with the position taken by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) today in the House of Commons respecting his
attitude toward provincial premiers. It is interesting that the argument when the emissaries, the ambassadors, go off to talk to the foreign government differs from the argument used here in the House of Commons. I know the hon. member for Gatineau (Mr. Cousineau) is blushing at that kind of inconsistency on the part of his leader.
I should like to go on quoting from the article in The Globe and Mail. The following does not appear in quotes, let me point out for the benefit of the Hansard reporters:
As well, Mr. Broadbent goes on to defend a government memo detailing federal strategy that was leaked during the September conference by noting that "the object of the memorandum was to suggest how best to achieve consensus on as many of the 12 items as possible".
We all know what that memorandum is. It is the memorandum to which that constitutional giant, the hon. member for Oshawa, the Leader of the NDP, referred, and that is the Kirby document, the "dirty tricks" document to which the leader of the NDP referred, in a submission to the British Parliament-he did not make it here-when he said its object was to achieve a consensus. We obviously know what the object of that document was. It becomes exceedingly important because allegations have been made-


An hon. Member:: What is your question of privilege?


Walter David Baker: -in Saskatchewan by a member of the Saskatchewan legislature that the NDP paper was written by a federal official, and there was a request made to the attorney general of Saskatchewan to investigate this matter, which is a matter-I hesitate to be unparliamentary- which borders on duplicity.
Madam Speaker, I intend to move a motion at the end of my remarks. The business of assistance given by governments to one political party and not to the other political parties in the House of Commons has been argued-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have difficulty because of the noise coming from the little red rump behind me; there seems to be great nervousness down there.
In any case, this issue has come up before in the House of Commons, the issue of the propriety of a government of any stripe giving aid to one political party and denying it to others, and what this does to the sense of fairness which ought to exist in terms of research facilities.


An hon. Member:: Tell us about the sense of fairness.


Walter David Baker: My friends ask me to tell them about it. I thank them for the invitation. I will tell them about it, naturally, because that is the issue.
I should like to refer to certain matters which occurred in the House of Commons, starting on November 5, 1979, with the comments of the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Rus-sell (Mr. Ethier). By the way, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell is not with us today because of illness, for
March 27, 1981

which all of us are sorry; he is a fine member. He sits in the chair from time to time and, therefore, he can speak with some authority on these matters. At that time he talked about the expenditure of public funds by the then minister of transport, the hon. member for Vegreville (Mr. Mazankowski), to produce a paper known as the Neil report on railway abandonment. It was a job well done.
Our government, perhaps unwittingly, provided public funds for the preparation of a report by a member of our party. Those funds went to one party of the House of Commons, but they were denied to the New Democratic Party and to the Liberal Party. On that occasion great umbrage was taken by the Liberal Party and the NDP at the impropriety of it. This is precisely what we could be led to believe is happening now, and I want to argue why that is the case.
In any event, as reported at page 940 of Hansard, when dealing with the propriety of the subject matter, the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said:
Moreover, the minister recognized that he had authorized the spending of public funds for the preparation and publication of a caucus committee report-
Today we are referring to a caucus committee report of the New Democratic Party. It stands in the name of the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party. I am sure it was prepared with the knowledge and consent of the House leader of the NDP. At least, it was prepared with the knowledge and consent of those members of the NDP who support the government in the constitutional matter; I cannot say whether or not it was prepared with the knowledge and consent of those members of the NDP who do not support the constitutional matter.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. How long is the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) permitted to indulge in this speech before establishing his question of privilege?


Madam Speaker:: I must say that I am having some difficulty in recognizing the question of privilege.


Mr. Chenier:: He does not know where he is going.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am going through the article quoted; I am trying to find the statement of the hon. member. He opened his remarks by indicating that he would discuss the use of public funds when caucus funds should have been used, but he has not referred to it often in his remarks. I am still waiting for the hon. member to discuss that matter.


Walter David Baker: I am coming to that, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Well, it has been a long time and the quotations have been lengthy. I ask the hon. member to come to the point more quickly.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am surprised at the interjection of the hon. member.


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


Walter David Baker: In any event, I think it is important Your Honour understands that the question of privilege is that it is improper for government funds to be used to support a single activity of an opposition caucus, according to the ruling of the Hon. James Jerome on December 10, 1979. This is my question of privilege.


Mr. Waddell:: Then sit down.


Walter David Baker: I am doing my best to develop my question of privilege, but I am being subjected to the catcalls of the New Democratic Party and the interruptions of its House leader who does not want to hear the truth.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: I will present my question of privilege as quickly as I can, but it is important to know what was said by members of the Liberal Party and the New Democratic Party which led to the judgment of the then Speaker of the House of Commons.
The following was said by the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell:
Moreover, the minister recognized that he had authorized the spending of public funds for the preparation and publication of a caucus committee report, as well as made use of government facilities such as telephones, news releases, contacts and what have you, not to mention the services of public service employees-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: We have already heard that.


Walter David Baker: At that time the hon. member for Glengarry-Prescott-Russell said that it was improper. This is the issue here. Then the member went on to deal with the matter by saying:
In specific terms, that group of five, that caucus committee, is really a political committee-
In that case he was referring to a "caucus committee"; in this case I am saying that there is no difference between a caucus committee and the entire caucus. He went on to say:
-a partisan committee. When we look up the word "caucus" in Harrap's dictionary, we find the definition "political clique". That is precisely what I mean when I say it may not and must not be financed by taxpayers' money.
It is up to the House, and ultimately the committee, to establish it; I just have to establish a prima facie case. Then he went on to say:
-proves that my question of privilege is well founded and that the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Wise) could be called upon to appear before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections to explain the propriety or legality, if you would rather, of those expenditures.
Then he complained because the document was in the course of translation and not available in French.
Then the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet), who was styled in the House at that time as the hon. member for Papineau, commented on the propriety of this procedure. All of us know that the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs understands the House of Commons and the Standing Orders. As reported at page 942 of Hansard, on the very point I am raising now, he said:

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
Mr. Speaker, on this very point, it was not too clear to me from your remarks whether you will be looking at the propriety of spending federal funds for caucus research activities. What is at stake here, and I think it is important that you give some guidance on this question, is whether a caucus of the government should carry out some research on its own with public funds.
The issue was whether a caucus of a government should finance and support research activities out of public funds. He went on to say:
It is totally appropriate that a caucus should carry out such research, but whether it should use public funds for that purpose is the question.
Then members of the New Democratic Party had something to say about the matter. The very courageous hon. member for Yorkton-Melville (Mr. Nystrom) had something to say about it and, in the course of his argument on that occasion, informed the House-


Mr. Blais:: Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order. The hon. gentleman just identified the principle upon which he wants to hang his hat. However, he has not yet advanced any fact upon which he could rely for the application of that particular principle.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: That is your interpretation; you are not the Speaker.


Jean-Jacques Blais: If he wants to identify the nature of the document to which he referred and indicate that the document has some sort of departmental origin which makes it not readily available, either under the freedom of information act, some other statute, or generally available to the Canadian public, he should so state.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, evidently the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) was out of the House or, as usual, was asleep when I identified the document. I said that the document was entitled: "Comments by the Office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party". As the minister well knows, there is no freedom of information legislation yet in place, but there is a very inferior bill now before the committee which this Parliament is doing its best to improve.
I want to deal with the comments made by the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville. This is what he said:
-we now have information on the Order Paper that the federal government paid with public funds for the printing of this report.
Here is the relevant part-it comes a little later:
My question of privilege is that as a member of the NDP I do not have the privilege of being a member of that committee,-
Madam Speaker, I ask you to include with the word "committee" the word "assistance".
-nor do members of the liberal party or members of the Social Credit party.
I am saying that, as a member of the opposition, I am raising the same complaint that the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville raised on December 7, 1979. The coincidence is unavoidable. I do not have the same access to funds, to
assistance and to help, to present my position as seems to have been given by the government to the New Democratic Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I must interrupt the hon. member, since he has now been speaking for over 20 minutes on this question of privilege and has not yet indicated any real basis for it. The evidence for his question of privilege, which is not clearly demonstrated, is based on a newspaper article. The hon. member knows that a newspaper article may be quoted in order to support an argument, but it is not sufficient evidence for me to find a prima facie case of privilege.
I suppose what the hon. member is saying is that he does not have the same access to certain documents-


Walter David Baker: No!


Madam Speaker:: -which would have helped him to prepare a position paper for his party-


Walter David Baker: No, you have got it wrong.


Madam Speaker:: I am repeating nearly word for word the last sentence of the hon. member. What I have to find out, and what the hon. member must tell me very clearly, is why the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) cannot quote from a document which has been tabled in the House by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien)-


Walter David Baker: Because it has not been tabled.


Madam Speaker:: -and why the Minister of Justice may not quote a document which might have been prepared by the hon. member for Oshawa or his party. I think that is a perfectly legitimate thing to do. One can quote the document if it is public, which is the case with the document of the minister; I do not know if the other document is public or not, but the minister might have knowledge of it.
The other argument the hon. member puts forward is that the document to which the hon. member for Oshawa allegedly has had access to was again allegedly written by an official. I would have to know clearly whether it has been written by an official. That is the first point.
The second point that I would have to know is in what manner the hon. member for Oshawa came in contact with this document. Did the government give it to him selectively and not to others? Nothing of that sort has been demonstrated in the hon. member's argument. It is extremely difficult for me to find grounds for a question of privilege in what the hon. member has said until now.
I must say that having listened for 20 minutes I cannot listen any longer. I feel that the hon. member does not have a question of privilege at this point. I see his indignation but he must know that the Chair has some difficulty-


Charles Joseph Clark: And some responsibility!
March 27, 1981


Madam Speaker:: -in listening to a question of privilege when other members might want to take the time of the House and the validity of the hon. member's question of privilege has not been demonstrated to me.


Henry Perrin Beatty: I can demonstrate it, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member want to speak again briefly and try to enlighten me on the particular points which I have just referred to?


Walter David Baker: Of course I do, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


Henry Perrin Beatty: I have the evidence, too!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) also wants to speak. I also take it that the Speaker is interested in obtaining the facts and issues, since the duty of the Chair, as I understand it, is to find a prima facie case of privilege and then the committee does the rest.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Indeed, that is the duty of the Chair. But it is the duty of the member who raises the question of privilege, especially when he speaks for 20 minutes, to indicate to me where the privilege lies. If in the course of the hon. member's first intervention I do not see the light of a prima facie case of privilege, it has been my tendency not to listen to a second speaker, but I will listen now to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. I will then decide if I will hear other interventions.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I think you may have misdirected yourself, and I say this with respect.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: The argument is not as to
the availability of the report to the New Democratic Party. I am not arguing that. The question which was before Mr. Speaker Jerome in 1979 was not a question of availability; it went much further than that. The question was with respect to the provision of services. The fact of the matter is that the report from which the New Democratic Party drew was not available publicly, to my understanding. I think one would have to believe that when there is identical wording in a report from the New Democratic Party and in a government report, from the point of view of establishing a prima facie case one would have to be on another planet to suggest honestly that that is entirely coincidental. The possibility of this happening is about the same as the proverbial monkey sitting at a typewriter and producing the Oxford English dictionary.
The second possibility is that some agent of the New Democratic Party stole into the Privy Council office in the
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
dead of night and made off with a draft of the government position paper.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: I am sure that we do not have to believe that. If that had been the case, Madam Speaker, I am certain there would already have been a charge laid had some enterprising New Democratic Party person done that. I am suggesting that they had all the evidence in the world ahead of time of something which had not yet been published. The coincidence would lead a cautious person to consider how these identical quotations could come about.
The final possibility-and I think I must deal with all possibilities as to how this unusual coincidence could have happened-is that the representatives of the New Democratic Party were given help by those officials of the government in preparing the government's own position paper. That is the other possibility. In fact, it is the only remaining possibility.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: The prima facie case of privilege arises from the fact that none of the resources of the government was made available on an equal basis to all members of the House of Commons.


Henry Perrin Beatty: There is further evidence.


Walter David Baker: There is further evidence which can be produced.
What I have stated is the basis for a prima facie case, Madam Speaker. This matter came up before and the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville argued it strongly. He was talking about the case in which I was involved, and I remember it very well.
I see the Sergeant-at-Arms is approaching the table. May I call it one o'clock, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: I am waiting for the hon. member to finish his sentence.


Walter David Baker: I want to refer you to the judgment of your predecessor, the Hon. James Jerome, on December 10, 1979. I hope I will have an opportunity to expand on this. That judgment was given after a long argument in this House, which took place over several days and involved members of the then government, members of the Liberal Party, which was then the official opposition-and the country would be better off it they still were-and the arguments of the very distinguished member for Yorkton-Melville. I will refer to that judgment for the purposes of putting my prima facie case at two o'clock.


Madam Speaker:: It being one o'clock, I do now leave the chair until two o'clock this afternoon.
At 1 p.m. the House took recess.

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 2 p.m.
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I should just like to reiterate the issue, which is the probability that funds have been used to support one political party in this House; that funds were authorized for that purpose.
1 will say for the purpose of the prima facie case, that it can be identified in committee that the author of the Broadbent paper is a constitutional adviser in the FPRO, the Federal-Provincial Relations Office of the federal cabinet. Others will argue the significance of that but I want to mention it for the purpose of the prima facie case.
I want to turn to the argument just briefly. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) contributed to the argument on this point on December 7, 1979. When speaking to the prima facie case he said, as reported on page 2139 of Hansard:
Have the practices and rules of this House been offended?
That is, by the use of resources on that occasion. He then went on to say:
I feel that has been done in two ways. In the first place, I think that it is an affront to Parliament when a committee is set up which consists of members of only one party in the House. In the second place, I think that something is wrong when the government is able to provide money, whether it is only $9,000, $9 or hundreds of thousands of dollars, for a purpose not usually handled in that way.
Equally, Madam Speaker, if the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre had been right on that occasion, he would stand in his place today and say that if it were established that the allegation that the New Democratic Party had received the services that I am talking about-assistance in drafting their document which is not available to another party in the House of Commons-then it too would be wrong. I expect the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre to stand up and announce that this is the case.


An hon. Member:: Where are they?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, another important statement was made which I think relates to my question of privilege. On December 7, 1979, the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, speaking in the course of the debate, said as reported at page 2136 of Hansard:
My question of privilege is as follows: Does it not infringe upon my privileges and rights as a member of Parliament not to have access to the same public funding-
Substitute "assistance" for "funding" in that statement. It continues:
-to the same services-
Substitute "assistance" for "services" in this particular case. Then he said:
We do not have that right as members of Parliament, and because of that I think it is a very serious question of privilege. I believe that this is a precedent.
It was a precedent on that occasion. This is a precedent. He continued:
1 believe that this type of thing has never happened in the history of the country.
It had not happened until then. It was found wanting by Mr. Speaker then, and the same situation would apply today and it ought to be found wanting by Madam Speaker. I refer to the fact that party or government public resources are used to assist one party of the House of Commons rather than another.
The hon. member went on to refer to the position of Members of Parliament, and I quote again from page 2136 of Hansard:
Regardless of whether the Prime Minister thinks so or not-
He was referring to the then prime minister, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark):
-all of us in this House are equals and we must be treated as equals by the ministers of this cabinet and by all departments of the Government of Canada.
Given the fact that it is necessary only to find a prima facie case in this matter, one has to consider the coincidence, the alarming coincidence, concerning what appeared word for word in the so-called Broadbent paper-and I use his name from the point of view of title-and the paper prepared and submitted by the Government of Canada and tabled in this House, I believe last Tuesday. Others will argue with respect to the time, but I think the inquiry that must be made by the Chair is with respect to timing.
The interesting thing is that the evidence will show that the document from which the Broadbent paper was prepared was not tabled in this House, and that the Broadbent paper used the resources that were available to the government in the preparation of the paper of the Minister of Justice.
So the case is clear. I do not have to prove the case in this House beyond a reasonable doubt; I think at this point it will be up to the committee to deal with this matter-it will be up to members of the House who are on that committee to deal with the matter. My responsibility to the House is to make out a prima facie case.
I referred to your predecessor just before the adjournment, Madam Speaker. The particular case which I regard as a precedent was so serious, it being alleged that the then government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition was involved in something of this nature, that there were six notices of privilege filed at that time. They came from the hon. member for Yorkton-Melville, the hon. member for Kenora-Rainy River (Mr. Reid), who is in the House and may want to argue the case again but from a different point of view, the then hon. member for Sault Ste. Marie, the hon. member for Vaudreuil (Mr. Herbert), who is in the House today and might want to argue the merits of the case, the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae), who was in the House this morning and I am sure is still in town and lastly, the hon. member for York West (Mr. Fleming).
These Liberals and New Democrats argued that it was inappropriate to provide services, funding, to make resources
March 27, 1981

available to one political party in the House of Commons and not to another. I think that is true; it is. That is why I think this case smacks-indeed, it goes further than that, it stinks- of exactly the same things, Your Honour's predecessor dealt with.
I want now to establish a prima facie case of privilege, and then I intend to put a motion which I would ask you to consider.


John Edward Broadbent: Are you catching your breath, Walter?


Walter David Baker: No, I am looking for one of your quotes. Excuse me, Madam Speaker. I just want to-


John Edward Broadbent: That is better than what preceded it, Walter; it has more intellectual content.


Madam Speaker:: The Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) on a point of order.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, before we adjourned for lunch you indicated that you were not yet satisfied that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton had established grounds for a question of privilege. Perhaps I could ask him, through you, Madam Speaker, how much time he wishes to have to try to prove that he has a question of privilege. I want to speak to this alleged question of privilege, but what he is doing right now by not articulating the question of privilege is prohibiting other members from this side or his own side from contributing to the point that he is raising.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, that is the usual useful intervention from my friend. I would not want to accuse him of filibustering in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Mr. Cullen:: Hypocrites!


Mr. Hees:: Stop wasting time, you folks.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I am having some difficulty speaking over the gruntings from the other side. I guess my friend was not in the House-he was out in the lobby or somewhere-when I gave you some additional facts which establish what 1 think has to be established at this time, and that is a prima facie case of privilege. Circumstances which so fall together that they cannot be regarded by any rational person as anything like a coincidence are worthy of examination. That is the point. I think they do. I think there is a conspiratory aspect to this case. The coincidences just dovetail too much for any rational person to believe otherwise.
Having dealt with the intervention by my friend the parliamentary secretary, I shall now turn to how the Speaker dealt with these matters. On December 10, 1979, as reported in Hansard at page 2180, he said this:
Both questions of privilege make reference to a practice which was admitted to by the Minister of Transport and, to a lesser extent-or to a less formalized
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
extent-by the Minister of Agriculture, in the sense that in the months since the election and the formation of the new government committees which were in fact entirely committees of the government caucus were encouraged to carry out investigation work in their particular fields and, in addition to being encouraged, were in fact financially supported through government funding. In some cases this entailed assistance in travelling, in some cases in defraying staff charges of research advice and in others in printing and publication of documents.
That is precisely the case here. My allegation is that the assistance which has been given by the federal-provincial office to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, with respect to the preparation of its document which has now gone to Great Britain is research, advice and assistance in the printing and publishing of documents, all of which fell right within what Speaker Jerome found to be improper. Indeed, it gave an advantage in terms of research and service to one party which was not given to all parties in the House of Commons. That is my first point.
Speaker Jerome went on to say this:
-but it is a very difficult point for the Chair to decide-
It had not happened before, as I said. He went on to say:
-and before making such a decision I would want very much more detailed information and would wish to hear far more argument.
However, I am able to say to the House that while I am absolutely satisfied- as I am sure the House is-that the practice initially entered into by the government since the election was entirely in good faith-
I do not know whether I can say that about this case, but you could say it about the case which was before Speaker Jerome. Speaker Jerome went on to say:
-and while it may in fact be defensible against the argument of privilege of the House, I hope hon. members will understand that it is a rather dangerous practice to embark upon.
In the light of these circumstances, I think Speaker Jerome showed amazing foresight. If he were in the chair today, I respectfully suggest he would have difficulty saying that what was done was done in good faith, having before him a judgment of his own in 1979.
Speaker Jerome continued:
I refer to the practice of supporting from public funds a committee composed of members of any one caucus. In theory, I suppose, it is not likely that government funds would be used to support a single activity of an opposition caucus, but in any case that is no better.
This case goes much further than that. This goes right through to the theory. In fact, the theory has been justified on the coincidences here. Services and resources were given by the government to one caucus for it to prepare a position on a matter now before this House of Commons. It is an advantage given to one party by the government and not given to another.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Again, on December 10, 1979, at page 2180, the Speaker said:
The support of public funds, where applied to parliamentary activities, ought. I think, to apply across the floor of Parliament, particularly-
And Speaker Jerome concludes his sentence by saying this:
-the provision of funds for researchers for individual caucuses.

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
That is what happened in this place, Madam Speaker. Research assistance from one party in this House of Commons was given to the little red rump down there, assistance which they were not prepared to give to the other party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Speaker Jerome continued:
This being the case, that fund is available for individual caucus committees to carry out research, to be used in whatever way the particular caucus sees fit.
That is the third injustice in this matter and the third point of the judgment of a former Speaker of this House with respect to this activity.
I shall not quote the whole of Speaker Jerome's judgment, but I think it is worth while reading and considering it. In my respectful submission, it applies precisely to the facts and allegations in this case. Speaker Jerome continues at page 2181 of Hansard:
-it seems to me to be preferable that it is strictly the caucus research budget that would be employed to that end.
It is not the budget of the federal-provincial relations office, the budget of the Privy Council or of any minister of the crown, but funds which are distributed on a more or less equal basis to all members of the House of Commons. That is a strong statement by the former Speaker of this House.
The last extract of Speaker Jerome's judgment which I will put on the record is this:
I am simply saying to the House, though not in a formal finding of privilege, that in my opinion the greater wisdom would be to ensure that in every case where this is done, where public funds are used to support such a committee even if it is an informal committee, such a committee consist of members of more than one party.
Obviously what he is saying is that it is improper for the government to use its resources in the public service and elsewhere to support only those groups of members or parties in this House of Commons who happen to support the position of the government. That is what happened here. There is a sense of unfairness.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, as I said earlier-and I will repeat it briefly because I know the member opposite who is smiling is impatient to get home-


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: No, go right ahead.


Walter David Baker: We have three possibilities in this case. The identical wording of the New Democratic Party's study paper and the government report is entirely coincidental; that is the first possibility. It is an entirely fortuitous accident that that occurred. The wording is identical even right down to the commas.


Mr. Mark Rose (Mission-Port Moody):: Madam Speaker, I just want to know how much time the hon. member has used up on this question of privilege. So far I have not understood his explanation.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Mark Willson Rose: I am sure the House would be prepared to grant unanimously a request by him for extra time so he can explain.


Madam Speaker:: This is the difficulty in which I find myself. That is why I am listening to the hon. member, in order to make certain that I really understand the question he is putting before the House and make a judgment on it. I have to listen to him, but I must tell the House that I have several other questions of privilege to hear this afternoon. I do not want to push the House into concluding its business sooner than it would like to. Nevertheless, other members have questions of privilege. I have to listen to them all. I have no problem. I am here as long as the members want me to stay. But I think some fairness should be demonstrated in distributing time among members. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton knows that better than anyone else. I ask him if he would kindly come to the point.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I would not want to infringe on the rights of other members of Parliament. Therefore, I will sum up my argument.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: There is evidence available to substantiate further the allegation which I made. I want to repeat the allegation because it is part of the prima facie case. It is that "solid sources have identified the author of the Broadbent paper as a constitutional adviser in the federal-provincial relations office of the federal cabinet". That is part of the case that Your Honour must consider in terms of whether there is a prima facie case. There is other evidence as well.
I want to go back to where I was before I was interrupted by the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody (Mr. Rose). I said that we have three possibilities in the prima facie case before you. They are as follows. The first is that the identical wording of the NDP and the government report is entirely coincidental.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: Absolutely.


Walter David Baker: Absolutely coincidental. No one read anything, no one prepared anything; the words came from heaven all the same. That is the first possibility. As I said before lunch, one would have to go a long way to honestly believe and accept that.
The second possibility is this. Some agent of the New Democratic Party in the dark of the night-I do not know who it would be, whether the hon. member for Mission-Port Moody who was wearing a bag on his head-stole into the Privy Council office in the dead of the night and made off with a draft of the government papers. It could be that. Virtue is claimed by that party. I am sure that if they did that, they would get up and admit it. Then the RCMP could lay the appropriate charges against them. That is the second possibility.
The third possibility is the only remaining one because the others are so incongruous as to not be believable. I suggest that
*

March 27, 1981

an examination before the committee would reveal that the only remaining possibility is that the representatives of the New Democratic Party were given help by officials of the government who were preparing the government's own paper for London.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Walter David Baker: Mr. Speaker Jerome settled a long time ago in this House that the resources of the government should be made available on an equal basis to all members of the House. If they are not made available to all members of the House on the same basis, then the privileges of members have been infringed. With that in mind, Madam Speaker, if you see a prima facie case, which is all that has to be shown at this time, I would move:
That the matter of the assistance given by the government to the Leader of the New Democratic Party, in helping him to prepare a document entitled "Comments by the Office of the Leader of the New Democratic Party", as evidenced by the identical wording of portions of that document and portions of the government document entitled "The Role of the United Kingdom in the Amendment of the Canadian Constitution", and the possibility that such help involved the allocation of public service manpower and financial resources to one party in the House of Commons in a discriminatory manner, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, it is always a pleasure to follow the master of synthetic emotion, the House leader for the Conservative Party, who takes longer to say nothing than any member in the history of the Canadian Parliament, if not the history of parliaments throughout the world.
We listened at considerable length to a series of banalities connected by semi-colons, commas, and occasionally even a period. Let me allay the hon. member's concerns right away. We do not have a spy that I am aware of in the office of the government to which he refers.


Flora Isabel MacDonald: No, it is a mole.


John Edward Broadbent: Second, in case there is any doubt in the hon. member's mind that certain material came from the federal-provincial relations office at our request, I want to tell him it is true. It is the scandalous reality that we requested certain information from the federal-provincial relations office. Having said that, I would tell the hon. member that if we thought we could have got comparable technical data that made any intellectual sense at all, I would have asked his party for it.
Unlike the House leader of the Conservative Party, if we can find relevant arguments in a book by MacGregor Dawson, Kenneth Wheare, Professor Cory or in a speech by a Conservative academic that we happen to agree with, not to mention a federal department employing civil servants, then we use those arguments. I never thought it an intellectual or political sin to take certain arguments from persons with whom on other matters you might disagree and use them. It is a problem for the Conservatives to accept that rather banal reality in the intellectual world, but for thinking people in the universe it is taken as elementary common sense.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
I am a little amused but not surprised by the long, discursive, rambling pile of words we just had to sit through from the man who, through his brilliant management of the Conservative government, managed to bring that government down after nine months.


Walter David Baker: I must have hurt you, Ed.


John Edward Broadbent: He should have known that the federal-provincial relations office, even as it existed under the Conservative government, made information available to anyone who requested it, whether they were Social Crediters, members of the rhinoceros party, the Liberal Party or Conservative Party. 1 would have thought that a party which has preached a lot about freedom of information would have taken as an accepted fact that one of the established principles of the office of federal-provincial relations when it was established by the previous Liberal government was that it would provide information to whoever wanted it, and that that practice was continued by the Conservatives when they were in office. I am not aware that they changed that practice.
Of course, the feigned scandal and the mock horror of the master of synthetic emotion was precisely a bogus argument from the word go, intended simply to use up more time of Parliament. No one with an ounce of knowledge about the process of government or how governments work in providing information would take that argument seriously for one minute. It is a pile of nonsense and the member knows it.
I would be happy to provide the argumentation that was used in the document we prepared-


An hon. Member:: Argumentation?


John Edward Broadbent: -part of which did come from the office alluded to. A substantial part came from some of us who have some experience in teaching Canadian government, to know something about the federal system, unlike my colleagues to the right. I would be happy to send the Conservative Party a copy of what he described as the Broadbent paper if they promise me two things-that they will read it and that they will attempt to understand it.
Having devoted about four minutes more than was necessary to that two-hour diatribe that the hon. member inflicted upon the House, I want to raise in this context a related question of privilege that concerns me as a Member of Parliament very much.


John Allen Fraser: I thought the NDP were not in favour of privilege.


John Edward Broadbent: We are now in our third day in which no business of the people of Canada has been conducted in this House.


Madam Speaker:: I presume the hon. member is not raising a new question of privilege; he is speaking of privilege in another sense. We cannot have two questions of privilege at

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
the same time. I would have to dispose of one before I hear the next one. I understand the hon. member is speaking on the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I respect your authority and accept your judgment immediately. When you rule on the substance of the question of privilege, which should take all of ten seconds, I would be happy to raise a related question of privilege.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I would like to contribute briefly to this question of privilege because I want to support some of the points just made by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). He states quite correctly that government departments in the normal course of business make documents and briefings available to the general public, the press, and that every member of this House can request certain information about them, whether through the Order Paper or a phone call to the minister's office. As the hon. member has outlined-and I was interested to hear his explanation-apparently his party, being in agreement with the substance of the resolution, sought some additional information from the government which apparently was made available.
Well, Madam Speaker, I submit there is no question of privilege outlined by my friend the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker). He alleged that certain privileged information was being made available to one party in this House which was denied all other parties. As the hon. member for Oshawa pointed out, if members of the Conservative Party would like to have any information on the government's position on this resolution, anything that might alter their up until now unalterable and inflexible position, then certainly that would be made available.
However, Madam Speaker, it works both ways. I ask your indulgence because I want to read a few extracts from the deliberations of the Special Joint Committee on the Constitution of Canada and its report. They will show that the kind of alleged behaviour that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton objects to appears to me-and I stand to be corrected-to be the normal routine in this place and in committees, in the functioning of government, and in the give and take we have here.
I draw your attention to issue No. 56 of the proceedings of the committee, dated February 9, 1981, just before the committee adjourned. Senator Austin said:
I would recommend that we keep the staff that supports us at our steering committee meetings, and that we should also ask three officials of the Department of Justice to remain-Mr. Tasse, Miss MacDonald, and Mr. Bertrand.
Mr. Epp then said:
Mr. Chairman, I have no difficulty in terms of who the government wants. I would just like to suggest to honourable members that we be given the opportunity to decide who our staff members will be and that they be part of our delegation.
Then Mr. Epp said-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


David Michael Collenette: Well, Madam Speaker, I am sorry-


An hon. Member:: "The hon. member for Provencher".


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, I know you left this question wide open. After suggesting to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton that he follow my sensibilities-which are, incidentally, not based on personal pique but rather on the rules as I read them in Beauchesne and Erskine May-you allowed him to go on and break the rule. Nevertheless one should always follow one's own directive, and I apologize for having maligned the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp) by calling him by his real name.
Senator Austin then said:
Well, I would leave it to Mr. Tasse to decide if there are any other officials from the Department of Justice that he thinks would be helpful.
Then the hon. member for Provencher, otherwise known as "you-know-who", said:
Mr. Chairman, if that point has now been determined, I think it is important, because this will be the last time, I take it, that we will be in public, that we thank publicly the people who have been here.
He was referring to Department of Justice officials, among other research staff. He continued:
On balance, Mr. Chairman, I very sincerely want to thank all these people, including the people from the Justice department.
I have mentioned them earlier, Mr. Chairman; but it has really been the first experience I have had where amendments we have moved as an opposition party were given additional and a great amount of help by people from the Justice department, who gave us of their professional abilities. I want to thank them for that.


Mr. Hawkes:: Madam Speaker, I sat on that committee. Those services were available to all members of all parties, and I think that should be said at this point.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, my friend from Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes) is always at his most erudite when he states the obvious. That is the point I make in reading these extracts. The hon. member for Burnaby (Mr. Robinson) supported the hon. member for Provencher and said:
Rather than singling out all of the different people who have assisted us, I would simply like to say that I join with Mr. 

"You-know-who", the hon. member for Provencher:
-in thanking the many different people who have made the committee as effective as it has been.
Then Senator Austin said:
Mr. Chairman, I would like to clear up one point before we adjourn.
I was told that-
-the hon. member for Provencher-
-I am sure because of a misplaced word or two suggested that the officials of the Department of Justice whom I suggested ought to be here tomorrow in case we wanted them as resources, were government committee member designees.
I would like to place it on record that they are resource people for the committee and are not people I am suggesting should be here on our side in any partisan way.
March 27, 1981

I will not go on and abuse the time of the House as the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did in formulating his non-question of privilege, but I would also like to draw Your Honour's attention to the report of that committee which was tabled in this House on Friday, February 13, 1981. I find this under the heading "Organization of Committee's Work":
The resources of both Houses of Parliament and the Library of Parliament, as well as those of the Department of Justice, the Federal-Provincial Relations Office and other government departments, the Prime Minister's office-
My goodness, Madam Speaker, the members over there have really deviated from their normal behaviour in acknowledging any assistance from the Prime Minister's office, given their daily tirades in this House. I continue:
-and the Parliamentary Centre for Foreign Affairs and Foreign Trade, were directed to the facilitation of the work of the committee.
There we have it, Madam Speaker. In dealing with the Constitution, we acknowledge the fact that members of the Conservative party themselves had technical assistance from advisers of the Department of Justice at those hearings. What is wrong with that? Indeed, my friend the hon. member for Calgary West agrees with my point. All I am saying is that any assistance required by any opposition member, whether of the NDP or the Conservatives, on any matter of government business had only to be requested.


Mr. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I think the hon. parliamentary secretary should distinguish between the preparation of amendments for bills and the preparation of official party documents for another party. That is what the argument is about.


David Michael Collenette: It is awfully nice of the hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) to make that suggestion to me but, as I was stating, if any member of this House wishes to ask the government for an opinion on any matter, whether it is through Order Paper questions or through a direct request to a minister, or even through questions asked in Oral Question Period, answers will be forthcoming.
If members of the Conservative Party wanted assistance in drafting their amendments because they did not have the ability to put into words what they really had in mind-I think this has been only too evident, judging by the statements made by various members of the official opposition who, at many times during this constitutional debate, have contradicted themselves and talked about one certain formula and one type of amendment-it only had to be requested. It was requested of the Department of Justice officials, and those officials complied.
What I am essentially saying is that this is not a question of privilege. First, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) read from a newspaper article. The authenticity of that report has not been confirmed in any way, except the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) has said that he and his party have from time to time sought certain information from the government. If that information supports the position of that party, there is nothing wrong with that.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
Quite simply, for an hour and a half or more-I suppose almost two hours from twelve o'clock today-the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton stood and spoke about nothing and continued a systematic filibuster of the business of this House of Commons. This filibuster has brought this House of Commons to a standstill and frustrated the normal legislative deliberations of the House. It has frustrated the will of the people of Canada who have sent us here to legislate and govern on behalf of all Canadians. If this kind of filibuster and obstruction continues, only the people of Canada will be able to decide.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


David Michael Collenette: Only the people of Canada can decide in their very intelligent way. I must say that the people of Canada are much more intelligent and sophisticated than members of the official opposition give them credit for. This question of privilege and the other questions of privilege and delaying tactics we saw last night frustrate not only our normal business but also the will of the people of Canada. Furthermore, it is an insult to the intelligence of the very people who elected us to serve in this place. I think the people of Canada will condemn the official opposition for this outlandish turn of events.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have listened quite carefully despite-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, on the question of privilege-


Madam Speaker:: Later.


An hon. Member:: Throw him out.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have listened to this question of privilege submitted by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, and I must note a few things about his presentation and about the way I can look at it.
The hon. member did not allege that the article itself represented a breach of privilege but used it as evidence to sustain an allegation that a breach of privilege had occurred, to the extent that government services had been made available to the New Democratic Party but not to his own party, and that therefore public funds had been used by the New Democratic Party in preparation of a certain document.


Mr. Lawrence:: That was admitted.


Madam Speaker:: I must say that beyond the newspaper article itself no other evidence was offered to support the allegation-


Walter David Baker: Except the admission.


Madam Speaker:: -apart from the fact that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton did identify the alleged author of that article. But beyond that we do not know anything else.

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
However, these arguments and allegations seem to be laid to rest by the intervention of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent). We know exactly how the New Democratic Party was able to use certain arguments and data in order to prepare that document. So I think that part of the argument can be laid to rest.
Then the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton invoked the precedent of December 10, 1979. That situation was described at length, but I must say it is not too comparable. At any rate, the hon. member used that statement of the Speaker, which was not a formal ruling. I must remind the hon. member that it was not a formal ruling because the Speaker did not want to make a formal ruling on that question. I think the reasons for that will become obvious at the end of my own intervention.
With respect to that precedent of December 10, 1979, it was alleged at that time that public funds had been improperly allocated to support the work of the task force composed entirely of members of one party in the House. That is exactly the situation to which the hon. member was referring. As I said, my predecessor did not make a formal ruling on that question but commented on the situation. I think that has to be very clear because that comment has been submitted to me in several questions of privilege which have been raised.
I have said repeatedly that I have studied the comments but that I would not be brought to make judgments on the propriety on impropriety of certain matters.
I want to remind the House of the concept of parliamentary privilege. It seems to me that it is important for me to tell the House again exactly what privilege is. I will quote to hon. members now two eminent authors, Abraham and Hawtrey, who say:
A privilege in the legal sense of the term is an exemption from some duty, burden, attendance or liability to which others are subject. In parliamentary language, however, the term is also applied to the powers other than legislative possessed by either or both Houses and to the exclusive right of the Commons to grant supplies and to originate measures of taxation.
The privileges which attach to Members of Parliament individually are freedom of speech, freedom from arrest, and exemption from serving on juries, attending as witnesses or serving as sheriffs.
The authors go on to list a number of powers other than legislative, which I will not enumerate, but I think it is my duty at this point to put again before the House the concept of a question of privilege and the basis on which I am called upon to judge a question of privilege.
I think for a member to argue successfully that he has a prima facie case of privilege, he would be bound to relate his argument very specifically to the concept of privilege which I have just cited. That is an important requirement of a question of privilege.
Therefore, if I may summarize, part of the argument of the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton was based not on a formal ruling of my predecessor but on a commentary he made. I suppose the hon. member would want me to say that this particular action was improper or, even worse, to guess that it was improper, but I do not feel that he has brought before me
sufficient arguments to bring me to conclude that these things were improper.
At any rate, I repeat that the Chair will not become a censor, that the Chair will not pass judgment on the propriety or impropriety of certain actions of governments.
I have another notice of a question of privilege-


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: It is decided. The hon. member for Well-ington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty) cannot intervene on the same question of privilege; I have ruled on it.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Unless I misheard you, my very clear recollection is that you said, prior to your ruling, that you would hear the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe.


Madam Speaker:: No. I am sorry. I have to correct the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. It is true that the hon. member was rising, but I said "later". I did not say I would hear him on this question of privilege. As a matter of fact, I did not know why he was rising. I know now. I know now he was rising on the same question of privilege. I cannot guess when somebody is rising. I suppose hon. members did expect me to rule on this question of privilege, because I said before lunch that when the first intervener does not convince me that there is a question of privilege, I am not inclined to listen to a second speaker. However, the matter is closed.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, just for the record, I think if you researched the blues you would see that I did in fact indicate, during the course of my argument-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Walter David Baker: -that the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe would be speaking.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Perhaps the hon. member did say that other hon. members wanted to speak, but I have to remind the hon. gentleman-and he knows that-that the number of speakers whom I hear on a question of privilege is left to my discretion. Despite the fact that many people might have announced they wanted to speak, it is still left to my discretion to determine that I will hear no other speaker, and that is what I have determined on this question of privilege.


MR. BROADBENT-RIGHTS OF MEMBERS OF PARLIAMENT
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I rise on a question of privilege which arises directly out of the one which you have just heard from the Conservative House leader and the kind of nonsense, as I regard it, that we have gone through for the past three days. I want to address the serious question of privilege that is connected with the dignity of the institution of Parliament-
March 27, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Oh, sit down.


John Edward Broadbent: -the preservation of respect for the Chair of the House of Commons, and the recognition in Parliament of the right of the majority of members of Parliament elected by the people of Canada at some point to make a decision on a question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We have witnessed for the past three days not parliamentary debate but something that costs the people of Canada $300,000 a day. That is what the Conservatives are putting the people of Canada through, $300,000 a day.


An hon. Member:: What price freedom?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I am not sure whether the hon. member for Oshawa is discussing his privilege or his price.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: What is your price, Ed?


John Edward Broadbent: That comment from the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) reflected all the wit and intelligence that enabled him to last in power as a prime minister for so long.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to say as a Member of Parliament, in addressing my comments to the House to those issues-


An hon. Member:: We love you, Ed; cross the floor.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, we have been listening ad nauseam for some three days now to the Conservative Party on my right. Perhaps they will listen to the rest of the House now for a few minutes.
I want to address myself to the three areas that are connected with my question of privilege. First of all is the right of the majority of the people of Canada at some point to reach a decision in a debate. We have before us-


An hon. Member:: The tyranny of the left.


John Edward Broadbent: We have in fact the tyranny of the minority of the Conservative Party.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We are dealing with the constitutional resolution which has probably been debated in the House of Commons longer than any other single matter in the history of the Canadian Parliament. Madam Speaker, just consider the
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
following. The resolution, whether one is for it or against it- and I respect those who are against it in terms of their judgment-


Mr. Forrestall:: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I would like to remind the leader of the NDP that there are a number of us here who sat in this chamber when colleagues in this House to the left delayed the normal process of the business of this chamber for a period of about two years on the question of the writing of a new divorce arrangement into Canadian law.


John Edward Broadbent: That is totally absurd again. That occurred during private members' hour, and the hon. member knows that very well.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: I would like to continue, Madam Speaker. It is interesting that the Conservatives want the opportunity to talk away, but they object when someone else rises to speak on what they said at different times, on the most important matter to come before Parliament. They have had their say; perhaps we can have ours for just a minute.
We have had the matter before the House for a total length of time of some six months, from the time we started last fall to the present. Before Christmas, some 78 Members of Parliament made speeches on this resolution, and since Christmas over 100 members have spoken, all but two of whom have spoken on one Conservative amendment. In terms of the discussion of this profoundly important matter, a committee met 106 times and its meetings were extended twice under pressure from both opposition parties. The point I want to make is that there were 106 meetings of that committee. Over
1,000	submissions in writing were put before that committee for consideration.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I appreciate the anger of the hon. gentleman, but I must call to your attention the very strict ruling on questions of privilege and order-[DOT]


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: -the very strict ruling on questions of order and privilege which you imposed upon the House yesterday. You spoke about the absolute necessity for all of us at the beginning to found our question of privilege. If the hon. gentleman has a question of privilege, then I would say that it is not because of the length of debate on the issue but rather because of the fact that the government of the day has decided to close debate on the issue.


An hon. Member:: Supported by the NDP.


Walter David Baker: I am beginning to wonder now


An hon. Member:: You are a simple minded hypocrite.

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


Walter David Baker: -whether the hon. member for Oshawa is changing his position and is about to support the government, if and when we ever get to the question of closure imposed by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard).


Mr. Pinard:: Madam Speaker, 1 trust my colleague will not be offended, but I will speak in the language with which I am more familiar. He has spent an hour and a half today systematically destroying and demolishing this noble institution by taxing your patience and raising a question of privilege which was totally unfounded. I have the right to speak French here and 1 will do so freely. If you want to shout

Madam Speaker, it seems to me it would be normal-


Charles Joseph Clark: I rise on a question of privilege, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Let us be clear about what is going on. The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) now has the floor and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is asking for the floor on a question of privilege. We cannot have two questions of privilege at the same time. If he wants to raise a point of order, that is another matter.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will do that, Madam Speaker. The point of order is very clear. One of the matters that has been respected-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Mark Willson Rose: There can be only one point of order at a time.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, I was somewhat confused. The hon. President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) was on a point of order, so we must let the hon. minister finish his point of order.


Walter David Baker: We must observe the rules. [Translation]


Yvon Pinard: That being said, Madam Speaker, if the Leader of the Official Opposition in the House can afford the shameful luxury of undermining this institution during an hour and a half, I wonder why the leader of a party, in this instance the leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent), should be prevented from trying to defend this institution and to inject a little more dignity into the proceedings of the House since the beginning of the week. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think that the Leader of the New Democratic Party has every right to speak during at least ten minutes and demonstrate to you that perhaps he does have a prima facie question of privilege, whereas the House leader of the Progressive Conservative Party (Mr. Baker) has taken an hour and a half to-


An hon. Member:: -to say nothing!


Yvon Pinard: -systematically run down this institution and put your credibility on trial.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief. I am sure this matter can be very quickly resolved.

-because I am convinced that perhaps the House Leader of the Government said something that he did not mean at a time when he was perhaps a bit angry. He accused members on this side of having objected to his speaking in French. This is what he said. And I believe that someone on the other side said that it was true that the members of the Progressive Conservative Party are against the use of French in this House. I am referring to the hon. member for Saint-Hyacinthe (Mr. Ostiguy), if I am not mistaken.
Madam Speaker, I believe that we have touched on a matter which could cause real problems for the House of Commons and the country. All my life, I have tried to defend the right of Canadians to use both official languages throughout Canada.
Madam Speaker, I can accept accusations and I can accept that, from time to time, even the most peaceful of members can lose their temper. That is a fact! However, when an accusation such as that is made not by an ordinary member but by the government House leader, I believe that it must have been a mistake and that it should be withdrawn. I believe that this creates a really serious situation for the House.
The minister said that he greatly respects the House, and I accept this statement. He has shown since his election to this House that he has a lot of respect for both official languages, and I think that he will accept the fact that I have also shown a lot of respect for both official languages in this House and for the fact that a member can use either one in the House. The minister made an accusation which was supported by some of the members of his own party. I believe that it is essential to have the minister immediately withdraw his accusation, because otherwise, there will be a really unhealthy atmosphere in the House, an atmosphere that no one wants to have.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I think the Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) understood nothing. All I said is that I had the right to speak French, and members on the other side started to shout and heckle me.
I reiterate and repeat that I have the right to speak French, as the hon. member has the right to speak English. So, he understood absolutely nothing. I think he is just threatening and blackmailing us when he says that the atmosphere of the House will be worse just because I stated my right to speak French in the House. I think he is just wishing that it does not go so well in this place, as has been the case for the last many days.
March 27, 1981

I say once more that if the hon. member for Nepean-Carle-ton (Mr. Baker) had the right to try to undermine this institution for an hour and a half, the Hon. Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) has the right to try to plead the case of this institution and to bring some dignity to this debate. That is all I said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I rise on the same point of order. It may well be that I misunderstood the government House leader; I will accept that. I certainly did not misunderstand the interjection of the hon. member from Saint-Hyacin-the or from others who shouted from their seats, but it may well be that I misunderstood the words of the government House leader.
I am certainly prepared to accept that there was a misunderstanding, if the government House leader will stand in his place and admit that there was no opposition by members of the Progressive Conservative Party to his use of either of the official languages he wants to use. If he will do that, I will certainly be prepared to admit that I may have misinterpreted what he said.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, perhaps I could continue. I was almost three minutes into my question of privilege before the Conservatives thought they ought to interrupt. We listened to them for more than an hour and a half; I hope we will get a little further this time.


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


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, a few moments ago-and it was quite audible to members at this end of the chamber-the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) referred to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) as a simple hypocrite.


An hon. Member:: What is wrong with that?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: If one consults Beauchesne, the word "hypocrite" is unparliamentary.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It also indicates that the right to intervene-


Some hon. Members:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Edward Broadbent: If an unparliamentary word is used against any member, I have the right to rise-


Some hon. Members:: Order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am exercising my right; I intend to do so.
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows the occurrence must have taken place in debate and it must have occurred in a manner that the Chair was aware of the expression used. It is not a valid point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Madam Speaker, it indicates that the following words are unparliamentary-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Would the hon. member please resume his seat. The hon. member is right when he says there is a list of unparliamentary words, and I will look at the list. But, in order for the Chair to declare those words unparliamentary, they must have occurred during the course of a debate and I must have heard them. Therefore, it is not a valid point of order.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Would Madam Speaker undertake to look at the blues to see if it was said?


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


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


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Is the hon. member still arguing his point of order?


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I am asking for clarification from the Chair. Would Madam Speaker be prepared to consult Hansard to see whether those words were picked up? If they were, Madam Speaker would have to hear my point of order. Is Madam Speaker prepared to do that?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I am prepared to do that.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the continuing interjections of the Conservative member is a vivid demonstration of the precise point I am attempting to make.
So far I have said that in my judgment-and I have checked with some people-we have had a long debate on this constitutional matter. It has involved many speeches. In terms of witnesses, some 100 groups or individuals appeared before the committee. There have been a thousand written submissions. Almost 200 Members of Parliament have spoken. In the past six weeks, including the current one, there has been only one amendment before the House of Commons by the Conservative Party.
This is the leader of the party which in the past-and I used to believe it-talked, as he did in the 1979 election campaign, about respecting the dignity of Parliament and about trying to improve our parliamentary democracy. Madam Speaker, that is a party which has witnessed a debate that has gone on for a long time, involving not only members of the House but men and women across this country; a party which says to the women of Canada that it wants to move an amendment improving legal rights; and which says to our native people it wants to move an amendment improving the entrenchment of aboriginal and treaty rights. This is a party which says all that,

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Broad bent
but spends the past three days not even permitting us to proceed with House business. It is a hypocritical party which is ham-stringing Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, the Conservatives cannot have it both ways. They pretend they stand for the dignity of Parliament and they want people to participate in a free and full debate when we have over a million unemployed in real numbers, when we have record levels of inflation we cannot get around to dealing with, when we have a six-month-old debate, and when its members exercise what can only be described as the tyranny of the minority over the majority of people collected in this House of Commons. That is unacceptable to anyone who believes in parliamentary democracy.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, surely at this point in our history the Conservative Party has made its position clear. I do not agree with that position. I know there are serious arguments which can be made in favour of it. I think they are seriously wrong but serious people can make them-


Charles Joseph Clark: Allan Blakeney, Lome Nystrom-
*
I . *:
lj|
*


Harvie Andre: And 65 per cent of all Canadians.


John Edward Broadbent: Allan Blakeney is one of them. The point I want to make, as a Member of Parliament, is that one of the guiding principles and one of the privileges of every member in a democracy-not some kind of autocracy, whether a rightwing regime or otherwise-is that at some point we have the right, as Members of Parliament, to make a decision-for the majority to make a decision.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, what concerns me is that a member who has only been here since 1968-many others have been here longer-and the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) himself, and his party's constitutional critic, the hon. member for Provencher (Mr. Epp), have said that despite having spent three days at a cost of $300,000 a day to do nothing, will not stop at this point. No, they are not content with that. They do not want us to have the right to a vote. They have said this process will continue up to the day of the Quebec election. I ask you, Madam Speaker, to count the number of days we will spend sitting here, listening to inane arguments, frivolous questions of privilege and spurious argumentation that any five-year-old in Canada would see through in 30 seconds.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: It is a party which was once led by a great Canadian, Sir John A. Macdonald. But it is responsible for what is happening right now.
I want to come to the second point raised by the House Leader of the Conservative Party yesterday, and which caused me some real concern. There is one position in this House, and it is not the Prime Minister's position, the Leader of the Opposition's or mine, which must have respect, and continuing respect. I refer to your position, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: I contend that the people of Canada who are out there and are interested in this question also have an interest in other matters. They have concerns about the cost of living. They are concerned about jobs. When they have made their arguments, as they have, and they are understood, and when the government has made its argument, as it has, and it is understood, and we have made our arguments, as we have, which on balance we say are in agreement in principle with the government on this-


An hon. Member:: What about the provinces?


John Edward Broadbent: -and when the final argument is considered and cleared up we will stand together at this historical moment.
Surely if we are to maintain respect for this institution-and this is what concerns me-we must know that if we continue on as the Conservatives want us to we will cease to be a democratic institution. I repeat, we have heard it from the Leader of the Opposition and from his party's constitutional critic that they have no intention of allowing us to come to the point at which we can make a decision. They have no intention of allowing us to proceed with House business. They want us to cease to be a democratic institution.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Edward Broadbent: We heard it yesterday from that sleazy House leader of the Conservative Party-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Harvie Andre: Do you favour closure?


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: He heard your ruling, Madam Speaker. He got up and he smiled in his unctuous way and said "Far be it from me to question your decision, Madam Speaker." Then he proceeded with an argument, the only logical thrust of which was to undermine the credibility of the Speaker of the House of Commons. That is something this party will not put up with.


John Edward Broadbent: They want us to perform as if we had a lock on the House of Commons. That is all we are accomplishing with their obstructionist tactics.
I am sure that every Canadian, no matter where he or she lives and no matter on what side of this important issue they are on, if they could witness the behaviour of this House of Commons in the last few days, would be ashamed.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
;
March 27, 1981


Madam Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but if he is exposing a question of privilege I would like him to indicate to me if he feels that any particular rule, or practice, for that matter, in the absence of a rule, has been breached. I would like him to tell me where his point of privilege lies. Of course the hon. member knows that democratic debate is part of what Parliament is all about. He would have to tell me that there have been some irregularities in the way these proceedings have been going on. If the hon. member would do that it would be helpful to me.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I promise to take no more than two minutes. I have listened to what has gone on in the House for three days. This is the last speech of this kind I hope will have to be made by anyone, because I hope the Conservatives-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: Unctuous hypocrite!


John Edward Broadbent: I want to conclude by saying most seriously to the Conservative Party, which in many respects has both in Canada and Great Britain a responsible and honourable Conservative tradition when it comes to the governing process, read Edmund Burke and a contemporary Conservative, Michael Oakshott. If they read people like that they will understand that the rights and privileges of Members of Parliament are inextricably bound up with the principle about which you hear minorities speak. Listen to them. At some point in a democracy the majority must have the right to decide.


Some hon. Members:: What about the provinces?


John Edward Broadbent: If that majority will is frustrated, if that majority of men and women elected from all parts of Canada is not able to decide because a minority wants to disrupt Parliament then-


Some hon. Members:: Then call an election.


John Edward Broadbent: -the respect for which all members should be held in a free society is diminished. That causes serious harm to the democratic assembly when it is held in mockery by the people of this land. I am one who believes that the majority must have the right to decide at some point, which is the essence of my question of privilege. At this point the will of the majority is being frustrated by the irresponsibility of the minority.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I can bear name-calling from the Leader of the New Democratic Party-


John Edward Broadbent: How about "windbag"?


Walter David Baker: -although most of the time I have always spoken very kindly of him.


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


Walter David Baker: That is not the reason I rise. The reason I rise is with respect to the question of privilege he raised and what he said in the course of it about it being our intention to not allow the question on the constitutional matter which is before the House to come to a vote. That is resolution No. 41, or whatever it is. I recognize, and every member of this House recognizes, that whether we are talking about amendments or about the main motion, it will come to a vote. I think what has to be recognized is that there is a very strong difference of opinion on the resolution itself. There have been discussions amongst us, from time to time about how that might be expedited.
I have said categorically to my friend, the government House leader, on every occasion, that I took seriously-and maybe this is where I was wrong-two undertakings that were given by the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). One of those undertakings was given the night he made the announcement in respect of the proposals before the government. What he said was that every Member of Parliament who wanted to speak would have the right to speak on that resolution.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are not going to hold our noses here to put it through.


Walter David Baker: Then, prior to the Christmas adjournment the government House leader, on the instructions of cabinet, because I do not think he would do it on his own initiative-I think better of him than that-used the provisions of Standing Order 33 in the House to close off debate when Members of Parliament were exercising their right. As everyone knows, there was a great upset in the House of Commons, and I do not condone that kind of upset in this place.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Edward Broadbent: More hypocrisy!


Walter David Baker: But it occurred, and that was the use of closure at the first stage. Then when we raised that, we were told by the Prime Minister again, "Don't worry, fellows. You still have the third stage."
In answer to a question from the hon. member from Athabasca (Mr. Shields) a line is recorded in Hansard in which he said he wanted to hear from every member. So, we had closure the first time with the promise that we would have the right to hear, at the third stage, every member who wanted to speak.
The fact is that as the debate has gone on-and you yourself can check-the speeches have not been 40 minutes; they have been much shorter than that, with one exception. That happened to be the speech of the Prime Minister. He is the Prime Minister and I am not going to quarrel with his right to do that. That is what we were promised, twice.
What we are faced with today as a result of the question I put to the government House leader last night is this: "I want

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Broadbent
to proceed to the motion that stands in my name on the order paper, the effect of which will be to limit debate in this House to four days." On its face it has an admission within it that members will not be allowed to speak. In fact, on its face it says that because members will not be allowed to speak-and this is Parliament where members are supposed to be allowed to speak on the most fundamental issue there is, "-you can file written essays, gentlemen, not beyond 3,000 words, please. We do not want to overburden Hansard so let's not do that."
That is the issue today. Madam Speaker, I said publicly and I am going to say in this House, that I will resist with every legitimate procedural device there is-not rushing into the House to call the bells early or anything like that, but, with every legitimate procedural device there is-the opportunity for the government to call the motion which stands in the name of the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and that is that closure motion which, instead of the quick death of Standing Order 33, is a slow strangulation method. The end result is the same, that my colleagues will not be able to make their speeches.
We have, in fact used-and I use "we" collectively because members of the House on all sides have been involved in the discussions-a fair amount of parliamentary time. I want to say to my friend directly that while that motion stands on the order paper in his name, that closure motion, we are going to use parliamentary time and we are going to waste it.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Walter David Baker: We are going to waste the time that could otherwise be used in allowing Members of Parliament to utilize the right which they believe they had because they believed the Prime Minister. Madam Speaker, that is the position which we take.


John Carnell Crosbie: We are going to hangar down.


Walter David Baker: We are not objecting, after every member who wants to speak has the right to speak, to the question being put on the constitutional resolution itself. We realize that has to be the effect of the debate, but we take the view that this is so fundamental to Canada, to the sense of togetherness of the country, to the sense of this Parliament, to everything that all of us in this House, I think, should hold dear, no motion which is closure by another name ought to stand between the right of Members of Parliament to exercise what we believe is our right, and that is the right to speak.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, we on this side listened very carefully to what the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton had to say in the last few minutes. I hope he will listen to what I have to say in the next few seconds.
The House leader of the official opposition in this House just stated publicly that his party intended to deliberately waste the time of this House-


Walter David Baker: No!


An hon. Member:: That is not what he said.


Yvon Pinard: -if the government was not willing to withdraw its motion to limit time on the constitutional debate. Those were his exact words, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: No.


An hon. Member:: You should listen.


Yvon Pinard: We are speaking now on a question of privilege raised by the hon. Leader of the NDP. The basis of that question of privilege is the right of this Parliament, this institution, to work. The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton said, "We will resist with every legitimate device there is ..." I say this is wrong. What they have been doing this week was not to use legitimate devices but was to use frivolous points of order, frivolous questions of privilege, to delay and obstruct this Parliament, and stop this Parliament, this institution, from working. That is what they were doing. This is not a legitimate device at all, Madam Speaker.
If I may be allowed and if my colleague is patient, I will quote from the constitutional debate those few lines, and I ask
them,	I beg them to listen very, very carefully as I read:
The policy of the opposition was just this-they wished to spend the whole of March and the best part of April in the general discussion upon my motion; and
then,	when they could do nothing more to nauseate the House and disgust the country with the subject, when they had wearied the members and made the reporters sick with their talk they were to spend the remainder of April, all May and June, and run the debate well into summer, upon the amendments they intended to propose one after another. It is because these honourable gentlemen have not endeavoured honestly and candidly to discuss the question, but have played the game of prolonging the debate to midsummer and preventing the House coming to a final decision upon it, that the government have taken the step now proposed-


An hon. Member:: Who wrote that?


An hon. Member:: Machiavelli?


Yvon Pinard: No, that was not Machiavelli, that was Sir John A. Macdonald 116 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: I just heard an hon. member from the other side say that I was quoting Machiavelli. I was quoting Sir John A. Macdonald when he was delivering his speech in the great debate on a resolution to establish confederation in Canada, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: May I remind my hon. colleague that I was quoting from the great debates on confederation, specifically March 5, 1865.


An hon. Member:: It went on all summer.


Yvon Pinard: At that time debate on confederation started mid-January and ended on March 11 that year.
March 27, 1981

Sir John A. Macdonald uttered the words I have just quoted in 1865, and it is coincidental that 116 years later we find ourselves in an almost identical situation at about the same time of year. Sir John A. in the confederation debate was about to put the previous question. He did that on March 5, and described his motion as follows:
I move, sir, that the main question be now put.
Explaining his motion after having said that, he said:
That was the proposition made by the government. It was a fair, liberal, even a generous one.
Sir John A. Macdonald, after two months of debate put the question on March 5, 1865.
Mir. Clark: How many members were in the House?


Yvon Pinard: On March 10 or March 11, at one o'clock in the morning, the confederation debate was over. It was a former Tory Prime Minister of Canada who uttered the words which I have just quoted. If he were in this House today, he would be ashamed of the attitude of Her Majesty's official opposition. He found that after two months it was enough. Yet we have been debating this question almost six months. We allowed this question to go to a joint committee of the House and the Senate where many amendments were debated. We are now in the sixth week of debate on one amendment put by the hon. member for Provencher. We have not yet been able to dispose of this amendment and deal with the rest of the resolution.
The reasons the hon. member for Oshawa rose today are obvious. He is saying to the official opposition, and I join with him, that if they do not agree with our proposals, they cannot claim they have not had time to speak. They have been allowed almost six months, compared to the two months which were allowed by Sir John A. Macdonald, to deal with the old confederation. They have had ample time and they must recognize that, in a democracy, in a parliamentary system, there is a time when the government must have its way. There is a time when a question must be put and there is a time when elected representatives of the people of Canada decide if it is to be approved or rejected. But it is basically wrong for a House leader to say he will not allow a question that has been discussed over a six-month period of time to come to a vote-


Walter David Baker: I did not say that.


Yvon Pinard: -and will deliberately waste the time of the House of Commons of Canada. That is wrong, Madam Speaker. That is unacceptable.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: There are 25 minutes left before we reach private members' hour at four o'clock today. I am sure the official opposition will not allow me to put the motion to allow all members of Parliament to be on record, and allow most of them to speak for 20 minutes each over the next four days, each day comprising 13 hours. I am pretty sure the official opposition will not allow me to do that today.
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
We have the weekend ahead of us. I invite the official opposition to respect the dignity of this institution, to respect the Speaker and to allow this Parliament to work, and-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Yvon Pinard: -and after six months to allow a question to be put. I invite them to reflect on what Sir John A. Macdonald said exactly 116 years ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. 1 think I can dispose of this particular question of privilege. First, I want to tell hon. members that I am not trying to push ahead with business of the House, but I have several notices of questions of privilege. Like any good administrator, I must try to get rid of papers on my desk, if at all possible and I must insist on doing it that way when a question of privilege is obviously not a question of privilege. I think I can rule in that sense that this is obviously a debate.
The hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) did not indicate there had been any irregularities in the procedure or in the customs of the House. He does not like what some hon. members are doing during the course of this debate, but that is not for me to determine. The rules are there precisely to ensure that the democratic right of Members of Parliament to speak are protected. Since hon. members did not detect any irregularities in the proceedings, I have to say that, while it might be debate, differences of opinions-all of these things together perhaps-but the hon. member did not have a question of privilege.
The next question of privilege I have is in the name of the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence).


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, I gave you notice this morning at the earliest possible moment of a question of privilege. At the same time I gave verbal notice to the minister concerned. The Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) was here earlier, but he is not in the House now. I seek your guidance as to whether I should continue. You know the gist and the substance of my question of privilege because I gave it to you in writing. Perhaps I should wait until Monday when the minister will be here.


Madam Speaker:: That is the hon. member's choice. I cannot tell him when to raise his question of privilege. His notice is in order. It came at the proper time. There is no rule about the order in which I should hear questions of privilege. However, I shall tell hon. members that I classify them in the order in which they reach me. I have now come to the hon. member's question of privilege. I know the hon. minister is not in the House, but that does not preclude the hon. member from raising his question of privilege. The only thing which might happen is that I would not rule in the minister's absence.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, under the circumstances, I think as a courtesy to the minister, if you do not mind and as long as I am not abrogating any rights as far as my question of

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Oberle
privilege is concerned, out of courtesy I would like to wait until the minister is here.


Madam Speaker:: That is the hon. member's choice.
The next question of privilege I have is in the name of the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle).


MR. OBERLE-ALLEGED FAILURE TO FULLFIL STATUTORY REQUIREMENTS
Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, 1, too, gave you notice this morning of my intention to raise a question of privilege with regard to the failure of a minister of the Crown to live up to his statutory requirements under an obligation he has in connection with an act passed before this Parliament. I make reference to the statutory requirements which the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) has in connection with the James Bay and Northern Quebec agreement.
I shall quote the requirement in the act as follows:
The Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development shall, within sixty days after the First day of January of every year including and occurring between the years 1978 and 1998, submit to the House of Commons a report on the implementation of the provisions of this act for the relevant period.
I raise this question of privilege at this time because over the last few days before the standing committee we have had members of the native associations from northern Quebec who are directly affected by the agreement.
The James Bay Northern Quebec Agreement was not an ordinary land claims settlement or agreement. It is known as the most modern precedent-setting agreement ever reached in this country. I look around the House and see many of the members who served in the House and on the committee at the time the agreement was signed in 1977.
Because of the history of the treatment of native people in this country over the last 100 years and, indeed, much longer, we in the opposition at that time wanted to ensure that this agreement, which was to set the pace and precedent for all agreements to follow, would be one of which we could all be proud. We wanted an agreement that could be honoured by all parties which were a signatory to it. For that reason we insisted at the time that the minister, who was the guardian of the people affected by the agreement, make an annual report to Parliament. The minister has the responsibility for native people directly. He cannot pass that on to any province or agency. He is the guardian of rights of native people in this country.
We wanted to be sure that this agreement, which was negotiated and signed in good faith, would finally be honoured. For that reason the hon. member for Moose Jaw (Mr. Neil) moved a motion to amend the agreement, "that the minister of Indian affairs be required to report to the House on an annual basis as to the implementation of the agreement".
We have the first report from the minister which was tabled in November, 1980. The report for 1978 was not tabled. The report for 1979 was not tabled.


Jacques Raymond (Ray) Chénier: That was your government.


Frank Oberle: The report which was tabled in 1980 was eight months late. It is now the eighty-sixth day of 1981 and the minister has still not tabled his annual report.
So serious is the infringement and the neglect of this particular agreement that the people came to Ottawa to meet with the minister and to appear before the standing committee. They told us of unbelievable horror stories. They told us their children are dying of disease because the government passed its responsibility for health care, as well as its responsibility for education, to someone else. It was not its right to do that under the agreement. It did not pass on the means and the funds required for the establishment of health care and education delivery systems.
For that reason the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway) stood up and challenged the Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin), reminding her of her responsibility, which has not yet expired. He told her that ten small children had died in the area because of unsanitary conditions which occurred because the agreement entered into in good faith had not been implemented. The death of these children occurred because the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development did not report these conditions to the House, yet that is his statutory obligation.
So frustrating is this situation that the chairman of the Indian and Northern Affairs Development Committee said to the press last night, and I quote from the March 27 edition of The Globe and Mail reporting on what the hon. member for Cochrane (Mr. Penner) said:
It's stupid to spend a lot of time and money investigating problems when you can't make any recommendations to Parliament. Perhaps that will provide the pressure-point to improving the implementation process.
The hon. member stated that the committee is not split along party lines, as most other committees. That is indeed a fact. All the members of the Indian Affairs and Northern Development committee agreed last night to sit behind closed doors to conspire and try to work out some kind of scheme whereby the members of the committee, including members of the governing party, could decide on a way to apprise the public of what is happening in northern Quebec in respect of that agreement. The article continues:
"Most MPs feel they are fighting against the Indian Affairs bureaucracy," he added.
Warren Allmand, Liberal MP for Notre-Dame-de-Grace in Montreal and former Indian affairs minister, said it may be the first time all MPs on a committee have felt strongly enough about an issue to circumvent Parliament.
The Inuit, who insist the James Bay agreement is a good one, want Ottawa and Quebec to pay the cost of implementing the agreement.
Under the agreement, Quebec's 6,500 Cree and 5,200 Inuit or Eskimos gave up their rights to half the province so that Quebec-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is debating, and he knows that. If I let him go on, he will read the
March 27, 1981

whole report to the House. I cannot allow that. The hon. member has yet to prove that he has a prima facie case of privilege. I would ask him to make some effort to indicate that to me.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, my privilege is simply this. It concerns the privileges of all members who serve on the Indian affairs committee. We are prevented from adequately discharging our duty by the fact that the minister is not reporting to the House the extent to which this agreement has been implemented. That is the question of privilege.
This is not the first time this kind of question has been raised in the House. When the House makes a conscious decision to include a requirement in a statute that there shall be a reporting to the House on an annual basis, that compares with the annual reporting of the Auditor General or the Commissioner of Official Languages and Human Rights. Why is there that requirement under statute that the minister must report? It is so that members can discharge their duties in line with the responsibilities they receive when they accept membership in this institution.
The minister has not reported to the House, as is his statutory requirement. For that reason, the members of the Indian affairs committee and all members of this House were not able to discharge their responsibility to those children who died in the Quebec region. The minister has a responsibility to those who live in that region in abject poverty, similar to that in Third World countries. I would point out when the Cree appeared before the committee, they could not identify their member of Parliament. That member knows this agreement has not been implemented properly. He is ashamed to go to that area lest he have to accept responsibility for some of the problems which occur there.
I would ask, Madam Speaker, that you refer to other debates throughout Hansard where other Speakers have ruled. In particular, I refer you to a debate on March 9, 1972, where my former colleague from Peace River, Mr. Baldwin, reported to the House the failure of the Auditor General to report his findings. The then hon. member for Peace River wanted the Auditor General called before the Bar of the House. The Speaker ruled that an officer of the Crown or an officer of the House could not be made accountable for his actions in that way, and that could not be done. It was quite clear. He said that even though the privileges of the members may have not been affected, it was a very serious breach of order of the House. There again he was referring to an officer of the House rather than a minister. In this particular case, Madam Speaker, we are talking about the statutory responsibility of a minister, and his failure to live up to that responsibility.
For that reason, Madam Speaker, should you find that I have a prima facie case of privilege, I am prepared to move the appropriate motion to ask this minister to appear before a committee to answer for his neglect and his contempt of Parliament.
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid I have to deal with this question rather quickly as it is quite clear there is no question of privilege. I remind the hon. member that failure to comply with the law is not a matter for the Speaker to determine, but rather should be decided by the courts, and I quote Beau-chesne's fourth edition, 71(5):
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
I read that because I want the hon. member to understand it is appreciated that he brought this matter before the House, but of course I cannot be called upon to judge it. The hon. member has complied with this rule by bringing the matter to the attention of the House and, hopefully, the House will consider whether it has been inconvenienced by the fact that a certain thing has not been done. But, it is not for me to force the minister to comply with the law. I thank the hon. member for having brought it before the House.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, one final comment. What recourse-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think I have told the hon. member what his recourse is.


Frank Oberle: There is no recourse.


Madam Speaker:: Well, there is no recourse to the Chair because the Chair cannot decide.


Frank Oberle: But it is the institution-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry, but when I am explaining the position to the hon. member he has to listen to the Chair. The recourse is not to the Speaker, and the hon. member surely has enough knowledge and experience of parliamentary and government affairs that he can inform himself of the necessary recourse. I am telling him now there is no recourse to the Chair.


MR. HAWKES-PROPOSED REPRINTING AND DISPOSITION OF PORTIONS OF &quot;HANSARD&quot;
Frederick James (Jim) Hawkes: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege arises from today's question period and involves an exchange between the hon. member for Gaspe (Mr. Cyr) and the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau). You will recall the hon. member for Gaspe asked the Prime Minister if he would consider an extra printing of the March 23 edition of Hansard. This request was made so they could be supplied to the parliamentary members in Britain, and others whom I cannot recall.
I was positively disposed to this idea because of the quality of the Prime Minister's speech, and in particular his quotations of the Late Right Hon. John Diefenbaker during the flag debate when he indicated we would have a less united country some years later, which certainly is the case. I would be disposed to see that this was brought to the attention of parliamentarians in Britain.

March 27, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Hawkes
However, the Prime Minister's response was that he was predisposed, I believe were the words, to have the Crown pay for extra printing of Hansard provided that it included Hansard for the days on which the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) and the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent) spoke on this matter.
As 1 reflected upon that, Madam Speaker, I thought perhaps the privileges of this House were likely to be circumvented by the predisposition and any action as a result of it. It is, I think, a basic principle of parliamentary law that we are the Commoners, equal in this House, and in that way our constituents are treated equally in this House. Certainly on such an historic debate I would believe that, even though this resolution says the people of my province, hence my riding, shall be second or third-class citizens compared to those of other provinces, at least we would not move in that direction in this House; that each of us here should be treated as first-class Members of Parliament, equals, and that the predisposition of the Prime Minister to have three days of debate sent off to the British parliamentarians would in fact infringe on the rights of the people I represent.
If in fact he is predisposed to do that, then I think, Madam Speaker, in terms of your responsibility to this House, you might advise the Prime Minister that he should send all of the issues dealing with this debate so that those on the list of the hon. member for Gaspe would receive all the speeches that have been made, and that is the brief point that I wanted to bring to your attention.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, you will recall that earlier today I indicated there was a point of order I wished to pursue arising from Question Period where I put a question to the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) having to do with a question before the Supreme Court of Canada and the matter of this Parliament's ability to deal constitutionally with the resolution now before the House. I wish to pursue this matter now before the day expiries as it has to do with the question period, and in order that I can carry on that debate at some other time.
It is a matter of some very real concern to all of us on this side of the House that we are dealing with a situation in which the government-


Mr. Ouellet:: Sit down, you are out of order again.


Charles Joseph Clark: I understand when a point of order has been raised and I am speaking on that point of order, as you have earlier ruled, Madam Speaker, my point of order takes precedence over one raised from the floor. So the point of order I am pursuing has to do-


André Ouellet: Order.


Charles Joseph Clark: -with the very real concern we have on this side of the House at a time when it is possible that the premiers can come together and get agreement. Andre Ouellet, speaking as he usually does to judges, tells me that I should sit down.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Just so I can keep some order in the House, I have to dispose of the questions raised by the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes). However, I consider the hon. member has risen before four o'clock.
The hon. member for Calgary West understood, I am sure, that the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) had suggested that the other speeches would be printed as he probably assumed this would not be a partisan thing. He suggested that the speeches of the other leaders of parties should be printed as well, but he expressed only the opinion that it would be a good thing. This does not in itself cause the speeches to be printed and appended to Hansard, or extra copies to be printed. It was not made an order of the House. Therefore, we have no such order of the House before of us and, for the time being at least, those speeches will not be printed.
The hon. member suggested that all of the speeches be printed so that all hon. members could be equal in this House. He would have to ask for the unanimous consent of the House for that to be done, and he could do that at some other date when procedure allows. For the time being, nothing is being printed, neither the speech of the Prime Minister, the Leader of the Opposition, nor the Leader of the New Democratic Party (Mr. Broadbent).
The Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition has the floor, and it is now four o'clock.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: I cannot have two at the same time. I have a point of order-


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, my understanding is that I have the floor, but we are now into a different stage of the proceedings of the House, and I certainly would not want to intrude upon private members' hour.


André Ouellet: What a farce.


Charles Joseph Clark: I should specify my understanding.


Madam Speaker:: I want to make sure whether the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition could still have the floor when the House resumes. I have not had that question presented to me before. I just want to make sure. I want to make it quite clear that my advice is that the right hon. member will have the floor when the House resumes the particular proceedings we are engaged in now, but for the time being-


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: On a point of order-


Madam Speaker:: For the time being it is four o'clock.
[ Translation]
It being four o'clock the House will now proceed to the consideration of private members' business as listed on today's
March 27, 1981

Order Paper, namely, public bills, notices of motions and private bills.


PRIVATE MEMBERS' PUBLIC BILLS
[Stage Direction]
[ Translation]

Mr. Pat Nowlan (Annapolis Valley-Hants) moved: that Bill C-217, respecting the official designation of "Nova Scotia", be read the second time and referred to the Standing Committee on Justice and Legal Affairs.
He said: Mr. Speaker, before dealing with the substance of my proposition, I should like to make a few preliminary remarks. First and foremost, I want to emphasize the fact that the introduction of this bill does not relate in any way to bilingualism. I am solely interested in the purity of the forms enshrined in legislation, documents and traditions.


Mr.   Speaker-Mr. Knowles@: Carry on. Continuez en fran$ais.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: I will have a few more words-

-a few words in French. Although I am not fully bilingual at the moment, I am studying French and I hope that by the end of this session I will be functionally bilingual.

But I seriously ask the House to consider Bill C-217, which has a very simple title but, frankly, does have a serious message.
This matter affects all members. Mr. Speaker, you and I have sat in this House when the then hon. member for Three Rivers used to rise in his place in a proper way and raise questions of privilege every time "Three Rivers" was used as a proper noun to describe that place. You remember that, I remember it, perhaps other hon. members remember it and I think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) would remember it. I think that member was a former mayor of Trois-Rivieres. Gilles Gregoire was also a member. 1 forget the name of the county, but every time the words "Seven Islands" were used, he stood in his place on a question of privilege and said, "The proper noun for my place is 'Sept-lies' ". That was of particular interest to me because I used to work in Sept-Iles when it was called "Seven Islands", long before iron ore was developed in Ungava. I was on a survey crew for the Iron Ore Company of Canada to lay the centre line up the Moisie River. At that time it was "Seven
Designation of Nova Scotia
Islands". It was a little fishing village. It is now Sept-Iles, quite properly.
There is probably no good time to present this type of bill because we are perhaps ultra sensitive with respect to language in this House. I actually had this bill before the House and on the Table at the time of the referendum. Frankly, I have had it on the Order Paper for about two years. There were always tense times with respect to language, and I deliberately delayed bringing the bill on. Perhaps I am bringing it on now because there may be no good time to bring it on, but- [Translation]
Finally, by way of introductory remarks, may I say that I would have liked to deliver in French all my argument in support of this bill. Still, I will continue to make efforts and take lessons to improve my French, but I admit that those efforts have left me somewhat less than perfect. Therefore, I would not dare embark upon a long speech, keeping in mind the status I have achieved thus far.

Having said that, I want to emphasize by those preliminary remarks en fran9ais that this bill is not against anything. It is for the proper use of proper nouns. That is the whole purpose of this bill.
The proper noun for the Speaker, "Monsieur le President", may be very apropos in view of the things which have gone on in this House for the last two or three days. "Sauve" means to save. Madame Sauve, is the hon. Speaker of this House. That is stretching it a little. The man who was chastised by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, Mr. Baker, is Monsieur Boulanger. The Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) is "Romeo the white". Even the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) is the pit, in effect, almost.


Mr. Pepin:: The "peep-in".


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: The "peep-in". My friend Bernard Loiselle-I know what that is en anglais. It is too demeaning to say in English. The hon. member is much finer than the translation of his name, as far as I know. There may be some jest, and I am glad there is because we know the temperature of this House rises and sometimes get a little too hot.
Frankly, for a period this afternoon I did not think this was the best time to bring this bill to the floor of the House in view of some of the things which were said, but I accentuate the fact that this bill has as its purpose the proper use of proper nouns with respect to some of the people I have mentioned, but especially with respect to places.
I have mentioned two places which stimulate my interest in my own province, the proper nouns, Trois-Rivieres, and Sept-Iles, because as some hon. members may not know the proper noun describing my province of Nova Scotia is neither English nor French. It is Latin. It is in the original charter given by King James way back in 1621 to William Alexander. In the original charter it was "Nova Scotia". Of course, in those days the educated people could not speak English or French. The only language they could speak was Latin. It is as simple as

March 27, 1981
Designation of Nova Scotia
that. But if the name is "Nova Scotia" in Latin, I say with respect that it should not be translated because it would not be the proper name.
I gather all hon. members in this House know that the name "Canada" is not a French name or an English name. It is an Indian name. It is the Huron-Iroquois name "Kanata" meaning a village or community. We all accept "Canada" as the name of our country. We do not translate it. We do not have "Canada" on one side of a name card and "Village or Community" on the other.
The case of Quebec is very interesting. As all hon. members from la belle province know, "Quebec" is an Indian name. The Algonquin name for Quebec means where the river narrows. I cannot say that in French but I do say I am proud and happy that Quebec is known by its proper name, and in my opinion and submission Nova Scotia also should be known by its proper name. The interesting thing about Quebec, which I did not appreciate, but scholars of French would know, and I imagine you, Mr. Speaker, would know, is that if you went down the river a little way you would get the translation of Quebec in French from the name of a little town called Detroit. In effect, Detroit means of the narrows, the same meaning as that of Quebec in the Algonquian language. Until I did a little research on this I did not appreciate that, and I thank those researchers who gave me that little hint.
Let us now move on to that great big province of Ontario. Again Ontario is a name which is not translated at federal-provincial conferences. It is not English or French, it is Iroquois. It has two names, ontare, meaning lake, plus io meaning beautiful, or beautiful lake. If Ontario means beautiful lake and Ontario is good enough for Ontario and for the Canadian public, and in federal-provincial affairs, we do not have to make it any prettier by calling it beautiful lake.
Nova Scotia is Latin for New Scotland, it is not Nouvelle-Ecosse. Let us go out west to a couple of the provinces there. Manitoba in Cree and Ojibway means the strait of the manito or spirit. Saskatchewan is another Indian name. It is a Cree Kishiska name for rapid current. I could go on to the other provinces but I will not waste much time on them. They have names which are translatable into English or French even though, quite frankly for my purpose, in terms of the proper use of language, they should be known by their own proper names.
You could consider the names of members on both sides of the House, such as that of my friend, the former minister of agriculture, the hon. member for Elgin (Mr. Wise). He wants to be known by his own name of John Wise, not Jean Le Sage. The whole thing could be carried to absurd lengths. Or let us consider the name of the former minister, the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace-Lachine East (Mr. Allmand) who, I am sure, would prefer to be known as Mr. Allmand, not Mr. German. There are so many other names, but I do not want to take the time of the House to go through them. Quite frankly, the proper name for British Columbia should be British
Columbia, not Colombie Britannique. Trois Rivieres is the proper name for Trois Rivieres. I do not understand why that name is not translated but British Columbia is.
I want to stick to my own province of Nova Scotia. My own town, which is a very beautiful spot in Nova Scotia, is called Wolfville, and it is known as such. Anyone who tried to translate it to la Ville de Loup would find that, although it might help him to get through on the telephone system, he would be laughed at in my province. I seriously hope members will be disposed to give some direction and pass this very simple bill. It did not take a bill for us to correct what I consider to be an injustice in terms of Trois Rivieres and Sept-fles.
Now that I have finally got this bill on the floor of the House, having started work on it eight years ago, I intend from now on, in a non-argumentative way, to try to stress the importance of using proper names for places in this country. Just notice, Mr. Speaker, how conditioned we are. The very title of my bill says in French "la Nouvelle-Ecosse". That is in the official title of my bill. I will not go into all the pragmatic reasons I would like to see this changed in terms of tourism. We spend money in our part of the country to get tourists to come to Canada. I know that part of the country has a history of its own and I have received some very interesting letters from people in Nova Scotia and in Quebec, some very good Acadian friends of mine, who have sent me copies of their deeds 300 or 400 years ago. Some of them are in Nova Scotia, but some of the early Acadians even then were calling it Nouvelle-Ecosse because they had translated the Latin name of Nova Scotia. That is all right. I am not suggesting we could get this changed overnight and condition people to calling Nova Scotia by its proper name.
I see the former premier of Nova Scotia, the Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), in the House. Had I known he would be here on this late Friday afternoon, I perhaps would have tried to get him to second this bill in the hope it could move through, because it will hurt no one. Frankly, at this time when we are trying to renew federalism, as has been discussed from time to time when we are revising constitutions, and as we have certainly heard from time to time, we should allow reform on the proper use of language and call proper nouns by their proper names.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Mr. Douglas Fisher (Mississauga North):: Mr. Speaker, I have to say at the outset that this is a tough act to follow. Like most of his fellow members from la Nouvelle-Ecosse, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) is a great speaker and he has clearly laid out his reason for putting this bill forward. I have to say I support him. I think it is a good idea. He wants to make common usage official usage. I think that is a good idea. He has spent a long time in his speech telling us he is not against anything and, like most of the people from Nova Scotia who I know, such as our Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) or our Minister of Labour (Mr. Regan), I think it is a constructive idea from a constructive
March 27, 1981

person. He really made his point with me when he said he is dealing with a standardized approach. He wants to make Nova Scotia, like Moose Jaw, a name that we know from coast to coast, the same name in every language. I think it is a great idea and I cannot stress enough how much I support it. It is an idea that follows a trend. It stresses the bilingual aspect of our country by picking out a third and quite acceptable compromise.
We have seen this with things like Air Canada and a lot of other official government names. We are now seeing it creeping slowly and surely into our use of place names. The proposal is logical and practical. I think it recognizes tradition, it recognizes the great history of that province as the first colony of Great Britain to possess a royal charter and a flag of its own. As he said, it harks back to the days of King James I when the only language of the educated was Latin.
However, the hon. member belongs to a party which has taught us that agreement and high-minded principle are not enough in this House. Being a new member here, I would like to apply one or two of the tests I have been learning over the past few weeks to this particular bill. I have listened to the constitutional debate and I have learned that the end does not justify the means. I hope the hon. member can apply some rigorous tests to his idea. I wonder, for example, what the other provinces say about this. Has the hon. member discussed this with the current Premier of Nova Scotia, let alone, for example, the premier of my province, Mr. Davis, who has been known to take an independent stand on some things. After all, Mr. Davis in my province will have to change all the maps of some areas, and little children will have to learn all kinds of new things. No longer will the people of Sudbury be saying Nouvelle-Ecosse; they will be saying Nova Scotia. Do we have the Premier's consent to make that change? I really wonder whether we can proceed to steamroller this idea over those premiers. Perhaps if they do not agree, we could opt in and opt out. Perhaps in Sudbury it will still be Nouvelle-Ecosse, whereas on Vancouver Island, Nova Scotia will ring loud and clear. What does popular opinion say? Have we had a Gallup, have we had a Goldfarb, have we had an election on this? Did the hon. member campaign on this the last time around? Does he have a clear and ringing mandate to bring this to this House, or he is trying to push through his own ideas? Principles are not enough; we need to have popular consent. Does the hon. member want to call an election on it? Would he like us to discuss this with the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)? Perhaps we should be discussing trilingualism from coast to coast; not unilingualism, or bilingualism, but the idea that Canada needs to remember her great Latin roots. Maybe we should just have a special referendum, although I know that idea, as I heard today, is particularly odious in some corners.
As a Liberal, one can see I am cautious. I do not want to shove Latin down the throats of every Canadian. I do not want to add to a bureaucracy where we would have to change the maps and spend thousands of dollars just to bring this idea into line.
Designation of Nova Scotia
Perhaps the hon. member can tell me: Does Parliament have the right to decide? Should we take it to the people? Should we take it to the premiers? Are we acting out of line here? Perhaps we have here from Annapolis Valley-Hants a red Tory, a man who wants to take us back.
I am happy to support this bill. I think it is a great idea. I think it reflects the respect for education, the high standards and traditions which prevail in Nova Scotia. I would like to say quite seriously that I personally believe that Nova Scotia is becoming tomorrow's country. The change of attitude which has existed in that province for the last ten years has been remarkable. Today, Nova Scotians are high-minded and optimistic about their future, but I am sure they, as all Canadians, have a respect for Parliament.
I will cut my speech short, just so that I do not waste time and filibuster on this important idea. Having expressed my reservations, I hope that the due process will now take place.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


An hon. Member:: That is a tough act to follow.


Mr. Peter Stollery (Spadina):: Mr. Speaker, yes, it is a very difficult act to follow. After all, it is not simple to argue against what seems at first to make sense. It is a Latin name. The hon. member proposes that we should effectively make "Nova Scotia" the name of that province in both official languages. But I would argue that it would start a whole series of changes in names which go back many hundreds of years. [Translation]
It introduces in the French Canadian language what is known as "Franglais"; in my opinion, a great many people in Canada who already find it difficult to cope with two languages would find this unacceptable; we must oppose this idea of mixing French and English, which would destroy both languages and we would end up with "Franglais". This suggestion would establish a precedent which a great many Canadians would find unacceptable.

I noticed with interest that the hon. member mentioned Three Rivers and Trois-Rivieres in his speech. Personally I have always thought that we live in a bilingual country. As an English Canadian, when I am speaking English I refer to Three Rivers, whereas French Canadians refer to it as Trois-Rivieres. That is the spirit of bilingualism, as I understand it as a reasonably bilingual Canadian of English background. I do not see anything wrong with it.
It is rather difficult to expect unilingual Canadians to switch back and forth. These problems do not really arise very much with bilingual Canadians; they come up more with unilingual Canadians. It is difficult to ask them to switch suddenly to an unfamiliar pronunciation. In the case of Nova Scotia, the precedent dates back approximately 300 years. The hon. member talked about Nova Scotia getting its charter in 1621. I do not think the reason it was written in Latin at that time

March 27, 1981
Designation of Nova Scotia
was because educated people had difficulty speaking English or French; it was probably a custom at the time.
I have read most of the works of Samuel Pepys in that 1659-60 to 1669 period. In those days it was common to use a Latin description for titles and such things, not because people could not speak English or French or because educated people spoke Latin. Certainly in the early part of the seventeenth century in England people did not speak Latin.
It is interesting to look at the map of Quebec. There have been many recent name changes in the northern portion of le Nouveau Quebec. I should like to refer to this business of suddenly deciding to change a name which has been in existence for 300 years, as is the case of la Nouvelle-Ecosse, and suddenly saying-
[ Translation]
I intend to spend a holiday with my family in Nova Scotia. It would not sound right in French if I said; "Bon, je vais avec ma famille passer mes vacances en Nova Scotia."

It is not really what bilingualism is supposed to mean in Canada. I think it is unreasonable to ask for this, as the hon. member is doing in good faith. I am not suggesting the idea does not make some sense, but it is unreasonable to ask people all over the French-speaking world to suddenly change their atlases and their customary way of referring to the province of Nova Scotia. It gets into this business of "franglais" which, as the hon. member knows, is resisted rather strongly in many French-speaking countries. It will not work. In fact, name changes will lead us in Canada into more difficulties than can readily be seen.

Considering the systematic effort of the Government of Canada to make our federal institutions bilingual ever since the enactment of the Official Languages Act in 1968, we do not hesitate to describe as regressive this attempt at "unilingu-ization", Mr. Speaker, it is on purpose that I used the word "unilinguization". I could even have termed it an attempt at English "unilinguization".
I would point out to the hon. member who proposes this idea that one of the very important points against his bill in the province of Nova Scotia today is that there is a fairly substantial French-speaking minority. This morning when I was looking at the figures I noted that the minority had declined in only five years in the 1970s from about 6 per cent of the population to approximately 5 per cent. In other words, it is already difficult for French-speaking Canadians to survive in Nova Scotia as French-speaking Canadians, for all kinds of reasons. It seems to me we would be putting, unnecessarily, one more nail in their language coffin. For all of recent history, and going back to the time when the Acadians came back, I guess in the early part of the nineteenth century-


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: In 1755.


Peter A. Stollery: They didn't come back in 1755, that is when they went out. They did not get back until quite a long time after that. We could discuss at length what the province was called before the Acadians were expelled. I am sure that since they have been back they have always referred to it as Nova Scotia.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: It was Acadie.


Peter A. Stollery: They have always referred to it as Nouvelle-Ecosse.


John Patrick (Pat) Nowlan: Acadie.


Peter A. Stollery: I am saying since they came back; it was Acadia that they were expelled from. As the hon. member knows, the people who were actually expelled were the Acadians who lived in the French Shore, who had agreed that they were the treaty Acadians.
If I recollect my Francis Parkman, whom I have not read for many years, they were the treaty Acadians who then got into some trouble because of various New England versus Quebec arguments. Finally, they were expelled. At that time they probably called themselves Acadians but, in fact, they were treaty Acadians. The French had ceded the territory to the New Englanders.
I suspect that after they were expelled in 1755 and came back, up until 1930 they were still drifting back to New Brunswick and Nova Scotia. There is no question that ever since then they have had a very difficult time maintaining their culture and language. I know the hon. member supports the efforts to maintain the very ancient French culture of Nova Scotia, but I think changing the official name of Nova Scotia would also make it just a little more difficult for those people.
As I said, Mr. Speaker, I think the idea has some merit. I also think there will be some problems. There are many name places for which we use English words which in fact are not English-there are hundreds of them. I think to get into the business of legislating what a place is to be called and changing traditional practices would be counterproductive.


Mr. Marcel Prud'homme (Saint-Denis):: Mr. Speaker, if I had not known the sponsor of this bill for many years and if I had not known his father before him for a great many years, I would be very suspicious of his intentions. The advantage of sitting in this House for a long time is perhaps that you get to know well each member on both sides of the House and you can tell the difference between those who understand the spirit which must prompt us Canadians, and I am not speaking about French Canadians or English Canadians, but about all of us Canadians in this House. Some have reached a higher degree of Canadianism than others, but I have every confidence that one day, we shall all have reached the high degree
March 27, 1981

of Canadianism required if we are to understand not only what the institution of Parliament, but also every province and the federal government represent for us.
I might be afraid for my hon. friend and colleague that the francophone minority in his province would become suspicious and consider this a second attempt to expell the Acadians, but I say this with a smile. Fortunately, we can be seen on television, because those who know me will realize that I have no intention of dividing the Canadian people according to whether they speak French or English. However, I would like the hon. member to reflect on what this would mean for the French Canadians. I know that he has made considerable efforts to learn French, and I congratulate him as he, or rather as his father congratulated me on learning English as I could hardly say a few words of English when I was elected to this House. I learned English with difficulty in the beginning, and this is why I would not want the hon. member to become discouraged because he is making considerable progress. However, I can imagine what it would mean for francophones who, as my colleague the hon. member for Spadina (Mr. Stollery) has noted, would talk of spending their holidays in a place called Nova Scotia while the traditional term has always been "Nouvelle-Ecosse" in French. This designation has been traditionally accepted, and if there were a sudden change, people would wonder who brought about such a change and whether it is another regressive step. Let us imagine for a moment people telling us: I plan on spending my holidays-

I am going to go for the summer to Newfoundland. It is rightfully universally accepted by everyone in Canada-at least every Canadian of French-speaking tongue-so you know where I put the emphasis "Canadian of French-speaking tongue". It is not my fault if the translation is bad and in English we are called "French Canadian". In French we call ourselves "Canadiens frangais", but in English it is not my fault if they put the emphasis somewhere else. One thing I know is that we say to ourselves, "Nous allons a Terre-Neuve". We do not say, "Nous allons in Newfoundland". Maybe some day we will say that. I know my friends opposite may like that, but I did not think it acceptable for us. They will not say, "I am going this summer to British Columbia". They say, "la Colombie-Britannique", even though when I was young at school I was taught that there was a nice province called "Canadian Columbia", because the word was offensive to some. It is not offensive to me. Then do you say, "I am going to go to New Brunswick"?

Would I go spend my holidays "au Nouveau-Brunswick" or in New Brunswick? People say "le Nouveau-Brunswick". Do people say, Will you be spending your holidays "a la Prince Edward Island"? Of course not, people say. I will be spending my holidays "a Hle-du-Prince-Edouard". Are you going to suggest at some other time that the name of Newfoundland be changed?
Designation of Nova Scotia

I can see my very good friend jumping in his seat, and rightfully so. If someone would say that "Newfoundland"in French means "Terre-Neuve" and in Latin it means "Terra Nova", so let us all go next summer to Terra Nova, then I think that would be unacceptable. That is not historical. What is historical is that we have customs. We have good customs. This one is universally accepted. Because I get along very well with some hon. members on the other side, I should not like to add to their difficulties by too solidly supporting the bill. I am ready to believe in the very good intentions of the hon. member who is the son of a very prominent friend of mine, a man who sat in this House. I always like to recall that because as a student I knew the hon. father of the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan).
I should like to say that people who are suspicious of certain intentions of certain members and certain political parties-I should like to stay above partisan politics-will say that this is something about which to be suspicious. They may not say it in English but I can assure the hon. member they would say in French that they are taking something away from us. I hear so much in this country about people who think we want to impose something on them.
There are other people who may say we are used to saying "la nouvelle-ecosse". Why, suddenly, is there this new interest to call it, en fran$ais and in English, Nova Scotia? I am trying to help my hon. friend from the other side and to help his political party too. There is so much misunderstanding and he knows about the true feelings of some of the Conservative Party on bilingualism in my own province. I am not joining in that; I am only saying to them that they should reflect upon what may happen or could happen or how people are going to interpret that-people who are used to the words "la nouvelle-ecosse".
I will conclude by saying that I should like to see this bill have a chance to come to a vote. I do not want to participate too long and take up the time that would deprive my hon. friend of a vote. I shall help him, as I always help other hon. members. I have not abused the time of the House of Commons in the 17 years I have been here because I do not believe in that. At times I believe I can be helpful in certain situations. I repeat, I do understand the good intentions and the good faith of my friend from Nova Scotia who introduced the bill. I want to tell him, however, that people will not understand it that way, especially those who are used to the words "la nouvelle-ecosse".
I hope I can convince my hon. friend, if we do come to a vote, to withdraw the bill from further consideration with the permission of the House. In that way we would not have to vote against his bill and show division on his good intentions. If that is the case, I am sure we will not have to vote and divide ourselves. If he pursues it, however, I suppose someone else will speak and then we will not have to take a decision. I think we should not have to accept the bill at this time.

March 27, 1981
Designation of Nova Scotia


Mr. Garnet M. Bloomfield (London-Middlesex):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) proposes that the name currently used in the English language to designate the province of Nova Scotia be also the official usage in the French language.
There are, no doubt, practical reasons for such a proposal. The most obvious is the administrative simplicity of a single identifiable name which is immediately recognizable and never needs to be translated from one language to the other. There is also, unfortunately, an appearance that one of our official languages, French, is being slighted by removal of the French name for this province, a name that has been in official use ever since the King of France ceded Acadia, of which Nova Scotia formed part, to the British Crown.
We have come far, especially in recent years, toward making francophone Canadians feel at home in many parts of Canada. The Government of Canada, and numerous members of this House, have taken special pains in the very recent past to proclaim Canada's deeds in this respect, and to give assurances of further progress to the people of the province of Quebec when they were asked to make a fateful decision concerning their future and that of our country. Much is being done. It is generally agreed that among the ways in which francophone Canadians will be made to feel more at home is to increase the number of Canadians learning the French language and to improve the quality of tuition.
The federal government gives financial aid to the provinces and territories to provide education in the minority official language, that is to say, English in Quebec and French in other areas of Canada. This assistance is calculated according to instruction costs and student participation rates. For example, in assisting minority language education at the elementary and secondary levels, a percentage of the average annual provincial per student cost is paid to provinces with respect to each student who is studying in the minority language on a full-time basis. Similarly, assistance for second official language teaching is based on a percentage of the cost per student enrolled in such instruction and takes into account the amount of time spent studying the second official language. The government also pays a percentage of the provincial per student cost, based on the total number of minority official language school-aged children in the province, toward administrative costs of minority language education. A further contribution is made with respect to capital expenditures relating to minority language education at the post-secondary level. Similar assistance is provided to the two territories under a separate agreement. Total payment in this program during 1979-1978 was approximately $140 million.
In addition, some $30.4 million was allocated last year for a variety of programs approved by the Secretary of State (Mr. Fox) upon recommendation by the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada.
Under a special projects program, federal contributions designed to assist the provinces to develop and expand minority official language education and second official language instruction, in areas specified by the provinces as needing
special attention, amounted to $13,721,080 for 249 projects. In order to qualify for funding, the projects had to represent an innovation or an addition to programs already in existence, or else respond to a pressing need which otherwise would remain unanswered. Examples of such projects are the implementation of new core French programs, teacher upgrading, community college courses, development of teaching materials, immersion programs, evening courses for adults, university courses, and educational television programming. Funding here is provided on a cost-sharing basis, with the federal government's share normally not exceeding 50 per cent of total project costs.
Other programs include the fellowship program, in which the Department of the Secretary of State spent some $2,500 on bursaries for each post-secondary student to pursue studies in their second official language, or to undertake studies in their own language if the students belong to an official language minority group in a province. In addition, almost $40,000 was spent on travel bursaries for students unable to pursue studies in their first official language in their province of residence or within commuting distance. Other bursaries totalling almost $2,270,000 were awarded to second or minority official language teachers to upgrade their language skills.
The federal government also provides funds for the establishment and support of minority language teacher-training institutes for the improvement of provincial language training centres. Last year $957,000 was contributed to aid provincial language training centres in five provinces.
In addition, the Council of Ministers of Education in Canada and the provinces, administer two programs for language learning on behalf of the Secretary of State. Last year, disbursements for the summer language bursary program, which enables students to take intensive summer courses in their second official language, totalled more than $5,840,000. Expenditures for the official language monitor program, which pays several hundred post-secondary students for helping language teachers while undertaking post-secondary studies in the milieu of their second official language, were approximately $3,870,000. The Yukon and the Northwest Territories received financial assistance of about $170,000 for activities such as fellowships, teacher bursaries, northern allowances for second language monitors and the hiring of French consultants.
It may seem that I have drifted somewhat from the subject, but I have a point to make. This incomplete description of government activity in the encouragement and maintenance of secondary language education tells something of the great effort the government is putting forth to give equality to the two official languages and to continue on the road of reassuring francophone Canadians that they are, indeed, accepted and needed by their anglophone compatriots.
The proposal before us, that the term Nova Scotia be used unchanged in French, is a negation of that policy. While in point of fact the words are Latin rather than English, as the hon. member said, they are perceived as English through long
March 27, 1981

usage. I suggest the small administrative economies and efficiencies that would result from this move are heavily outweighed by the discord such a move would almost undoubtedly make. Obviously, such a move would affect Canadians throughout the country, not just in Nova Scotia.
I am reminded of remarks once made by a specialist in public relations on the subject of building a company image. He emphasized attention to detail. He said:
A company can spend millions on building a good company image for itself, and this entire program can be destroyed by one impolite telephone receptionist.
I believe actions such as this, however well-meaning, would be to overlook the feelings and aspirations of any sector of the Canadian population and should be discouraged.


Mr. Rene Cousineau (Gatineau):: Mr. Speaker, when I read this bill aimed at changing a name, that is doing away with the expression "Nouvelle-Ecosse", the first question I asked myself-true, the hon. member has personal reasons to introduce this bill-but I asked myself what benefits would the residents of that province stand to gain in their everyday life. What economic benefits will flow from it?
If we agree to this change the first thing we will know in the House is that we will have to do the same thing for "Colombie-Britannique", "Terre-Neuve" and "ile-du-Prince-Edouard". The hon. member may very well have personal reasons which prompt him to want that, but I also have personal reasons to want to keep the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" because I must say quite frankly that the name "Nouvelle-Ecosse" is part of history and, for all practical purposes, I would like that name to remain in our history books and not be changed through the adoption of this bill. Therefore, Mr. Speaker, I have to say now that I will vote against Bill C-217 introduced by my colleague opposite.


David Michael Collenette: Madam Speaker, it is a very interesting motion we have before us in Bill C-217, an act respecting the official designation of Nova Scotia, introduced, I think, by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan). As I explained last night, I am still living in the previous distribution of names and seats and I am sorry if I have maligned members by sometimes not only calling them by their proper names, which is against the rules, but also calling them by their proper names incorrectly. I hope you can figure out that logic.
I know the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants is sincere. He has been a member of this House for many years. He is a distinguished member whose father sat in this place as a minister of the Crown. I know he is one member whose motives cannot be challenged and whose sincerity for the people of Nova Scotia and the traditions of Nova Scotia cannot be called into doubt. I say that the intentions behind this bill are extremely noble. They are in keeping with our
Designation of Nova Scotia
history, and when I say "our history", I speak to the hon. member as a fellow English Canadian.
There is a great history in Great Britain and in the Englishspeaking world of acknowledging the derivation of our English words from other languages. That might have been Norman French, Danish or Scandinavian. Many of our words have come from the northern countries but many of our words are based on Latin and that is from which Nova Scotia comes. As one who studied Latin at school, those two words "New Scotland"-in Latin Nova Scotia-have a very distinguished and distinctive ring to them. As a student of Latin, I am proud to live in a country which has kept our heritage and the heritage of our language, not only the English language but also the French language. The French language is also based on Latin. English is a very eclectic language. I was going to use another word which was unparliamentary, but I do not want to create another fuss at this time of the day. In any event, English is an eclectic language having embraced the traditions of the many people who have conquered Great Britain, including the Romans. I think the words Nova Scotia have a nice ring to them.
Before getting into the reasons I will not support this bill, I will return to the remarks made by the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants when he introduced the bill. He talked about iron ore from Uganda. I think it was a slip of the tongue. He was talking about Ungava. There may well be iron ore in Uganda and many other things, but as everyone knows, Uganda is not in Canada and Ungava is. The hon. member also talked about "almond, almond, almond". I found this a bit strange at first because I did not know what he was getting at. I think what he was really saying was Allemagne which translated into English is Germany. He was not in any way talking about a brand of nuts one can have at Christmas time, or was he in any way maligning the hon. member for Notre-Dame-de-Grace (Mr. Allmand) by calling him in an unparliamentary way by his proper name.
That aside, why do we want to replace the French words Nouvelle-Ecosse with Nova Scotia? If so, do we then want to replace Colombie Britannique?


Donald W. Munro: Yes.


David Michael Collenette: My friend from Esquimalt-Saanich (Mr. Munro) says yes. Because I was born in England, I have a great respect for the British tradition, unlike that shown by members of the Conservative Party opposite over the past three days. The hon. member for Esquimalt-Saanich who, quite frankly, is more English than the English is asserting the supremacy of the English culture in derogating or perhaps deriding the contribution the French culture has made to this country. He wants to change the words Colombie Britannique to British Columbia.


Donald W. Munro: Mr. Speaker, I would really like to know whether the hon. Parliamentary Secretary would like to see the name changed of a fairly large

March 27, 1981
8726______________________________________
Designation of Nova Scotia city of Saskatchewan to read, in the French version of our atlas, as "la machoire de rorignal"?


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


David Michael Collenette: Mr. Speaker, if I may continue my little speech, I would say that the names of the other provinces are
also Indian names:	Ontario, Saskatchewan, Manitoba,
Quebec. However, we have names like British Columbia-


Mr. Deputy Speaker:: Order. The hour provided for the consideration of private members' business has now expired.
It being five o'clock, the House stands adjourned until Monday at 2 p.m. pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At 5 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Monday, March 30, 1981