1981-02-25

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Tom McMillan (Hillsborough):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the fact that a recent Canada-U.S. scientific study documented in great detail the fact that acid rain is devastating the environment of both countries, including as many as 4,000 lakes killed in Ontario alone, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Don Valley West (Mr. Bosley):
That this House urge the Prime Minister to make the growing crisis of acid rain a major agenda item in his forthcoming discussions with the United States President in Ottawa.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


RESEARCH AND DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In view of the fact that research and development are the foundation on which rests not only tomorrow's jobs but upgraded career opportunities for all young Canadians, and in light of the fact that the most recent utterances of the Minister of State for Science and Technology (Mr. Roberts) have changed nothing in Canada with respect to research and development, and furthermore that only Ireland and Iceland, of the free-world industrial nations, spend less on industrial research and development, as a percentage of GNP, than Canada, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Scarborough East (Mr. Gilchrist):
That the Minister of State for Science and Technology stop playing roulette with the future of young Canadians, and develop an industrial strategy based on Canadian technological superiority.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Peter Elzinga (Pembina):: Madam Speaker, I too rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43. The unemployment rate for young Canadians between the ages of 15 and 24 was a staggering 14.6 per cent last month, yet at the same time the federal government continues to promote a National Energy Program that discourages the progress and expansion of the Canadian oil industry which has the potential to employ many thousands of these young people. In view of this disgraceful situation, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Athabasca (Mr. Shields):
That this House direct the Minister of Employment and Immigration to confer immediately with his colleague, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources, to see if, between the two of them, they can produce a reasonable energy-employment strategy which will put our youth to work, and help Canada to reach its goal of energy self-sufficiency by 1990.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


CONFLICT OF INTEREST
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43.
In view of the fact that Insiders Reports filed with the Ontario Securities Commission, dated January 23, 1981, show that four officers of Petrofina Incorporated sold shares and options over a short period in January of this year, resulting in a profit in excess of $400,000, and in view of the fact that one officer in particular purchased 1,000 shares on January 16 for

February 25, 1981
$60 per share and sold them on the same day for $90 per share, for a total profit of $30,000 in one day, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That since the Canadian public is purchasing this company, the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources immediately set up a special federal inquiry into the share transactions on the Petro-Canada-Petrofina deal.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


INDEPENDENCE OF ESTONIA
Mr. Gordon Gilchrist (Scarborough East):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter which I believe will receive the unanimous and enthusiastic support of this House. In recognition of the sixty-third anniversary of Estonian independence; in gratitude to the thousands of Canadians of Estonian origin and the valuable contribution which they have made to the greater good of Canada; in support of their continuing efforts to achieve freedom for their homeland; and in honour of those Estonian freedom fighters both in Canada and in Estonia who last week were presented with the Estonian gold medal, Messrs. Heinsoo, Niklus and Kukk, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski):
That this House pay tribute to the Estonian community in Canada and express the hope that one day soon their homeland will enjoy the same freedoms which they themselves have found in Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I am sure hon. members want to show their appreciation of this community by their applause.


HOUSING
Mr. Doug Lewis (Simcoe North):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43. Vacancy rates throughout Canada remain at criminally low levels making it almost impossible for Canadians to find acceptable shelter in many areas. Despite that crisis, the federal government has reduced its social housing budget for 1981-82. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That this House urge the Liberal government to restore the 5,000 social housing starts which it has taken away from the Canadian people.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


PROVINCIAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Terry Sargeant (Selkirk-Interlake):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the announcement last Friday that Manitoba's Conservative government, a government that sought election on a platform of 'acute protracted restraint', has recorded a $178 million deficit for the nine-month period ending December 31, 1980, some $75 million more than for the corresponding period in the previous year, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House grant leave to the former president of the Treasury Board, the hon. member for York-Peel, to visit his colleague Premier Lyon in order to investigate this matter and to recommend to the Premier of Manitoba what further drastic cutbacks are needed to reduce the provincial deficit and further harm the Manitoba economy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE CONSTITUTION
Mr. Otto Jelinek (Halton):: Madam Speaker, I rise today under the provisions of Standing Order 43. In order to dispel the myth that I was nervous yesterday, according to misrepresentations by at least one national newspaper, and in view of the inconsistent and contradictory statements made by the Prime Minister when discussing his meeting or meetings with Mrs. Thatcher concerning the unilateral Liberal constitutional package, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Pembina (Mr. Elzinga):
That the entire matter respecting the meetings and discussions held by any Canadian cabinet ministers and the Prime Minister-


Mr. Trudeau:: Your hands are shaking.


Otto John Jelinek: -with their British counterparts, be brought before the appropriate committee in order to clarify, once and for all, the many existing uncertainties and inconsistencies in this regard.
February 25, 1981


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


AGRICULTURE
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, it is clear to anyone in a rural community in Canada that farmers do not enjoy the benefits enjoyed by many other sectors in the Canadian economy, particularly ailing branch plants of American firms. The same government that in the same week can find $40 million to bribe a multinational oil company to stay in the tar sands while denying one fortieth of that amount to Canfarm has confused priorities. It cannot make up its mind whether we are going to starve or freeze. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Portage-Marquette (Mr. Mayer):
That the Minister of Agriculture help farmers everywhere and re-introduce the previously promised funding to help Canfarm survive.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Finance and it has to do with the established programs financing arrangements. The minister will recall the House was informed that the government was considering cutting back the $1.6 billion it makes available to Canadian community colleges, vocational schools and universities across the country. Since that time there has been the establishment of a task force which will report in late June. Would the Minister of Finance tell the House whether the government has suspended absolutely all internal consideration of cutbacks in its contribution to community colleges, vocational schools and universities across the country until it has had the opportunity to receive and consider the report of the task force?	.


Hon. Allan J. MacEachen (Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance):: Madam Speaker, it would not be neces-
Oral Questions
sary to suspend any such consideration because we have not reached the point where we are considering cutbacks to universities or community colleges.


Mr. Crosbie:: Read your budget.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I am grateful to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for giving me the opportunity to tell hon. members that we have reached no decision on this matter and, therefore, those who believe that we are determined to make cutbacks in these particular areas are premature in their conclusions. What we have said, which is clear in the budget projections, is that for 1982-1983 and 1983-1984 we expect to secure savings in the field of intergovernmental transfers to the provinces in the amount of $1.5 billion. The intergovernmental transfers amount to $17 billion, of which transfers for postsecondary education are a relatively small part. We have not reached any conclusions. We are looking forward to the examination of the parliamentary task force which will assist us in reaching our position before we present it to the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I have to draw the attention of the minister not only to his own budget, in which he indicated there would be cutbacks, but also to the statement of his colleague, the Minister of National Health and Welfare who, in a CBC television interview on November 8, 1980, talking about cutbacks in the EPF arrangements indicated that medicare and matters related to health would not be cut. She then went on to talk about education and said:
This is a candidate for savings which will be rechannelled differently.
In other words, the minister of health has said the exact opposite of what the Minister of Finance has now told the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: Since his colleague, the Minister of Justice responsible for social development, has already admitted that there was consideration of cutbacks before the social development committee of cabinet which would affect community colleges, vocational schools and universities, what I would like to know, and I repeat my question to the Minister of Finance is this: has the government suspended absolutely all of that consideration of cutbacks of federal moneys which would go to educational institutions, and will it keep that absolutely on hold until it has the opportunity to receive and review the task force report?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I have no hesitation in telling the House that we do not intend to make any decisions on this question until we have received and studied the report of the task force which we have established. In the meantime, we intend to proceed with our own studies of this very important subject matter which will be, as the right hon. member knows, a matter for negotiations with the provinces.
At the meetings of ministers of finance in December, preliminary discussions were undertaken among the ministers of finance by way of preparing for these negotiations. When they

February 25, 1981
Oral Questions
begin in earnest, the federal government will be putting forward its position to the ministers of finance but that stage has not yet been reached. Undoubtedly, we will want to hear from the parliamentary task force before we put our position before the provinces.


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, what we have had here today is an indication that the government is carrying on exactly as it was before the task force was established. The task force is simply a smoke screen to try to take the heat off the government, to try to keep away from parliamentary debate the fact that the Government of Canada is now actively considering cutting back $1.6 billion of aid to community colleges, vocational schools and universities across the country, and is transferring the burden away from the federal government toward students and their parents across the country. The Minister of Finance is just now finding out what is going on.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OBLIGATIONS
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me
ask a specific question regarding the obligations of the Government of Canada. Does the Government of Canada believe that it has an obligation, legal or moral, to Canadian universities, community colleges or vocational schools to give three years' advance notice before terminating any assistance for education under the Established Programs Financing arrangements?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the first thing I want to say is that the Leader of the Opposition really does not know what is going on in this House of Commons when he says that the task force has been set up as a smokescreen by the government. The task force was asked for by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -and by the hon. member for Mississauga South when he moved a motion under Standing Order 43, as I recall, asking that a parliamentary task force be established. We are doing it at the request of members of the opposition, and are glad to do it. The Leader of the Opposition is as mistaken on that point as he is on all the other points, particularly when he says that we have reached a decision to cut off funds to students in Canadian universities. How desperate is the Leader of the Opposition when he puts forward that misrepresentation!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, the only cause for desperation in this House is the desperation of ever getting an answer from this minister who cannot find it within himself to give a straight answer.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We asked whether he was telling the truth or whether the Minister of National Health and Welfare was telling the truth. He has not answered. We asked him whether he believes there is a moral or legal obligation on the Government of Canada to give advance notice to the colleges and students whom he intends to cut off. He does not answer. Will he answer one of those two questions?


Miss MacDonald:: Answer them both.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the questions are impossible to answer because each of the questions is based upon a blatant misrepresentation of the facts.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBLE EFFECTS IF REDUCTIONS MADE IN EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION FUNDS
Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, my question is also directed to the Minister of Finance. Will the minister tell the House if the federal government terminated the $1.5 billion that it pays to universities, community colleges and vocational schools across Canada for their operating costs, if the federal government did terminate that amount of funds- and there is a certain amount of credibility given to the assertion that the government is giving active consideration to that because of the statement made by the Minister of National Health and Welfare-does the Minister of Finance realize that would result in annual cuts of $100 million to the University of Toronto, $40 million to the University of Manitoba-


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member should ask his question and not give statistics.


Thomas Michael McMillan: In light of that and the fact that the minister has not denied that the government is seriously considering or contemplating massive cuts in federal government support for operating costs of post-secondary educational institutions, will the minister tell the House, even if the government has not made its decision and even if it is just negotiating, whether it is at least contemplating cuts of that magnitude? If so, will he advise how the quality of education and research in Canada can be maintained in the face of such massive cuts?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member is basing his question on a hypothetical situation; if something happened, if this happens, if that happens, if the other situation happens. He is asking me to address hypothetical future developments. All that I said in the budget, and it has not been concealed, is that for the two Fiscal years ending in 1983-84, in the negotiations with the provinces, some of which have very healthy surpluses I may add in passing, we hope to achieve savings in these intergovernmental transfers.
February 25, 1981

All the agreements to which we refer have termination dates at the end of March, 1982; so there is nothing unexpected in what we are doing. It is totally normal to renegotiate these agreements for a new phase, and I ask the hon. member not to engage in the rather shabby-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -tactic of trying to strike fear into the minds of students of universities in the country in anticipation of a decision which has not been taken yet.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, with all due respect to the minister, these are not hypothetical assumptions. On the one hand we have a statement from the minister of health saying that there will be substantial cuts in the area of federal government funding for post-secondary education institutions in the country.
How does the Minister of Finance reconcile that statement, on the one hand, with his own statement, on the other, made in Montreal earlier this week, Monday, February 23, to the Canadian Club in which he said, very briefly, Madam Speaker;
At a time of relatively high unemployment, areas and sectors of the economy are critically short of skilled manpower. There is a need for a major reorientation of our education and training systems to manpower requirements of the 1980s.
Madam Speaker, how does he reconcile that statement, and especially the concluding statement, "There is a need to ensure that the engineers and scientists-"


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member should ask a question. A supplementary should obviously be shorter than the first question, because it is a supplementary. 1 do have to apply some discipline to some hon. members who go on too long in their questions.


Thomas Michael McMillan: Madam Speaker, how does the minister reconcile his statement, that there is a need to ensure that the engineers and scientists of tomorrow are effectively turned out by our universities, with the statement by the minister of health that the federal government is contemplating massive cuts in expenditures by the federal government for the operating costs of post-secondary educational institutions in Canada, including community colleges, universities and vocational institutes?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, no matter how often the hon. member or his leader repeat the misrepresentations, they do not become facts. It has never been stated by the Minister of Health, to my knowledge, that we were contemplating massive cuts in support of community colleges. That is quite a false statement, and what I said in Montreal seems to me to be quite defensible. I do not take the view that the quality of education in the country is to be measured solely by the amount of money we pour into the system.
Oral Questions


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Secretary of State for External Affairs. According to Sunday's New York Times, the only foreign military personnel known to be in El Salvador are from the United States of America.
In this context, I would like to ask the minister, considering that Canada firmed its opposition to such intervention by voting in support of the United Nations' resolution on El Salvador last fall, can the minister explain to the House why he stated in a letter to the editor in chief of the Halifax Chronicle-Herald just a few days ago:
In the circumstances, it is not Canada's role to mount a public protest against the United States.


Hon. Mark MacGuigan (Secretary of State for External Affairs):: Madam Speaker, that letter was about a different subject, or a different aspect of the same subject. It had to do with other questions and not with the question of the presence of advisers.
We have no resident ambassador in El Salvador. We have only the same knowledge of events there which my hon. friend has. We, obviously, have presented our position to the United States, one which is concerned with the supply of offensive arms to any country which is in a state of civil disorder. We have communicated that view to the American government. That is what the letter which was quoted was about.


John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, already some 13,000 lives have been lost in this bloody civil war in El Salvador. All objective observers pin down exclusive responsibility for this to the vicious junta which is in charge of that state right now.
Considering that church leaders representing almost every faith in Canada have joined church leaders in the United States and church leaders in El Salvador condemning outside military intervention, why does the Government of Canada not join the governments of Venezuela and Mexico in publicly condemning this outside intervention?


Mark R. MacGuigan: Madam Speaker, of course our position is against outside intervention, and I understand that in fact the position of the American government is to attempt to prevent outside intervention on the part of Cuba and other communist countries.

February 25, 1981
Oral Questions


OBJECTION TO INTERVENTION BY OUTSIDE FORCES
John Edward Broadbent: Madam Speaker, I would like to ask a supplementary question of the Prime Minister, who has expressed interest in North-South problems and especially the problems of the emerging world. The Prime Minister knows very well that there are progressive forces at work in the Caribbean. Indeed, the leader of the movement in El Salvador is a social democrat working with Catholic workers in opposition to what can only be described as a fascist, vicious junta. Given the expressed public opposition of the Prime Minister to such repressive regimes, why does he not join the Presidents of Mexico and Venezuela in urging the Americans and all other people who are intervening from outside to get out of that country and to mind their own business?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, in his last words the hon. member has really reiterated the policy of the government. We do not think there should be outside intervention in that area but, as the Secretary of State for External Affairs just pointed out, there is intervention not only on the side of what the hon. member describes as fascist forces but also on the side of what he describes as progressive forces. There are arms going to both sides, and if the hon. member wants to be evenhanded, he should condemn not only the United States but also those who bring in arms to the other side.


John Edward Broadbent: I said that.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member is saying that, he is repeating the position of this government.


YOUTH EMPLOYMENT
Mr. John McDermid (Brampton-Georgetown):: Madam Speaker, my question is to the Minister of Finance. Our youth suffer much more than their share of unemployment. Over 500,000 young Canadians are out of work today. Is the Minister of Finance so desperate for solutions to the problem that all he can offer the young people of Canada is to lower their hopes and expectations?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, absolutely not. The Tory party is the source of that despair in the country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


John Horton McDermid: Madam Speaker, it is very obvious to the Canadian people that the Minister of Finance has been living in a cave and is not tuned in to the youth of Canada. I will ask a supplementary question of the Minister of Finance.
Instead of handing out grants and goodies in a shotgun approach, which is not working-and statistics show that- will the minister not bring forward to this House specific recommendations and ideas so that through incentives the private sector can hire young unemployed Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, yesterday I spoke in the debate in the House and attempted to set forward the views the government holds with respect to the general growth of the economy. I believe that is the way we provide for a growing labour force, including the youth of the country. What was notable yesterday was that while I put forward a large number of ideas, I did not receive any from the spokesmen of the hon. member's party during the debate.


Mr. Taylor:: You weren't here to hear them. Where were you?


ENCOURAGEMENT OF PRIVATE SECTOR JOB OPPORTUNITIES
Hon. Perrin Beatty (Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, who will know that from January of last year until January of this year employment among young Canadians declined by 4,000. Why has the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce supported policies which have cost young Canadians jobs? What specific action is he prepared to take to ensure that the young Canadians about to graduate from post-secondary educational institutions do not find that their first experience with the labour force is to be told that their skills are not needed in Canada?


Hon. Herb Gray (Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce):: Madam Speaker, we are building and putting in place policies based on the foundation of the budget of the Minister of Finance, which is designed to provide growing opportunities for our young people. I think these policies will have that effect in a way which will promote the wellbeing of young Canadians and Canadians generally.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the minister has just achieved a new platitude of achievement.
In view of the fact that in Canada's manufacturing sector year over year January to January there was zero growth in employment in Canada, when will the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce take the responsibility for this area which falls under his jurisdiction and introduce policies which will get the private sector growing again?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, we have been introducing policies which are achieving-and will increasingly achieve-just that effect. The electronics development program is one example, with major incentives to help this high technology industry increase and advance the program to bring about increased employment through rationalization of a segment of the heavy construction industry. The front end loader program is another range in which 1,200 jobs are involved.


An hon. Member:: Front end loading.
February 25, 1981


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: When I refer to front end loaders, I am not talking about the way my hon. friend phrases his questions. We have put a number of programs in place in recent months, and there will be others to add to employment opportunities for young Canadians and all Canadians.


SUGGESTED REPLACEMENT OF WELLHEAD TAX
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. Canadian people, including young people, are about to be the victims in the escalating conflict between the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources and the government of Alberta. In view of reports that the Canadian government is about to increase oil prices to motorists and to home owners to raise $1 billion to pay the costs of more imported oil, will the minister indicate publicly that he is prepared to reconsider his 8 per cent wellhead tax and replace it with a profits tax, which would be more acceptable to Alberta and also raise money for the federal government?


Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources):: Madam Speaker, this is obviously a matter for the Minister of Finance because he is responsible for the budget. However, I can indicate to the hon. member that we have sent a letter to the government of Alberta indicating that we are ready to start negotiations and that we feel it is unnecessary to resort to cutbacks at this present time.
I hope the government of Alberta will reconsider its decision, but up until now I must say that the possibility of a change of mind by the government of Alberta does not appear to be very great.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, I read the minister's letter. I asked him to table it yesterday. It is very weak; there are no proposals in it. The Canadian people will not stand by and permit this thing to happen between Canada and Alberta.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I ask hon. members just to listen and let me put my question to the minister.
Is the minister prepared to reconsider the tax on provincial Crown corporations? Would the minister put that as a new proposal to Alberta and thereby remove another aspect which disturbs the producing provinces of Saskatchewan, Alberta and British Columbia? Is the minister prepared to reconsider that tax on provincial Crown corporations, which is a new tax the provinces oppose in principle?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, 1 have listened to the hon. member's suggestion with interest, and 1 will be happy to raise it with the Minister of Finance.
Oral Questions


INQUIRY WHETHER GASOLINE EQUALIZATION FUND WILL BE CONTINUED
Mr. Gilles Marceau (Jonquiere):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources.
The biggest French language daily newspaper in America, not to call it by its name, stated recently that the province of Quebec, which in the last few years has been dependent upon western Canada for half its oil requirements, will stop receiving a single drop of western oil in no more than two years from now, and will then depend exclusively on oil imported from OPEC countries. Can the minister tell the House whether his view of the future is that pessimistic and could he also state whether the equalization fund which allows all Canadians to pay the same price for their oil will be maintained whatever happens in the future?


Marc Lalonde: Madam Speaker, I am certainly not as pessimistic about the future. As for the oil supplies for Quebec, it is clear that conventional oil from Alberta will be on the decrease during the next decade, but at the same time, the supplies of non-conventional oil from the tar sands and heavy oil deposits in Alberta and Saskatchewan should increase significantly.
While there might be a decrease in western oil supplies early in the next decade, we can expect a substantial increase in these supplies in the latter part of the decade. Moreover, if there are major finds off the coast of Newfoundland and the Beaufort Sea, Canada will obviously have no difficulty in becoming self-sufficient during this decade and Quebec will be assured of steady Canadian supplies to meet its requirements.
Finally, I would like to give the hon. member assurances that, whatever happens, the oil pricing regime all across Canada for basic oil supplies will be maintained by this government and Quebecers will continue to benefit from this policy as in the past.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Albert Cooper (Peace River):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Transport. As the average age of Canadian farmers is rising rapidly, there is a very serious need to encourage new young farmers. These young farmers, unless they are very wealthy, must go into frontier agricultural areas to obtain land. Upon arriving in these areas they will find that grain transportation is extremely inequitable and that they will have to transport their grain up to 100 miles at their own very high costs. In light of this, will the minister now implement a program for off-track elevators?

February 25, 1981
Oral Questions


Hon. Jean-Luc Pepin (Minister of Transport):: Madam Speaker, I discussed this question of off-track elevators during the summer when I visited a great number of farm organizations and pools. I did not find a great enthusiasm for the concept except in some very special circumstances. I tried to generate some discussion of it but, generally speaking, people were more interested in branch line retention than they were interested in off-track.
The consequence of off-track elevators would be that the federal government would be invited to have a trucking assistance program and possibly after that it would be invited to contribute to the road expenditures of the provinces. With the limited money we have now, we are concentrating on the rail lines.


Albert Glen Cooper: Madam Speaker, I thank the minister for telling me that this applies to special circumstances; that is precisely why I asked the question.
We realize that we need something in these frontier areas because it is the only place where young farmers can go. In light of that, will the minister enter into negotiations with the provinces, grain handling companies and the federal government to encourage some form of subsidy to get the thing rolling so that there will be some kind of a trucking subsidy in order that the very serious needs of these young farmers are taken care of?


Jean-Luc Pepin: Madam Speaker, I presume my hon. friend has in mind the Valleyview situation. I have received a number of representations on that. As there is no railway in the area, and as a number of studies have demonstrated that it would be exceedingly expensive to build one in this area, the question of pioneer zones is now considered to be essentially a provincial responsibility. The government of Alberta has a road program to improve the situation of grain transportation in pioneer areas. The other day 1 had a conversation with a couple of members of the Alberta government and they seem to consider it in the same way as I do.


HOUSING
Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance. Young people today who are seeking accommodation for the first time are finding that they have virtually nowhere to go. They cannot rent apartments because none are available or the costs are too high; they cannot buy homes because the costs, including mortgage interest costs, are too high. What specific action is the government taking to increase accommodations for Canadians?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I have mentioned several times in the House, in the budget statement 1 reintroduced the MURB program at the request of provincial financial ministers and at the request of the industry itself. I might add that this was the only specific proposal which I received from that sector of the economy for inclusion in the budget. I responded to that request. At the present time I have no new programs to announce because, for one reason, I am concerned about the state of our public expenditures and the necessity of not adding further to what I consider to be a very large deficit in our public finances.


Douglas Grinslade Lewis: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. We are faced with vacancy rates in St. John's, Newfoundland, of 0.1 per cent, in Toronto of 0.6 per cent, and in Vancouver of 0.4 per cent, when the industry indicates that 3 per cent across the board is the average. Surely this MURB program will not correct the situation quickly enough. Does the minister not have any other program which will do it?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, as I stated yesterday, I was listening for suggestions from the opposition. I have no further program, but may I say-


John Carnell Crosbie: You are the government.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: -that if a large number of suggestions were made to assist housing at the present time, I doubt within the present fiscal restraint it would be possible for me, as Minister of Finance, to recommend the financing of these programs. I think the Tory party had better get its economic act together and decide whether it wants more or less spending.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


DISASTERS
Mr. J.-Roland Comtois (Terrebonne):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of National Defence. In view of the urgent and even disastrous situation caused by flooding all over Quebec, and especially around the Thousand Islands River, near Terrebonne, and in view of the procrastination of the Parti Quebecois government and even of the Parti Quebe-cois caucus as far as requesting assistance is concerned, is the minister considering unilateral action by the federal government to provide assistance as soon as possible to the victims of these floods in spite of the inaction of the Quebec government?


Hon. J. Gilles Lamontagne (Minister of National Defence):: Madam Speaker, the question asked by the hon. member for Terrebonne is quite clear. I replied yesterday that the Canadi-
February 25, 1981

an Armed Forces were ready to act quickly at the request of the Quebec government. Unfortunately, it is not customary for the federal government to act unilaterally in such cases without the approval of the provincial governments. However, we are prepared to make available to the hon. member and his colleagues the equipment that he would need to visit the flooded areas so as to show everyone that the Canadian Armed Forces are ready to help Quebecers and other Canadians.


CANADA MORTGAGE AND HOUSING CORPORATION
Mrs. Margaret Mitchell (Vancouver East):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance, as the minister responsible for CMHC is obviously ashamed to show his face in the House today.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Margaret Anne Mitchell: The announcement today that capital funds for CMHC would be cut by over $2 million, at a time when costs are inflated, and that social housing units would be cut by 5,000, at a time when there should be a huge increase, is of major concern to all Canadians. Will the minister explain how he and his government can justify these drastic capital cost cutbacks to CMHC when he knows, as my hon. friend said, that vacancy rates are below zero in most Canadian cities, people simply cannot afford the cost of housing, municipalities are begging for community service grants, and native and northern housing is a national disgrace?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, I will draw the hon. member's representations to the attention of the minister responsible for CMHC.


Margaret Anne Mitchell: Madam Speaker, I would consider that quite irresponsible, since the Minister of Finance is certainly the one who has a major say in the budget. Since the minister a few minutes ago was asking for suggestions from the opposition, he might consider the representation from Vancouver for $15 million for land banking, not to mention the repeated requests for increases in social housing money. Will the minister explain why he has cut back, instead of increasing the number of social housing units, when he knows that most Canadians cannot now afford private home ownership with interest rates at 16 per cent or over? People simply must have shelter for their children, and social housing is the only answer.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked me to justify why we are not undertaking more spending in the Canadian economy. I would remind the hon. member that housing starts in January showed some considerable improvement.
Oral Questions


Mr. Rae:: Compared to 1965, or what?


Allan Joseph MacEachen: The hon. member for Broadview-Green-wood asks compared to what-compared to the previous month of December.


Bob Rae: Which was the lowest.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I remind the hon. member that if he looked more carefully at his statistics rather than barracking in the House of Commons he would make a more constructive contribution.


INDIAN AFFAIRS
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. In view of the fact that the majority of the government's make-work programs are geared to the winter months, when the northern native population is involved in hunting, fishing and trapping, as opposed to the summer months, when the real level of native youth unemployment is highest, what specific funds will the minister make available to create jobs this summer for our native young people who so badly need summer jobs?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. John C. Munro (Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development):: Madam Speaker, consideration is now being given to a policy which would provide job opportunities for native young people this summer.


INDIAN HOUSING PROGRAM
Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is also directed to the Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development. I refer to a comment made by the hon. member for Vancouver East who mentioned a report in the Canadian Press which revealed that cabinet has decided to reduce CMHC's special housing program by almost $2 million. This special social housing program includes housing projects for native people. What is the minister doing to ensure that this program, which affects our native population, will not be cut and that this badly needed housing will be built in the summer months by young native people, thus ensuring them jobs, training, and the badly needed houses? Will the minister promise that this area with regard to native housing will not be cut back?


John Carr Munro: Madam Speaker, as the hon. member shoud know, this government committed itself to additional funding this year over and above what the previous administration had given for Indian housing. This was done not only because of the backlog which existed but also to provide job

February 25, 1981
Oral Questions
opportunities for natives. We intend to maintain the same increase next year. In addition to that, further consideration is being given by my cabinet colleagues to increasing housing starts greatly to provide the very job opportunities the hon. member is talking about.


REGIONAL ECONOMIC EXPANSION
Mr. Bill Clarke (Vancouver Quadra):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the hon. Minister of Regional Economic Expansion.
Two weeks ago I asked the Minister of State for Small Business about the decision to build a paper mill at Matane rather than in the Matapedia Valley as promised by the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. The minister replied that no decision had been made. Matapedians must now forget their dreams. This is yet another example of the questionable methods used by the government to gain votes.
My question is as follows: Can the minister tell us whether he is happy with the mood that prevails in the Matapedia Valley after the action he has taken in regard to the paper mill promised to the people of the area, a promise which he has not kept?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, seldom have I heard such misrepresentations. I remind him that it is the government of Quebec which, on September 5 last, announced, without prior consultation with the federal government, the establishment of a paper mill in the Matapedia Valley, that it is the government of Quebec which a few days ago cancelled that decision on the recommendation of its department of the environment, so the federal government was not involved in that issue.


William Hillary (Bill) Clarke: Madam Speaker, the minister promised to pay, and I quote:
-even a prohibitive differential.
Can the minister tell the House when the government will keep the promises it made to these people and to others?


Pierre De Bané: Decidedly, Madam Speaker, the hon. member simply refuses to understand. I will say it again: it is the government of Quebec which recently cancelled that decision on the advice of its department of the environment which determined that the project could not be carried out without any damage to the environment. I made that commitment
three years after the Quebec government told the people of the Matapedia Valley that they were entitled to their own paper mill, and at that time, the building differential which I was prepared to pay was minimal and to quote the Quebec Premier, practically non-existent. We have just learned that prior to their announcement of September 5, Quebec officials had never even considered the matter.


NATIONAL SEA PRODUCTS PLANT LOCKEPORT, N.S.-INQUIRY RESPECTING GRANT
Mr. Lloyd R. Crouse (South Shore):: Madam Speaker, my question is also for the Minister of Regional Economic Expansion. On July 23, 1980, a disastrous fire destroyed the National Sea Products plant in Lockeport, Nova Scotia, causing the loss of some 305 jobs. The plant represented more than 50 per cent of the economic base of the Lockeport area and the 1979 payroll was approximately $2.5 million. Almost seven months has passed since the date of the fire. In the interim officials of National Sea Products have provided government officials with detailed plans for a new plant in Lockeport. I therefore wish to ask the minister if he is in the position to indicate when a DREE grant will be made available to assist in re-establishing this much-needed facility.


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I would like to compliment the hon. member for his genuine concern with respect to this problem. I am happy to report to him that at the moment my officials are discussing an offer with the owners of the company. I hope the offer which is being made by my department will be accepted by the company and that the plant will be rebuilt in the very near future.


Lloyd Roseville Crouse: Madam Speaker, I thank the hon. gentleman for his answer. I would like to point out to the minister that his parliamentary secretary replied to a similar question on January 13, 1981, stating that a reply to this matter could be expected within the next few weeks. Of course, such delay in getting something started is costing the company an estimated $100,000 due to inflation, while increasing the burdens of the municipality which must provide welfare payments to the workers where unemployment insurance benefits have expired. I would like to ask the minister what other steps, if any, can the company take to expedite the reconstruction of this plant, bringing this situation to a final conclusion?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I would like to be crystal clear in my response to the hon. member. The moment the company accepts the offer which has been made to it, on a confidential basis, then that is the moment I will be able to make a press announcement. But, of course, I must wait for the company's acceptance of the offer which has already been made by my deputy minister on my behalf.
February 25, 1981


AUTOMOTIVE INDUSTRY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, I have a question for the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce. On Friday last my colleague from Broadview-Greenwood asked a question with regard to the rebate program in the United States. The minister answered that he would look into it. Has the minister spoken to the auto manufacturers involved, to whom did he speak, on which day did he speak, and what did he say?


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: Madam Speaker, promptly after answering the question in the House last week, I instructed senior officials from my department to get in touch with management of the motor vehicle manufacturers. The reports I have indicate that there are equivalent and, in some cases, better programs of rebates available to Canadian consumers offered by the three great motor vehicle manufacturers which are being extensively advertised by them, and I would be happy to provide further details in a forum which provides more time to give a detailed answer than the daily question period.


An hon. Member:: How about a statement on motions?


Ian Deans: In light of the minister's answer, why are we paying substantially more for vehicles in Canada than the sale price for similar vehicles in the United States?


An hon. Member:: Five or six hundred dollars.


Herbert Eser (Herb) Gray: As I recall, the question last week related to the matter of whether a rebate program on interest rates in the United States for motor vehicle sales there, was available in Canada. The information I have received indicates that equivalent programs are available here. If one looks at the general question of differences in prices, we must take into account facts such as the existence of a federal sales tax here which does not exist in the United States, as well as the difference in exchange rates; but in terms of the question whiph my hon. friend expressly asked me last week, I promptly looked into the matter, and I have given him a summary of information I have received. I will be happy to give him more detailed information in a forum enabling me to speak at greater length than the daily question period.


MESSAGE TO HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received informing the House that the
Message from the Senate
Senate has agreed to an Address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen expressing our great happiness to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip on the announcement of the engagement and forthcoming marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer and have filled up the blank spaces left therein with the words "Senate and".


MESSAGE FROM THE SENATE
Madam Speaker:: I have the honour to inform the House that a message has been received from the Senate as follows:
Resolved: That the following Address be engrossed and presented to His Excellency the Governor General, namely:-
To His Excellency the Right Honourable Edward Richard Schreyer, Chancellor and Principal Companion of the Order of Canada, Chancellor and Commander of the Order of Military Merit upon whom has been conferred the Canadian Forces' Decoration, Governor General and Commander-in-Chief of Canada:
May It Please Your Excellency:
The Senate of Canada, in Parliament assembled, have agreed to an Address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen expressing our great happiness to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip on the announcement of the engagement and forthcoming marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer, and respectfully request that Your Excellency will be pleased to transmit the said Address to Her Majesty the Queen.
Ordered: That the Clerk do go down to the House of Commons and acquaint that House that the Senate have passed an Address to His Excellency the Governor General respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit the said Address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen expressing our great happiness to Her Majesty and His Royal Highness the Prince Philip on the announcement of the engagement and forthcoming marriage of His Royal Highness the Prince of Wales and Lady Diana Spencer, and request the House of Commons to unite with this House in the Address to His Excellency the Governor General by inserting therein the words "and Commons".


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Therefore, Madam Speaker, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker):
That this House do agree with the Senate in the said Address to His Excellency the Governor General respectfully requesting that His Excellency may be pleased to transmit the joint Address to Her Most Excellent Majesty the Queen;
That the words "and Commons" be inserted in the said Address of the Senate; and
That a message be sent to the Senate informing Their Honours that this House unites with the Senate in the said Address.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. Hon. members have heard the motion moved by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) and seconded by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker).
Is it the pleasure of the House to adopt the motion?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


[Stage Direction]
Motion agreed to.
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Fulton

Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. Minister of Indian Affairs and Northern Development (Mr. Munro) now want to respond to the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton)?


John Carr Munro: Yes, I do, Madam Speaker. I know what the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton) had to say, and I can only comment that the offence he seems to have taken is with reference to a conversation which he had with me in the House in which I indicated that I would be pleased to talk to him again about the panel of experts looking into the Alice Arm's situation. That is quite true. I thought that there would be an opportunity to talk to him further before a final statement was made by the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans (Mr. LeBlanc) and myself, knowing, as I did, that it would be made very shortly.
I did not anticipate, at the time of the deliberations between my colleague and myself, that a statement would be ready by the next day. When I did become aware of this, I looked around very quickly to see if the hon. member was there, in order to give him some indication of what was forthcoming, but I did not have the opportunity to do so. I think that it is simply a question of not having had the time necessary to talk to the hon. member again. May I indicate, however, that I have been talking to the hon. member off and on, trying to find a position that would be acceptable to all concerned, and I have endeavoured to continue to do that to the best of my ability, taking into consideration the constraints of time.
I would hope that that would be an explanation of the so-called offence which the hon. member has taken with reference to the fact that he was not consulted again, prior to the announcement having been made.
I will conclude by saying that it seems to me that my colleague, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans-who has the paramountcy of responsibility in this particular area along with myself-has strived valiantly to meet many of the areas of real concern which have been expressed, not only by hon. members but certainly by the Nishga people with respect to public participation and the calibre of people on the scientific panel.
Also I have indicated to all concerned that we do not hesitate to make adequate funding available so that they can make well-researched presentations to this very high calibre scientific panel looking into the question. I hope negotiations will carry on so that we can have a meeting of minds with respect to the matter.
I take this opportunity to give this explanation on the basis that it might afford some understanding of the background.
May I just conclude by saying that, of course, we all know it is not a question of privilege in the first place.


Mr. Fulton:: On the question of privilege, Madam Speaker?


Madam Speaker:: No, I cannot hear the hon. member because he has already intervened on this question of privilege. But I am rising to say that I simply cannot remember the foundation of the point of privilege raised by the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), because the question is a few days old, and also I cannot remember the arguments which he brought forward also owing to the fact that his question of privilege relates to events which go back to last summer.
I just have to reserve my ruling on this question of privilege. It looks as though it is an explanation between the two hon. members; but I will reserve, at any rate, and rule on it later.
The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) on a question of privilege.


MR. HUNTINGTON-ACCESS BY MEMBERS TO PRESS LOCK-UP ON ESTIMATES
Hon. Ron Huntington (Capilano):: Thank you, Madam Speaker, I have given you notice of privilege this morning. My privilege is that as a Member of Parliament, and particularly, as the official opposition new spokesman or critic of the Treasury Board, I was denied access to a lock-up for the press gallery, and members of the press this morning at eleven o'clock in Room 200 of the West Block.
In the past, members, elected or otherwise, have been allowed access to briefing sessions on the budget in advance of the presentation of the budget in the House, so that the spokesmen and the critics could properly prepare themselves and perform their functions in an efficient and effective manner.
As a former chairman of the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, we had the privilege of working with the Auditor General in the tabling of the Auditor General's report, which was a highly secret document until it was tabled by the Speaker in the House of Commons.
Much time was spent in debate on the question of Members of Parliament having access to the lock-up along with members of the press. In the wisdom of the committee at that time, and I believe with the full sanction of the House and the Speaker, Members of Parliament were allowed into the press lock-up so long as they left the Auditor General's report in the room with their name on it. The Auditor General's report would then be delivered to their desks in the House. In this way, members dealing with the Auditor General's report were at least allowed a sense of honour and duty and were given an opportunity to familiarize themselves with a very important document and with the issues involved.
It is my opinion that the action taken today by Treasury Board, which plans the expenditure programs of government and approves the programs of government, is in contempt of Parliament. Interested members with a meaningful role to play in the process of Parliament have been denied access to the
February 25, 1981

documents and proper time for, deliberation and study of them.
I might point out that the volume I have in my hand is the form of the main estimates for March 31, 1981, and the estimates ending March 31, 1982, will be at least as thick, as major and substantive changes of direction are involved. As you can see by the flag indicators in this document, there were many details that I wished to examine so that I could be effective in questioning the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) in the House today. He had announced that he was going to table these estimates.
A great deal of work goes into this. 1 am not a graduate of a law school specializing in finance. I am not a graduate of the London School of Economics.
Mir. Baker (Nepean-Carleton): Thank God for that!


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I come here from the school of hard knocks. I have put a fair effort into trying to understand the structure in this House in the six years that I have been a member. I have tried to get a working knowledge of the estimates, but I do not find it easy. I think most hon. members do not find this volume with its maze of figures easy to understand. I confess that I find it difficult. I have to work very hard before being ready to hand it over to the public accounts committee and to understand the immense amount of work that committee does in trying to reorganize this information so that it is more meaningful to members of the House.
When the President of the Treasury Board tables his estimates today, he will be taking an historic step in the process of trying to bring control over expenditures back to Parliament. Parliament has lost control over supply. We have a guillotine hanging over our debating time. All of this works to the detriment of members of this House who represent the taxpayers and the people of Canada in overseeing the wise use and expenditure of the tax resource.
A new summary document is to be introduced which will deal with the "envelopes" and the flow of information so that we can have a bird's eye view of what is going on. This is an historic moment for me.
Some members of the opposition and members on the government benches have spent four or five years in the Standing Committee on Public Accounts, but the Auditor General's office has spent some $25 million, using the best brains in the country from the legal, accounting and management consultant professions, on devising and delivering a form of disclosure which will ensure accountability for the vastly expanded expenditures of the federal government.
As a member, I am denied a right given to the press gallery which is being fed information in a lock-up to which I and my colleagues are denied entry. We are fed steak over in the office of the President of the Treasury Board, then we are supposed to come here as representatives of the people and examine the minister who has all that staff behind him to make sure that he is letter-perfect.
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
As a member of the opposition, I want to do my job on behalf of the constituents of the country at large. 1 really resent being denied access to this information. For one thing, I am a privy councillor and I am a Member of Parliament. In the Standing Committee on Public Accounts the Auditor General of Canada, who is an officer of this House, treats us with a great deal of respect, but this is being denied me as a Member of Parliament by the Treasury Board.
I think the President of the Treasury Board will agree that my grievance is a very real one and I hope that he is sympathetic to it. 1 therefore move:
That the matter of a Member of Parliament being denied access to a Treasury Board lock-up on estimates at 11 a.m. on February 25, 1981, to which the press was invited be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections for consideration and report.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Hon. Donald J. Johnston (President of the Treasury Board):: Madam Speaker, 1 respect the point made by the hon. member that there is a good deal of difficulty involved in absorbing the information contained in a volume the size of the main estimates in the short time available to him before coming into this House. I would suggest that attendance at a lock-up which was conducted with the press, for which there is historic precedent, would not have been of great assistance in that exercise. I would add, Madam Speaker, that this is a question which, I believe, should be addressed. The right of members of this House, as I understand privilege, is to receive the estimates when they are presented in the House of Commons, not before.


An hon. Member:: What about the press?


Donald James Johnston: I will come to these points one by one, if I may. It is true that in other instances, a precedent has been established for a lock-up, such as with respect to the Auditor General's report. In addition, there is a lock-up with respect to the budget, but I do not recall being invited to a lock-up when the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) deposited his estimates in the autumn of 1979.


Mr. Stevens:: They were your estimates.


Donald James Johnston: There was no such lock-up. There was no lock-up when the estimates were deposited in this House-


Mr. Andre:: There were no estimates.


Donald James Johnston: -last year, in the spring of 1980. There were complaints from the press because we broke precedent with a tradition which had apparently existed for many years, and there was no press lock-up. There is a tradition according to which the critics for the opposition parties are invited to meet with the President of the Treasury Board before the estimates are deposited in this House. As the hon. member indicated, this took place today over lunch.
I regret very much that the hon. member feels that his privilege has in any way been affected. I suggest that the lock-up is a matter of courtesy, not privilege. The privilege of

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
all members of this House is to have the estimates made available to them in the House of Commons. If the hon. member is suggesting that there should be no press lock-up, that is another matter and perhaps it should be addressed by the committee to which he suggests his question of privilege be referred.


Harvie Andre: I will be very brief, Madam Speaker, but I want to address a couple of points raised by the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). He suggested that the question of a lock-up and access to it by Members of Parliament or others, is a matter of courtesy, not of privilege. Surely that goes to the root of the matter. What we are suggesting is that it is a matter of privilege that Members of Parliament be extended the same courtesy as that extended to members of the press. Surely the President of the Treasury Board can understand that.
I think advantage should be taken of the suggestion of the President of the Treasury Board that this matter be examined by the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. The fundamental question is whether Members of Parliament are entitled as a matter of right to expect the same courtesies respecting the supply of information and official documents, as are members of the press. Or do we, as was suggested by a member of the New Democratic Party, need to be elected to the press Gallery in order to gain access to government information?
That is a fundamental question which ought to be examined by the committee. It is absurd to suggest that members of the media have privileges and the right to expect courtesies beyond those which Members of Parliament, elected by the people of Canada, have.
The President of the Treasury Board spoke about practices in the past. Granted, there have been practices in the past, budget practices and practices which, among other things, were examined most recently by the Lambert Commission's inquiry into the government's control and account ability for public expenditures. The fundamental recommendation of the Lambert Commission, whose recommendations in total were endorsed by the Liberal Party and by our party, was that it was absolutely essential there be a clear, open, honest approach to the whole question of government spending, that it was necessary for this openness to exist. I do not think I am being unduly partisan in suggesting that one of the reasons for this practice of a press lockup in the past, without the benefit of opposition members there, is that it is easier for knowledgeable staff or persons being paid a salary to make their minister and the government look good. They can present a case to the media without criticism from the opposition, resulting in press stories which are perhaps advantageous to the government. This clearly flies in the face of the recommendation of the Lambert commission which says that in order to bring government spending under control, there must be this openness and honesty about spending so the public really knows what is going on, and only through that knowledge can the question of public expenditures be brought under control.
For those two very good reasons I would heartily recommend to the Chair-and I think it is important that the Chair consider the role of members vis-a-vis the media-that the recommendation of the President of the Treasury Board be accepted. This matter should be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that procedures more in keeping with the thrust of the Lambert Commission, and I might suggest with the thrust of the freedom of information legislation currently before committee, are followed and so that members of this House of Commons will not feel they are in an inferior position to members of the fourth estate.


Mr. Doug Anguish (The Battlefords-Meadow Lake):: Madam Speaker, I share the concerns of the hon. member who has raised this point of privilege. Until the hon. member brought this matter to my attention, I was not aware there was a lock-up. As yet, I have not seen the estimates which are to be tabled in this House. The hon. member who raised the point of privilege, the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston), and I had lunch today about two hours ago during which we were given a press release kit to go over which was to help us come up with some kind of intelligent response to the tabling of the estimates in this House.
I understand this may not be a question of privilege, as the President of the Treasury Board pointed out, but if it is a courtesy extended to the press, I would at least expect that same courtesy to be extended to Members of Parliament so that we can respond intelligently. I am sure the reason for the press lock-up is so that they can respond intelligently to the media and to Canadians at large. As the critic at the Treasury Board for the New Democratic Party I think I should have that same right. It will enable me to go through this very complex document and to give an intelligent response in the House of Commons. The media can then pick up my views on this document as well. As a critic, I feel somewhat offended that I was not even informed about the press lock-up on the estimates which took place this morning. Therefore, Madam Speaker, I would ask you to give serious consideration to the point which has been raised.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, 1 join in supporting my colleague's question of privilege. If you find a prima facie case in favour of his position, I will support his motion when it is made. I was not refused entry to the lock-up at the same time as my colleague, and I went to room 200 in the West Block at 1.45 p.m. in the hope that I could at least pick up a few details concerning the estimates yet to be tabled. I was confronted at the door by a Mr. Gerald Simoneau of the Treasury Board. He stated that I had no right to see the estimates, that they were solely for the press.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) stated the case clearly when he said it was simply a matter of courtesy to the press. This minister, and presumably
February 25, 1981

this government, feel that it is proper to give courtesy to the press but not to members of this House.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I found it ludicrous that when I asked to see someone senior to Mr. Simoneau, I was confronted by two other members of the Treasury Board, namely, Mr. David McEachran and Mr. E. R. Stimpson, who informed me that it was true, that the minister had specifically stated no one was to be admitted other than members of the press. 1 asked whether 1 would be admitted if, prior to three o'clock, 1 qualified as a member of the press. Mr. McEachran's answer was "yes, you may be accredited to the press. If you are, we will admit you as another press member", and he said I could quote him in the House.
That answer struck me as being absolutely ludicrous. It is government gone mad, on the one hand, to say to a member of this House that he has no rights and not to extend to him the courtesy of letting him see what the press already has access to, and, on the other hand, to say to a member that if he becomes an accredited member of the press quickly, he will be admitted.
I almost did get accredited as a member of the press. Someone overheard what had been said and offered to take me on staff if that would help. He said he would be very interested in seeing the same courtesy extended to me as that given to the press, namely, a preview of the estimates to be tabled.
Although I was able to get on the technical staff of the press, unfortunately, the Press Gallery has its own bureaucracy, and I could not be cleared for membership in the Press Gallery prior to three o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: But here I am, elected as a Member of Parliament for the riding of York-Peel, elected to represent, as I understand it, not only the people of York-Peel but generally the people of Canada, and I am told that if I could have cleared my membership in the press gallery quickly, I could have seen the estimates. But as a representative of the people of Canada, there is no way that this President of the Treasury Board would let me have access.
We are not naive. We know the real reason why members on this side of the House are not being permitted to see the estimates. In the estimates a spending program of approximately $70 billion is anticipated, a much higher figure than was ever anticipated. In no way does the government want to meet embarrassing comments which might be raised by hon. members on this side of the House, which, incidentally, might be heard by those same members of the press, and perhaps even reported. What we are witnessing here is, first, contempt of Parliament, and second, something which in no uncertain way is interfering with our activities as Members of Parliament. We should not tolerate two standards with respect to courtesy extended on Parliament Hill. If it is a matter of courtesy to allow the press a preview, it should at least be a
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
matter of courtesy to allow all members of this House, to see the estimates prior to their being tabled in the House.
The president said there was no lock-up before the tabling of the 1979 Estimates when I was president of the treasury board. Of course, the President of the Treasury Board was a mere backbencher in the opposition ranks at that time. Perhaps he fails to realize that the critic of his party, a former president of the treasury board, did discuss the matter with me. He said, "In view of the fact that they are my estimates you will be tabling, there is no need to give me a preview of what I have already seen." That has no relevance to the situation today. The situation today is a clear question of privilege, and I hope, Madam Speaker, on behalf of my colleague you will find a prima facie case.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, I will be quite brief. As a former minister of state for Treasury Board, I rise in support of my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). I am very much concerned about the fact that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) should make a conscious decision to exclude Members of Parliament from an information briefing which is being made available to the press gallery.
I want to make it very clear to the President of the Treasury Board that members on this side of the House are not in the least opposed to a lock-up at which members of the Press Gallery can be present. We believe it is essential that members of the press, who are charged with the responsibility of reporting on the estimates and other important announcements being made by the government, have full and complete access to government information. However, if it is essential that members of the press have access to this information to do their job of reporting to Canadians what is being done by government, surely it is even more important that Members of Parliament on all sides of the House be entitled to the same information. They should be entitled to receiving the same briefings and have the opportunity to raise questions and get information from the government as to its activities.
The minister says it is not a question of privilege but a question of courtesy. It is a matter of discourtesy. The President of the Treasury Board made a conscious decision today and gave orders that Members of Parliament should be excluded from that lock-up. That is what the officials said to my colleague from York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).
The minister says there are no precedents, it has not been done before. If the minister looked as far back as the budget produced by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen), he would recognize that there is a long-standing tradition in this House of Commons of an advance lock-up, that members of Parliament, and research staff in some instances, should be allowed in to get advance information about the government's plans so that when the information is released, they will be able to comment in an informed way about what the government is doing. This is the essential question on the issue.
7668

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
What could there conceivably be in the estimates to make secrecy more necessary than in the case of a budget? What justification could there be for denying people the right of access to information about the estimates when we accept as a matter of common procedure that they should be entitled to have information in advance with regard to the budget?
My colleague, the hon. member for Capilano, mentioned as well the long-standing tradition whereby Members of Parliament for all parties are allowed into a lock-up with the Auditor General prior to the tabling of the Auditor General's report to be briefed as to the findings which will be presented in Parliament. Surely that is appropriate as well. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been an instance where the security surrounding a lock-up and the privilege granted to Members of Parliament has been abused. 1 cannot think of an instance where a leak has taken place.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I can.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Nor can I think of a single instance where, in the case of a lock-up on the budget, there has been a leak as a result of a Member of Parliament being there to hear about it in advance. Surely this same courtesy should and could have been extended in this case to Members of Parliament.
It is not simply a question of Members of Parliament being over-sensitive about their prerogatives. If that is what it was, I do not think that any member on this side would expect you to have sympathy. The issue is how we represent our constituents. How are the people of Canada best served? Are they best served by a procedure which excludes Members of Parliament, which feeds them steak and mushrooms and press releases over lunch at the same time as the press is receiving a full briefing about information which is being withheld from Parliament? Or is it in the interests of Canadians that Members of Parliament, who will be called upon very shortly to respond to the President of the Treasury Board and ask him questions in this House relating to his estimates, be given the opportunity of having some advance guidance from the department as to the substance of that information?
As a former minister, I feel there is nothing more complicated which comes before Parliament in the course of a year than the estimates. It is not good enough for a Member of Parliament charged with the responsibility of responding on behalf of his party to the government's spending plan to simply receive a press release. Surely he is entitled to full information and to have his questions answered by the officials and the minister in the very same way as are members of the press.
Finally, I repeat that we are not objecting in the least to a lock-up for the press in order that they can get this information. We are saying if it is essential for the press to have access to this information, in order for them to do their job, then Members of Parliament serving their constituents and the people of Canada deserve no less.


Yvon Pinard: the morning, while the critics and a few members of the opposition meet around six o'clock in the evening for a briefing on the budget before it is brought down at eight o'clock. That is not a breach of privilege but an established pratice. If, in the case of the budget, the press attends a lock-up six or seven hours earlier than the hon. members, if that is not a matter of privilege, why should it be now when the press was briefed on the estimates only at ten o'clock this morning, and the critics and a few hon. members opposite were invited for lunch by the President of the Treasury Board himself for a briefing on the estimates, which he is not required to do?
We see that, in the case of the budget, the press meets at eleven o'clock for a budget that becomes public knowledge at eight o'clock in the evening while the hon. members or a few of them are convened only at six o'clock; today, the press met at ten o'clock this morning, and the few hon. members met only two hours later, around noon or 12.30, having been invited by the President of the Treasury Board for a briefing. That is a fine example of courtesy on the part of the President of the Treasury Board, and not a matter of privilege nor a lack of courtesy; quite the contrary. So, I fail to see, Madam Speaker, how my colleagues opposite can possibly complain of any shortcoming on our part.
May I say in closing, very respectfully and unassumingly, that there is a fundamental difference between a budget and the estimates. The budget contains measures that are implemented immediately, which may justify a prior meeting with hon. members, which is not provided for in our Standing Orders, but which has become an established practice, and a precedent and which is part of our parliamentary procedure.
Moreover, the estimates do not come into effect immediately as some provisions in the budget do. Those estimates are only tabled in the House to be referred later, in the circumstances on Monday next, March 1, to the committees which during three months will examine and analyse them. The press conference was not held to deal with the estimates. The press conference was held to give newspaper men some information and enable them to write their articles in due time to appear in the news that same evening or in the newspapers the following day. The hon. members cannot complain. They will have three months to analyse and consider them in committee and discuss them during the allotted days. There will be 25 such days during the taxation year beginning after March 31.
Madam Speaker, I want to do my part as Leader of the Government in the House and support the measures helping hon. members to protect their privileges. I am fully aware of the importance of that matter.
We keep a careful watch over our prerogatives, rights, and privileges but in all sincerity I consider that in the present case, not only is there no breach of privilege, because it is not required by the Standing Orders, and I could perhaps be blamed for my legalistic approach if I restricted my comments to that, but there was no breach of courtesy for either of the
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
reasons I have already mentioned. The facts are known, I shall not repeat them. Not only did we not break the rules of courtesy but we have fully respected standard parliamentary practice and even went further since the President of the Treasury Board kindly made himself available for questioning.
In a few minutes he will make a statement outlining the new format of the estimates. The hon. members opposite will have the opportunity to ask him questions during a period of time which is left at your discretion under S.O. 15(3), Madam Speaker.
This preliminary debate takes far too long, in my opinion, but since several hon. members have already spoken, I would like to correct the facts so that hon. members clearly understand that there is a difference between a private meeting with the press and a meeting with the hon. members and that we have never failed to follow the practice, or to comply with the Standing Orders or the rules of courtesy. On the contrary, we went further than we should have. I am pleased about it, and I even hope that this new practice will continue. But, Madam Speaker, I dwell on that point only to indicate that this matter is absolutely crazy.


Hon. Walter Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Madam Speaker, I am going to be quite brief with respect to this matter. I listened to what my hon. friend had to say, and what he is saying is that we have broken new ground. I do not really believe that we have broken new ground, since lunch, when the estimates are not seen but a press release is seen. I do not think that is breaking new ground.
If it is his intention, as the leader of the government has expressed his intention, to break new ground, then I think we have something that we might be able to work with. I want to say to him that his argument with respect to the distinction between budgetary matters, on the one hand, and estimates, on the other, is something that could be argued against if one wanted to take the time of the House to argue against it. In other words, it can apply both ways.
The fact of the matter is that over the course of the years we have expanded the rights of Members of Parliament with respect to the Auditor General's report, with respect to the budget, and what is important here is the expansion of the rights of Members of Parliament for separate briefings, not necessarily press briefings such as occurred this morning with respect to press briefings, but separate briefings, with the documents and with the advisers that are in existence for the Auditor General briefings and for the budget briefings. I do not know of any earthly reason why that principle ought not to be present. I did not find, in anything that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) indicated, that he would be unwilling to have that kind of arrangement made.
The point of this argument, the point of my rising, is to suggest to you, Madam Speaker, that you hold this question of privilege in abeyance so that we can discuss, through the

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Huntington
appropriate channels, the way in which a procedure can be established, satisfactory to all sides of the House of Commons, so that we would continue the expansion of the matter of openness with respect to the plans of government.
I did not think there was any unwillingness on the part of the President of the Treasury Board with respect to that. As a matter of fact, 1 think he was discussing that point with the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) when they were sitting together a little while ago, and I hope that would be the case. 1 hope that the Chair would recognize the position of Members of Parliament, and especially the critic for the Treasury Board, on the day on which these estimates are brought forward, who must leave this place or deal with a statement, but who must leave this place and deal intelligently in the public press with a media that has been prepared by a briefing.
I think a sense of fairness would be realized and accomplished if in the case-whether or not you find a question of privilege later on, I cannot comment on-but whether or not you do, if this matter was held in abeyance so that through the usual channels we might discuss continuing the expansion that has gone on and has been spoken to today with respect to the rights of Members of Parliament to do their job, because that is our job, in terms of government expenditures; in fact, it is our responsibility. It is not a question, Madam Speaker, of denying the press these rights because Members of Parliament do not have them; it is a matter of expanding the rights of Members of Parliament.
I hope that my friend, and the House leader of the New Democratic Party, would be agreeable to discussing this matter, holding in abeyance, of course, the question of privilege and reserving on it until we have had a chance to explore it.


Madam Speaker:: 1 am afraid that if I do not try to put an end to this debate, it will be quite impossible for hon. members from all parties to be performing their duties that are coming up in the form of questions to the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). If too much time is taken up now, it will cut in on the time that hon. members will have later in the day to ask questions.
So, because of that, I will try to put an end to this debate and say this much about it. The issue has been before the House several times-the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington) did give me notice and I did have a chance to look at other circumstances when this question was debated in the House-it has come up several times.
My immediate predecessor, after looking at all the arguments presented to him, was very reluctant to find a prima facie case of privilege in similar circumstances. I am inclined to agree with him that this does not constitute a question of privilege on the basis that members' duties do not require them-speaking of one hon. member in particular-to go to such a lock-up. This is not specifically one of the requirements of his duties. Therefore, it would be difficult to find a breach of privilege based on the fact that he was not invited to attend a lock-up. It is true that the hon. member was denied advantages which would have accrued from his attending such a lock-up, but that privilege was denied all other members of this House.
1 appreciate the argument that the hon. member, as the official opposition critic, and the official critic of the New Democratic Party, will have to discuss these things quite early once the estimates are known to him and known to the House. I appreciate that, and that is an argument I certainly have weighed, but the advantage has been denied everybody. I am looking at privileges in this House, and I do not think one can say that the ability of the hon. member to perform his duties in the House has been impaired by the fact that he has not been able to attend the lock-up.
Hon. members have referred to procedures which are different in the case of the Auditor General's report. I simply make the distinction that the Auditor General's report is perhaps a special case because the Auditor General is answerable directly to Parliament. However, I have to take cognizance of the fact that procedures seem to be quite different from the budget to the estimates to the Auditor General's report, and perhaps the House would benefit from the standardization of those procedures. However, it is not for me to determine that. For that reason, and because nothing in our Standing Orders allows me to make a judgment that there would be a prima facie case of privilege, I will rule right now that this is not privilege, despite the fact that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) pleaded with me to keep the matter in abeyance.
Even if 1 say now that this is not a question of privilege, that does not preclude consultation between different members of this House in order to see whether some procedure, which would be satisfactory to all, might not be adopted or to examine whether these procedures should be standardized.
I noticed that hon. members referred constantly to a matter of courtesy. I will not say whether it would be a courtesy or something else, but I think it is up to the members themselves to get together and determine what procedure should be followed in these cases. It would help the Chair if hon. members did because the Chair is constantly asked to rule on this when there is no basis on which the Chair is able to rule on it.
I rule that this is not a question of privilege but urge hon. members to discuss this and consult each other, if they so desire.


Mr. Arnold Malone (Crowfoot):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. I have heard your ruling and, of course, I cannot respond with respect to that ruling. I am well aware of that. I note the question of privilege, and I just wish to bring to your attention that the whole reason Parliament was started in the first place was so that Parliament could scrutinize the King's purse.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sorry. The hon. member is reflecting on my ruling. I do not think we can go
February 25, 1981

into that. If the hon. member has a point of order, I can hear it, but I will not allow him to reflect on my ruling.


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker, what I am saying-and I wanted to come to this in my next sentence-is that you obviously have ruled; I cannot challenge that, but I submit that you had to rule the way you ruled, in accordance with the rules we have in Parliament.
However, I do not believe that that takes away from the fact that there is a general feeling that there has been a privilege given to people in the media which has been denied to Members of Parliament. It is therefore necessary-


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry. I have to call the hon. member back to order because he is still arguing the case. I assume he really does not have a point of order. I will have to recognize the hon. member for Mississauga South (Mr. Blenkarn).


Arnold John Malone: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: I have recognized the hon. member for Mississauga South.


Arnold John Malone: I have not come to my conclusion.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Mississauga South.


Mr. McKnight:: I think you have now.


Mr. Blenkarn:: Madam Speaker, on the point of order, I was there at the time with my colleague, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), and there was indeed a telephone call made to the deputy secretary of the Treasury Board, who ordered his officials to make sure that the hon. member for Capilano and I were excluded.


Madam Speaker:: Order. I think we have heard that argument. The hon. member has to recognize that he is still arguing the question of privilege.


Donald Alex Blenkarn: I have not argued yet.


Madam Speaker:: The question is being argued. I am awfully sorry, but I think I will now have to hear the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).


MR. RAE-ALLEGED DISCREPANCIES AND MISLEADING ANSWERS BY MINISTERS-MINISTERS' RESPONSIBILITIES FOR RIDINGS
Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, I gave notice to the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and to the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) some time ago that I intended to raise the matter of the discrepancy between the answers which the Minister of Finance gave to me on Thursday, February 19, and answers given to me on Wednesday, February 18 by the Solicitor General with respect to the question of the appointment of ministers of the Crown responsible for individual ridings.
Privilege-Mr. Rae
Your Honour will recall that on February 18 I raised in the House the question of a letter addressed to a constituent of mine by the Solicitor General in which he described himself as the minister responsible for the riding of Broadview-Greenwood. I then asked a question the next day of the Minister of Finance with respect to the responsibilities of individual ministers and, as recorded at page 7455 of Hansard, the Minister of Finance said:
First of all. Madam Speaker, I want to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada does not believe that any minister has been given responsibility for representing, in this House of Commons, any riding other than the riding for which he has been elected. That is the view of the Government of Canada.
What I would like to tell the hon. member is that ministers for various regions of the country have special responsibilities within the cabinet for representing the interests of those regions.
There then followed an exchange in which the minister reiterated at several points the fact that there were appointments made with respect to regions but that there was no attempt on the part of the government to usurp the functions of individual Members of Parliament. It seems to me that the answer which was given by the minister is in direct contradiction to the answer given the day before by the Solicitor General, and in fact is in direct contradiction to the letter which went out over the signature of the Solicitor General, because in that letter the Solicitor General did not describe himself as the minister responsible for a particular region, he described himself as the minister responsible for a particular riding. That riding happens to be mine, so naturally I have a certain interest in the nature of his correspondence with respect to this question.
That is my first question of privilege. The first point of the argument is that the Minister of Finance described ministers as being appointed to take care of regions, and then he proceeded to give me a lecture in civics and on the fact that there were certain ministers responsible in the cabinet for certain regions, and so forth.
My point here is that this answer is in direct contradiction to what are on their very face accepted as facts. A letter went out. In that letter the minister described himself not as the minister responsible for regions but as the minister responsible for my riding.
My second question of privilege has to do with the nature of the answer given by the Minister of Finance in which he described the duties of these so-called regional ministers, and the duties were that they were to represent at the cabinet table regions which required representation and which individual members of Parliament could not represent in cabinet. He then went on to speak about the case of a large grant in the province of Nova Scotia for Michelin and referred to the fact that the hon. member for Annapolis Valley-Hants (Mr. Nowlan) was not a member of the cabinet and therefore could not be there.
The implication of that answer is that the duty of these ministers is to represent regions with respect to major items of policy affecting those regions.

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
The second point of my privilege is that this has nothing to do with the subject matter of the letter which went out over the signature of the Solicitor General of Canada. The letter sent out over the signature of the Solicitor General had to do with a multicultural grant under the multicultural grants program, and I cannot believe-and I wait for the minister to contradict me-that the question of what was best for the "region" of Broadview-Greenwood was discussed in cabinet, for the simple reason that the grant had nothing to do with the riding of Broadview-Greenwood any more than it had to do with the riding of any Member of Parliament in this House where the teaching of English as a second language is carried on. It is carried on in most constituencies in Canada and certainly in the vast majority of the constituencies in every urban region in Canada where the absorption of new Canadians is a question of great importance.
The second point of my privilege is that the minister appears to have been misleading the House in indicating, in his answer to the question with respect to these ministers, that their responsibilities concerned regional representation and the work carried out by the Solicitor General, the onerous task of signing a letter in which a cheque for $15,568 was enclosed on behalf of the Minister of State for Multiculturalism (Mr. Fleming), had something to do with the representation of regional interest, when on its very face it had nothing to do with the representation of regional interest; it concerned something very different.
The third point of my privilege is that the minister indicated that these appointments were for the presentation or articulation of regional interest within cabinet. The Minister of State for Multiculturalism, who is the minister responsible for this grants program, is the Member of Parliament representing the riding of York West. The Solicitor General is the member of Parliament representing the riding of York Centre. These ridings are not exactly a million miles away from each other. In fact, they border on each other in northwestern Toronto. What I am saying is that the theory being put forward by the Minister of Finance that somehow this letter was part of the regional responsibilities of the Solicitor General just does not make any sense. The regional responsibilities of the Solicitor General respecting the riding of York Centre and neighbouring areas are exactly the same as those respecting the riding of York West represented by the Minister of State for Multiculturalism.
My fourth point really follows from this. Without asking you, Madam Speaker, to reconsider your decision, for which you gave no reasons last week, other than to simply indicate that, in your view, it was not a question of privilege, I would ask you to take a very careful look at the answer given by the Minister of Finance, as reported on page 7455 of Hansard. I have learned from listening to and watching the Minister of Finance, which is something my job requires me to do, that he chooses his words very carefully.


Mr. Nielsen:: It is like watching those black spots.


Bob Rae: As reported at page 7455, the minister said:
First of all. Madam Speaker, 1 want to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada does not believe that any minister has been given responsibility for representing, in this House of Commons, any riding other than the riding for which he has been elected. That is the view of the Government of Canada.
Quite apart from the implausibility of that answer, the fact is that this letter went out. I refer to the phrase "in this House of Commons", because the implication of those words is that the minister is responsible for my riding and for other ridings outside the House of Commons or at least is responsible in some other sense than within the confines of the House of Commons. I do not think Madam Speaker can rule on that question, with the greatest of respect, until such time as the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections has had an opportunity to examine and, indeed, to cross-examine precisely what is the nature of the duties carried out by the Solicitor General in keeping with the letter which went out over his signature.
For those four reasons it seems to me that one of the two ministers involved-the Minister of Finance who answered on February 19 or the Solicitor General who answered on February 18-has not been describing the duties indicated in the letter which went out on February 12. I will not put it any stronger than that; it is not for me to do so. But I think someone is being less than accurate in the description of the duties which were put forward.
In his answers on February 18, the Solicitor General did not say a single word with respect to his regional responsibilities. Apparently the thought had not occurred to him on February
18.	The thought came to the government overnight, some time during the night of February 18 and the morning of February
19.	The thought occurred to the government that the only way out of this quandary was to say that this was in keeping with traditional regional responsibilities, but this is in no way the nature of the answer given in the House on February 18.
As reported on page 7426 of Hansard, the Solicitor General, in answer to my question of privilege, outlined his own description of his duties. His description of those duties was quite different from the description given by the Minister of Finance a day later.
It seems to me there is a contradiction between these two answers, a contradiction of fact which, in my opinion, has the effect of misleading the House and myself. Neither description accords with the letter which went out over the signature of the Solicitor General on February 12, 1981.
The letter which would form part of a grant program had nothing to do with regional responsibilities, it had nothing to do with politics, but it should have had everything to do with the simple act of making an application to a government. It should have had nothing to do with partisan politics. It should have had nothing to do with whether one is a Liberal, a Conservative or a member of the NDP. There is a discrepancy between that letter which indicated that the minister was taking responsibility for activities within my riding and the answer given on February 18 by the Solicitor General, as well
February 25, 1981

as the new explanation which was invented some time between February 18 and 19 and given by the Minister of Finance on February 19.
Right Flon. P. E. Trudeau (Prime Minister): Madam Speaker, 1 want to enter into this debate on the question of privilege because 1 must confess or admit that 1 have been responsible for the setting up of this system of traditional regional representations in so far as my party is concerned.


Some hon. Members:: Ah, ha!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: In spite of the "ah ha's" from across the way, it is a time-honoured practice. I recall in the government of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) that they ensured that certain regions which did not have many elected members found ways of sitting around the cabinet table by choosing members of the Senate. The whole purpose of cabinet, which forms the government under our parliamentary system, is to ensure that it hears the voices, understands the representations and, hopefully, fulfils the needs of the various regions of our country.
Some ten years ago, following this practice, which I believe dates back to the beginning of confederation, I received nonetheless complaints that because of the distinction between the legislative and executive branch, it very often happened that ridings which were well represented by members of our party or members of the opposition parties still found they did not have direct access to the government, as opposed to the legislature of this land.
I believe that is why the Deputy Prime Minister and Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) was very wise in including the words "in this House of Commons" which were quoted by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) as part of his third point, I believe.
In this House of Commons we are all legislators, first and foremost, and we all represent one constituency in this country. But, under our system, there is also an executive branch, the government, which is sometimes chosen from this side and sometimes chosen from over there, whether we like it or not. Naturally, they are members of a given political party. But their job, over and above their job as legislators, is to ensure that in the execution of policies, and in the selection of policies, the different areas of the country are well heard, well understood and as well represented as possible.
It is on this basis that as far back as nine years ago, I believe, having heard from many people across the country that they lacked this direct contact with cabinet, I appointed a minister responsible for each region, or each province. In the case where there is only one minister from a province, whether or not there are other Members of Parliament, it was a simple matter of saying, for instance, that in the province of British Columbia the Hon. Ray Perrault, Senator, represents that region around the cabinet table-obviously not in this House of Commons, since many able members from the opposite side
Privilege-Mr. Rae
speak for the particular ridings in that province. But they are not present, unfortunately for us, at the cabinet table. Though we made an attempt to get some of them into our cabinet, none were willing. Therefore, we made sure that there was, at least, a voice from that province at the cabinet table. In that sense there are regional ministers.
The difficulty arises when, in a province, there are several ministers rather than one and, therefore, provinces where there are a considerable number of ridings, particularly Quebec and Ontario where there are 70 and 80 plus ridings. In a case like that, we make sure that the regional minister-and there is one who is senior, in that sense, for each of those two provinces-has the assistance of other ministers sitting in cabinet from that province. For reasons of convenience, we try to distribute the ridings in that particular province so that each minister would have a small number. They were not particularly designed to represent opposition seats, they were to cover all seats. If the House wants, and permits me later, I will be tabling the list of such ridings which are represented by the various ministers.
Once again, in the case of a province where there is only one minister, he represents all of the ridings in that province. When there are several, the House will find that several ministers have divided up the ridings, as it were, and paid particular interest to that particular riding, or those particular ridings.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I think that the first point made by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood distinguishes between ministers for regions, which he seems to admit are traditionally correct, and have been traditionally recognized, and not ministers for ridings. I would point out that in light of my explanation, the hon. member's first point is probably invalid and spurious, since within a province there can be several regions and within each region there can be several ridings. Once again, it is a matter of making sure that the various regions, provinces and ridings in the country have direct access to the government. I believe this is essentially the point made by the Minister of Finance when he answered the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. If I read Hansard correctly, and I was not present that day, the hon. member's question had nothing to do with a particular letter or the particular action of one of the regional ministers; it had to do with the theory. This theory is based on recognized practice since the time of confederation and some eight or nine years ago our government refined it a bit further to make sure that in provinces with large and numerous ridings there are several ministers to assist each other.
The origins of this practice go back a long time, as I explained, and the reason for it is to permit access to the executive arm of Parliament. But I found it is particularly urgent in times like ours, because of the size of our country, because of the remoteness of our capital, because of the lack of representation of members of a particular region or province on the government side, whether it be our government or the government which was presided over by the Right Hon.

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
Leader of the Opposition, that ministers carry out these duties and have the electorate understand that all benefits, all good laws and all good policies do not necessarily originate in provincial governments. The federal government is also the government of all Canadians. It is the job-the duty-of ministers, as I hope it would be of Members of Parliament from all parties, to insist on the importance of the federal government and of the national Parliament as being the government and Parliament of all Canadians rather than, as seems to be the increasing tendency, to believe that Ottawa is only some remote capital dealing with esoteric things and peace and war, whereas all the policies which have to do with everyday living and benefits of citizens-


Mr. Keeper:: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: 1 have almost finished my remarks, Madam Speaker. The hon. member has a point of order and I will gladly yield to him if he will just permit me to finish.


Cyril Keeper: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is the point I want to make, Madam Speaker. The NDP cannot wait to hear itself, so let us hear them.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, there was no discourtesy meant. The reason I rise on a point of order is to inquire whether or not the Prime Minister would be willing to entertain a question with regard to this matter?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Madam Speaker, yes, I would. Perhaps it would have been more appropriate for the hon. member to wait. I insisted that I had almost finished my argument, but I will entertain his question.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, I had hoped that the Prime Minister would clarify this matter with respect to responsibilities, whether the responsibilities were for ridings or for regions.
I also have two other questions. One was whether or not these ministers would be made known, and the second was whether or not the ministers appointed with duties for regions, as the Prime Minister now says, will be effective. The reason I raise those questions is because 1 know that in my riding there is the impending closure of a postal station which serves the people of that riding.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Cyril Keeper: I hear laughter from some hon. members opposite. This is a sensitive matter. It is a matter of bringing the voice of the people to the cabinet table. Will the Prime Minister not acknowledge that he then has the responsibility to appoint ministers who are effective and who will bring the concerns of the people from the neighbourhoods to the cabinet table?


Madam Speaker:: I will allow the Right Hon. Prime Minister to answer, if he wishes.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The member asks that I make these members' names and ministers' names known. I indicated earlier that if I had the authority of the House I would table the list, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: With respect to the hon. member's second question, which has to do with the matter regarding the Post Office-


Erik Nielsen: Is the Prime Minister tabling the document?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Yes, I will, incessantly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: That is perfectly good English. Members opposite may not know it, but they can look it up in their dictionaries.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: As a responsible member, he knows that he does have to raise questions like that in the House of Commons, but then he will want to raise it with the proper departmental minister, which will be the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet), who happens to represent a riding in Montreal.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: If the hon. member wants to make sure that his requests are also handled around the cabinet table by a minister who is from the area, then he will refer to this list and he will read, for example, "Manitoba-Hon. Lloyd Axworthy". If he is interested in getting a solution or redress for his riding, he will address himself to the executive branch of government, as I am sure he has done on other occasions. It will be helpful for him to know that apart from the departmental minister, he might be able to get assistance from the regional minister. I am happy to table this list in order to assist members of this House do their job when it comes to dealing with the executive.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Is there unanimous consent of the House to table the document?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Mr. Knowles:: Madam Speaker, on that point of order, in view of the interest in it, should it not only be tabled but made an appendix to Hansard?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: Does the House agree to the suggestion made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles)?
February 25, 1981


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: Agreed and so ordered.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: On making an appendage to Hansard, particularly in provinces where there are several ministers, it remains the privilege of the government to adjust these ridings from time to time; and with a view to achieving the greatest possible efficiency in serving the Canadian people, we reserve the privilege of doing that.


Madam Speaker:: Then does that mean that there is not unanimous consent to append this list to Hansard? There is?


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, on a point of order-perhaps continuing the one raised just a few moments ago-I guess the government has every right to change these things, as they have the right to change acting ministers; but I would ask for an undertaking from the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau), if he is agreeable. If there are changes in these political ministers, will he table them in the House of Commons when they are made, having now established the practice, here in the House, of tabling the names of acting ministers? Would he undertake to do so, exactly as we do now with acting ministers who are appointed by order in council?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: Since this list is made public for the convenience of the electorate and the members of the House of Commons and of the Senate, I would be happy, when it is drawn to my attention that there is a change, to make this change known in some way. 1 do not think that this particular aspect of government practice is a statutory matter. I think it is a matter of convenience. 1 undertake, in so far as it is practical, and I am reminded of it, to acquaint members of the opposition parties, as indeed my own members, about any change in responsibilities.


An hon. Member:: Particularly your own.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Thank you, Madam Speaker. My point of order-and I think it ties in with the last comment made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau)-is on this word, "incessant". According to the Oxford dictionary, "incessant" means unceasing, continual, repeated.
I would assume, if the Prime Minister used that word advisedly, and he said that we should consult our dictionary, he means that he is going to be repeating the tabling of this type of document-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: As required, incessantly.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -that it will go on in an unceasing way, that it will be a continual tabling of the document. If that is so, I think the Prime Minister should confirm his position that every time there is a change, without him being reminded, he will follow up what he has committed himself to do today and that is, table the revision to the document tabled today, that is incessantly, if you like, to use the Prime Minister's expression.
Privilege-Mr. Rae


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: We are into semantics, at this point. What I can say is that incessantly, I will table these bits of information without cease, and-


Allan Joseph MacEachen: Continuously.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -and continuously, as appropriate. If the hon. member consults his etymology, he will realize that to do something incessantly-


An hon. Member:: How about phenology?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: -means that you will do it without cease, meaning that you will continue to do it after you have sat down from speaking on one subject.


Bob Rae: 1 wonder if the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) would entertain one question. May I ask the Prime Minister one question?


Madam Speaker:: Well, 1 want to remind hon. members that usually one does not enter into debate in the course of a question of privilege. However, the Right Hon. Prime Minister has accepted a question, and is now signalling that he will accept a second one. I do not think that we should indulge in that practice, but I will acknowledge the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae).


Bob Rae: Madam Speaker, if the Prime Minister will have a look at Hansard for February 18 with respect to the privilege which I raised, I wonder if he could tell us whether the practice with respect to letters going out to constituents in Broadview-Greenwood is the same as the practice for letters going out to a riding held by a Liberal Member of Parliament, or whether the Liberal Member of Parliament takes credit for grants in that riding rather than the minister politically responsible.


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: I have had a slight canvass made of ministers on this subject, and my understanding is that there is no absolute, firm practice. 1 have here one minister who makes announcements and ensures that cheques or announcements or pieces of paper, or whatever they are, are often dealt with through members of the opposition party when they have to do with that particular riding. Other ministers do not do that. I think the essence of it is that each minister acts in whatever way he thinks is more conducive to the public good of Canada.


An hon. Member:: Which do you think is better?


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member asks which I think is better; and that is the third question, and perhaps the last one that 1 have time to answer today.
In a better world, I would hope the method the hon. member prefers would be the one that we would follow. But I would point out to him that we are in a very practical world where there are provincial cabinets all across the land and provincial governments which are constantly trying to assert-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Where is that better world?

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae


Pierre Elliott Trudeau: The hon. member does not want to talk about practical politics. In that case, I will tell him that in a better world, we would all be in heaven.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I just want to warn the House with respect to a matter. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) is here in the capacity of Acting Prime Minister. Traditionally, we have been able not to question ministers of the Crown with respect to their particular responsibilities, such as the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) with respect to the postmaster, etc.
We now have formalized a procedure which, I gather, was heretofore informal. There are now documents that have been tabled and have become part of the record of the House which indicate that certain responsibilities have been granted to certain ministers. I think it is well for the House to understand that what has happened is that, in terms of the question period, the questions with respect to specific subject matters can now quite properly be placed to ministers who have had some political responsibilities. I just think that the House should understand-I hope that was the intention of the Prime Minister-that if I had a particular matter relating to my area-for instance, in that list, the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin), is very likely the minister responsible for my area- that I have a right, as a Member of Parliament-


An hon. Member:: Nonsense.


Walter David Baker: -to question the minister responsible for my area publicly-as well as by letter or behind the curtain, with respect to his area of responsibility.
If that is not the case, then this exercise today, and all the fine words of the Prime Minister, were masking a political boondoggle, and that is all it is.


Allan Joseph MacEachen: I should like to comment on that point, Madam Speaker. I think one could have anticipated that the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) would want to expand the question period and make it even more chaotic. What he failed to notice was that the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated his method of organizing the government in order to make it a more efficient instrument. This has not changed in any way the responsibilities that ministers occupy under statutes to Parliament. It is under that canon that we respond to the House of Commons. The duties assigned to ministers under this system are duties assigned by the Prime Minister in the way he organizes his government. It seems to me that ministers in the discharge of those responsibilities are primarily responsible to the Prime Minister.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I have been trying to get the floor for a few moments on precisely the point raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) to which the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) has made a response.
Indeed, Madam Speaker, you may be a bit disturbed as to other troubles you may have-if you do not have enough already-by the document the Prime Minister tabled today and made part of Hansard. We now have it official that certain of the responsibilities of ministers in the cabinet include various regions. He has told us, for example, that the Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) is the minister responsible for the 14 constituencies in the province of Manitoba. He told my friend the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James (Mr. Keeper) that if he is not satisfied with the answer he gets from the Postmaster General (Mr. Ouellet) regarding a post office in that area, he can appeal to the minister responsible for his riding.
If I am not satisfied with the action I am getting from the Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) with regard to the Sher-brook-McGregor overpass I can put my question to the Minister of Employment and Immigration in his capacity as minister responsible for the 14 constituencies in Manitoba. I am trying to be letter perfect, Madam Speaker. I do not know whether I should say the minister for the Manitoba region or whether he is responsible for certain areas.
I admit readily Madam Speaker, not only do I admit, but I draw your attention to the fact that this contradicts what we have in the rule book. This is where your difficulties will increase. At page 133 of Beauchesne, fifth edition, citation 361, reads as follows:
A question may not be asked of a minister in another capacity, such as being responsible for a province, or part of a province, or as spokesman for a racial or religious group.
On page 132, citation 359(6) reads:
A question must be within the administrative competence of the government. The Minister to whom the question is directed is responsible to the House for his present Ministry and not for any decisions taken in a previous portfolio.
There is no question in my mind about that rule; it has been there for a long time. I have seen members in this House of Commons from Nova Scotia try to put questions to the Minister of Finance when he held other portfolios. The Speaker always said he had no right to answer questions for his province but could answer questions only in respect of his department. I have seen other efforts to get certain ministers into an issue because it was important for the province or the region. You may tell me, Madam Speaker, and the Minister of Finance may say, that I have read the rule and the rule is there. I have read it, and it has been there for years. We have often been told by other Speakers we cannot put questions to a minister regarding something that is outside his responsibility. But no less a personage than the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has declared today that he has assigned responsibilities to his ministers for regions and responsibility for the ridings.
I know that we can play with these words both ways, but in point of fact, just as the Prime Minister has appointed persons as cabinet ministers with administrative responsibilities, so has he appointed cabinet ministers as persons responsible for ridings or groups of ridings or for regions. That is something new. We have not known that before.
February 25, 1981

That now being official with a document on the table-it was tabled and put in Hansard-is it not going to make it difficult for you, Madam Speaker, to deny the hon. member for Winnipeg-St. James the right to ask the Minister of Employment and Immigration about that post office in Winnipeg, station D? How can you stop me from asking the Minister of Employment and Immigration about problems in Winnipeg North Centre or problems in Winnipeg generally in which he is interested, since it is there on the table that the Prime Minister has assigned him that responsibility?
I put my question rhetorically, Madam Speaker. I do not expect an answer from the Chair today but I make the point that the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) is one that should be allowed.
It is now clear to me that this question ought to be sent to a committee so we can have it straightened out. We can have the Prime Minister come before that committee and give us again the lecture he gave us today. We can go over the whole civic course, the course on how cabinet is run, what cabinet ministers do when they have administrative responsibilities and when it is just for the glory of the Liberal Party or for the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) to be able to send out cheques.
I submit that whether or not the committee finds there has been an error or impropriety, surely this Parliament has the right to know what the picture now is. It is for that reason I support the question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood.
If I may speak for you. Your Honour, I think it would be good for your sake to have this matter sent off to committee so we may find out what the rule is from here on. Are we bound by the old rules that we can ask the Minister of Finance only about financial matters or can members from Nova Scotia ask him questions about anywhere in Nova Scotia? Must I stick to employment and immigration matters when I address the Minister of Employment and Immigration or can I ask him questions about Manitoba because he has been assigned those responsibilities?
As I say, at least let us get the matter cleared up. Maybe the result of such a discussion by the committee will put an end to all this and we will be back to what the rules say.


Mr. Peterson:: You would never abuse the rules on this!


Harvie Andre: He is not abusing them. We have the right to ask a minister about his responsibility.


Stanley Howard Knowles: I submit the hon. member for Willowdale (Mr. Peterson) is breaking the rule by getting on the record without being in his own seat. The rules are being severely strained by this new practice about which we have had no knowledge in the past. I think the least that should be done, Madam Speaker, is that you should give the House the opportunity to say yes or no to the motion of my hon. friend. 1 make the point again that you do not decide that there is positively a question of privilege, you do not decide that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood is right or that the
Privilege-Mr. Rae
Minister of Finance or the Solicitor General happens to be right, what you decide is that there is enough of a case for the House to make the decision.
You may well decide that there is a prima facie case for something to be looked into; a motion is put and the government may use its majority to vote it down. I think common sense would say that the matter ought to be sent to committee.
I hope you will look at the whole issue in that light.
In other words, Madam Speaker, I am pleading with you not to look at it in the light of a contest between the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood and the minister who represents his riding; I am asking you to look at it in terms of a confused picture which ought to be cleared up. The best way for the House to clear it up is to have the chance to vote on referring the matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I did not think my life had been further complicated by the remarks of the Right Hon. Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) because I thought I would abide by our rules whereby a minister may answer questions only on matters pertaining to his or her portfolio.


An hon. Member:: Responsibilities.


Madam Speaker:: I thought that what the Right Hon. Prime Minister had said to us was that these supplementary responsibilities were for the purpose of allowing members to have a further recourse in their work in support of their constituencies. However, if the Right Hon. Prime Minister had said something else, I will look into the argument. I am obviously going to take this question under advisement. If he has said something else, I will agree with the hon. member that my life has been complicated by what he has just done, but I hope it has not.


Miss Pat Carney (Vancouver Centre):: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak to this question of privilege on a matter that affects my riding of Vancouver Centre, and it relates to remarks made on February 19 by the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) and by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) 1 will not quote in full what the Minister of Finance said, but as reported in Hansard at page 7455, he said this:
-I want to assure the hon. member that the Government of Canada does not believe that any minister has been given responsibility for representing, in this House of Commons, any riding other than the riding for which he has been elected.
The Prime Minister has advised us that this technique of matching ridings is a government technique, that it is a cabinet management tool. I have a document which lists these twinned ridings, one of which is mine. It is not published by the government or by cabinet. It is prepared by the Liberal Party of Canada, dated January, 1981, and it is entitled "Ridings twinned with members". I shall read a portion from it as follows:

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
The idea of twinning was developed by the national caucus in response to a view that riding associations and members of Parliament could help those areas that do not presently have an elected member.
We are all elected members, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Pat Carney: It is only the Liberal party which will not honour or recognize that we are elected members even though we are not Liberals. In this document, I notice that my twin is the Minister of State for Trade.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I believe the hon. member is going into a different question. The question of privilege which we are discussing now is a matter of ministers being given responsibilities for regions and constituencies. That is quite different from the practice of twinning, of which I know nothing, but I have heard about it in this House. However, they are two different practices. Therefore, the hon. member would have to address herself to the question of privilege raised rather than bring in a new question at this point.


Pat Carney: Madam Speaker, I will have to check this list against the list which has been tabled. If this list, published by the Liberal Party of Canada, is the same as that which has been tabled today, I would like to reserve my opportunity to speak.


Madam Speaker:: Very well. The hon. member for Pembina. I will hear the Parliamentary Secretary to the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Collenette) on a point of order.


Mr. Collenette:: Madam Speaker, I rise to seek some guidance from you. It was my impression that a few moments ago you had decided to reserve your judgment on this question.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Michael Collenette: Are you then going to entertain arguments from every single member from the other side this afternoon?


Madam Speaker:: I indicated that I was probably going to reserve on this question, but I did not say definitely that the discussion was over. I do not think I will be able to listen to all hon. members who want to speak on this question, but I will listen to a few as I know the House is quite exercised about this question. In cases like these I think it is prudent for the Chair to hear a number of speakers. I will hear a number, but I am giving notice now that I cannot hear everyone. Perhaps hon. members notice the clock; we must do something about routine proceedings.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, on the point of order raised by the parliamentary secretary and reflected upon by yourself, other dimensions to this same problem have been raised. These emerged when it was raised in the first instance.
1 would hope, Madam Speaker, that you will not cut off members who wish to address themselves to those other dimensions so that you have the fullest of information and all of the facts at your disposal before coming to the point on which you
will reserve judgment. I, for one, have a very important and additional dimension to add to this whole matter, and it is part of the same question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: I will allow any new dimension to be explored because it is important to hear interventions. The Chair wants to be as fully informed as possible so that it may rule on this question. However, I think 1 would insist upon making a distinction between a new dimension and a new question.


Gordon Edward Taylor: Madam Speaker, the original question raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) was a question of privilege involving one minister sending a cheque to another minister to be sent to the riding. The question of privilege concerned undermining the work of the member. The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has sent up a smokescreen entirely hiding the original issue. In my opinion, we should be dealing with that particular issue where one minister is undermining the work of the Member of Parliament for that riding. This is simply a smokescreen. This is a totalitarian, communistic approach and I would suggest the Prime Minister take the paper he tabled and put it where the monkey stuck the peanut because that is all it is good for. We are missing the main point, that of a minister undermining a Member of Parliament. That is the point of privilege, and 1 think we should be dealing with it.


Madam Speaker:: With all respect to the hon. member, I think that is exactly what we are doing. That is the question of privilege and that is the question being discussed.
I had recognized the hon. member for Pembina earlier, I will hear him now.


Peter Elzinga: Madam Speaker, my contribution will be brief. Let me begin by saying I do support the question of privilege brought forward by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood that this matter be referred to the committee.
I want to comment on a few items which the Prime Minister mentioned. I am glad he has finally tabled the list of who are the various regional ministers.
There are a number of questions which have to be answered. It is obvious that these questions can only be answered in the committee, and that is the reason for my support. Who pays for the regional offices which a good many ministers have established throughout Canada? We have our so-called regional minister; Senator Olson, in Alberta. He has a regional office in the Calgary International Airport. In the event the taxpayer is paying for these offices, the taxpayer has a right to know what these offices cost. Rather than reflecting the wishes of a specific region before Cabinet, it is obvious that these offices are being used to pursue ministers' own political aims. By looking at Alberta's representative, and I am referring specifically to Senator Olson, his voice does not reflect that region. He has been rejected time and time again by the electorate of Alberta. My hon. colleague says he has been rejected three times.

The Prime Minister also indicated there was a lack of representation from the various regions of Canada. The basic problem is a lack of sensitivity on the part of this Liberal government for the various regions of Canada. If the government would show that sensitivity, there would be no need for these regional ministers.
In my opinion, it is very important that this matter be referred to a committee so we can find out what it costs for these various regional offices and so we can investigate the matter of the 20 Members of Parliament, which the hon. member from Vancouver brought to our attention earlier. If the purpose of this procedure is to undercut the role of the elected representatives here in the House of Commons, I say that what the government is doing is spending taxpayers' money to undercut the democratic process which has served us well for a good many years here in Canada.
The Prime Minister, of all individuals, preaches to us about being parliamentarians for all of Canada. If there is one individual in this House of Commons who has undercut the role of parliamentarians, it is the Prime Minister.


Mr. Gordon Towers (Red Deer):: Mr. Speaker, in rising to support this motion, I wish to bring further information to your attention that will be beneficial to you in making a decision. No doubt part of the confusion came about because the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said that Members of Parliament are nobodies when they are off Parliament Hill. After the last election, he said he would listen to members of Parliament in the opposition. Up to the present time this has not been happening.
My colleague from Pembina (Mr. Elzinga) stated Senator Bud Olson is the minister responsible for the province of Alberta. We who have been elected in the province of Alberta feel we are responsible to the electorate of that province. 1 am sure that 95 per cent of the people in the province feel the same way.
In one of the weekly papers not too long ago there was a picture of Senator Bud Olson. Incidentally, it is a Liberal paper. The heading was, "Alberta's mad". In the Red Deer Advocate, there is a further bit of information. The article is headed, "Central Alberta oilmen give 'twin' a message for Ottawa". I quote:
Red Deer's Liberal "twin" MP came to listen to the area's concerns this weekend, and this morning he got an earful.
Liberal MP Ralph Ferguson, from the Ontario riding of Lambton-Middlesex, was told federal energy policies are forcing drilling equipment, skilled workers and entrepreneurs to leave the country.
The question is who is representing those people. Is it Senator Bud Olson, the MP for Lambton-Middlesex (Mr. Ferguson) or me? That is the question. The government, through individual members, backbenchers and members of the Treasury benches is subverting the parliamentary system by interfering with the duties and responsibilities of elected Members of Parliament in opposition.
Privilege-Mr. Rae
I am referring to the twinning process apparently advocated by the Prime Minister for ridings not necessarily represented by Liberals. The suggestion of a cabinet minister twin is not acceptable to the people of Alberta. The way this whole matter could be cleared-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I must interrupt the hon. member. I have to be fair to the hon. member for Vancouver Centre (Miss Carney). I said I had to distinguish between two questions. We have already discussed the one of twinning in this Parliament. 1 cannot recall under which terms exactly I made a ruling on it. The hon. member may have other points he wants to raise about twinning, and we can hear that in due course. But today we are discussing a question of privilege on the matter of ministerial responsibilities over regions and constituencies, which was raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. The discussion must remain on that point.


Mr. John Bosley (Don Valley West):: Madam Speaker, I will be very brief on the matter. It is not twinning. If you look at the list, it may be tripling. Many of these ministers have three, four and five ridings to look after.
I am interested in this for two reasons. I would very much like to see Your Honour take seriously the suggestion that it is a matter of privilege to all of us which should be dealt with in the committee and rule in favour of that position. The reason is very simple. After today, do I tell my constituents to write to me or the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) who, according to that list, is the minister responsible for my riding? I will have to explain to those who think I am here to help them that the government decided one of their people will do that.
If you find this is not a question of privilege, Madam Speaker, I will then be on my feet to ask how we persuade the post office to send our mail to the ministers responsible because we clearly will not have a role to play.
The government is saying that the members for the constituencies are not the ones who will make the representations on behalf of their constituents to the ministers responsible for departments. If we accept their logic, we should make an appeal immediately and directly to the ministers the government decided in its wisdom would be responsible for our ridings.
The particular point for Don Valley West that hits home is this. The Prime Minister's list indicates a minister of the Crown who shall be responsible for the riding of Don Valley West. That minister of the Crown was rejected by the people of Don Valley West in 1972. He ran in the riding and was defeated. The government is suggesting that the people of Don Valley West should now turn to somebody, they directly and deliberately rejected, in order to get what is rightfully theirs from the Government of Canada. Speaking as a member of this House on behalf of my constituents, I find that offensive.


Mr. F. Oberle (Prince George-Peace River):: Madam Speaker, I will be brief as well. My reservation about this document, of which I have now obtained a copy, is that it

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
defies the basic principle of representation by population. I do not know whether Your Honour has had the opportunity to examine the document which lists ministerial responsibilities for geographic areas. It singles out two provinces, Quebec and Ontario, where ministerial responsibilities are broken down by constituencies. Some ministers have responsibility for four constituencies and others for five. The Minister of National Health and Welfare (Miss Begin) has responsibility for seven constituencies. All other provinces are represented by one minister.
In the province of British Columbia there are 28 constituencies. The whole province is represented by a minister who does not even sit in this House. He has not been elected.


Mr. Friesen:: In fact, he was defeated.


Frank Oberle: Is it the intention of this government to establish a one-party democracy? Let us not fool ourselves about this practice. This is a pork-barrel strategy to distribute public funds for political purposes. That is what this question of privilege is all about. It does not have anything to do with building a bridge or ensuring that a certain region has access to cabinet. It is about distributing public funds to a group of Canadians in a certain area to which they are entitled, and has nothing to do with politics. Is it the intention of this group of one-party democrats to place themselves in a position in the province of Ontario in the same way they are in the province of Quebec? Are they now saying the rest of the country does not matter? We all know that is their strategy because that is where the population is.
There are 21 constituencies in the province of Alberta. They are represented by Senator Bud Olson who does not even sit in this House. Alberta and British Columbia do not matter; Saskatchewan does not matter. They do not have a minister in this House. The only provinces that matter are Ontario and Quebec. That is where the raw political power is and that is where the pork-barrel has to be rolled.
That is the crux of this argument. It is on those grounds that Your Honour must consider this question. There is no way that we on this side will sit quiet. We will not let you curtail this debate until this matter is referred to the committee where it can be properly debated. If parliamentary democracy still means anything in this country, this matter must go to committee. If any matter had to go to committee, it is this.


Cyril Keeper: Madam Speaker, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) told us today that ministers have regional responsibilities. The Deputy Prime Minister (Mr. MacEachen) lectured us the other day with regard to cabinet government and the responsibilities of members, and said that the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) had no understanding of cabinet government. Clearly, they were talking about the executive arm of government. When the Prime Minister spoke, he spoke about executive responsibility.
I think there is very definitely a prima facie case of privilege here, simply because once there is an executive responsibility there also has to be a parliamentary responsibility and, given the present rules, there is no room for ministers to be held responsible here in Parliament for those executive responsibilities which the Prime Minister has now assigned to them.
My constituents are not being heard in that cabinet. The Minister of Employment and Immigration (Mr. Axworthy) has been ineffective in bringing forward to that cabinet the concerns and pleas of the people who live in my riding, and the only way I can be assured that he will be effective and responsible, in a democratic sense, for that which the Prime Minister says he is responsible is to be able to question him in this House. So I feel very strongly, Madam Speaker, that we very definitely have a prima facie case of privilege here.


Madam Speaker:: I will hear one more member. Does the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) wish to speak on this matter?


Erik Nielsen: I have another dimension, Madam Speaker, which I will raise later on.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Yukon, then.


Erik Nielsen: I will defer to my colleague, Madam Speaker.


Mr. Thomas Siddon (Richmond-South Delta):: Madam Speaker, I think it is most important and commendable that you should grant an extended debate on this question, because a number of complications have come forward this afternoon and I would like to add to that list by raising a couple of additional dimensions.
The Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) came into the House this afternoon and made official a process which was first raised by way of the question of privilege of the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae). He said to us here this afternoon, Madam Speaker, that he wanted to see a process which would bring government and Parliament to all Canadians, which is as it should be and I think, Madam Speaker, we all agree with that.
We must recognize that we cannot disregard this question of twinning, which is an initiative taken at the partisan level by the Liberal Party of Canada, because it is difficult to determine in this question where politics ends and the responsibility to service the constituents of Canada begins.
Madam Speaker, I would like to submit that there is something wrong about the attitude of the government in the manner in which this initiative has been taken, and I would like to illustrate it by making reference to a situation which occurred in my riding last Saturday. Last Saturday, Madam Speaker, I was invited to attend the sod-turning for a new, intermediate care home facility in my riding, and the sod-turning invitation came from the non-profit society which was initiating the project.
Upon arrival, I learned there was a representative of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation present, but no
February 25, 1981

one had taken it upon themselves to inform me that the federal government was in any way involved in this project. Indeed, Madam Speaker, when the chairman of the occasion on Saturday morning turned to introduce me and invite me to comment, he was rather embarrassed because he did not know whether I was enabled to speak on behalf of the government or not. He presumed that I was not, but he was rather embarrassed at having to introduce the Member of Parliament for that area and I was rather embarrassed to find that I knew very little about this project. In fact, I learned from an official of Canada Mortgage and Housing Corporation that the project was totally financed by CMHC funding by way of a low-interest loan to the extent of $4 million.
The point I would like to make, Madam Speaker, is that if we are to have this new process, I think it is a question that must be addressed very thoroughly when the matter comes before the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. If we are to have this process, then the whole matter of dialogue has to be in the form of a two-way street, because I think, aside from my expectation of the right to question my minister in this House, that minister should also be prepared to come to me and seek advice; and that could make his job, as representative of my constituents, much more simple.
In particular, he should take upon himself the responsibility to advise me of functions he is attending in my riding, as my ministerial representative was supposed to attend two weeks ago when he was invited to speak by the Fraser Educational Foundation on the question of salmon enhancement in the Fraser River, Madam Speaker; to address the members of the Chamber of Commerce in my riding on a subject for which I am spokesman for my own party and to which I am not even invited. The hon. minister, who is not even elected to this House, who speaks for the whole of British Columbia-the House leader in the other place-was to come into my riding, but in fact he never came. He apparently was called back to Ottawa on urgent business and, instead, sent a tape-recorded message via telephone.
The point I make, Madam Speaker, is that I could have been there, I should have been there, and I certainly should have been made aware of the fact that this honourable, non-elected minister in my riding was to be in my riding presenting a speech which, in fact, he never gave.
Madam Speaker, this is the point I would like to make. It is a matter of attitude. I think members of the cabinet, if they really want to establish improved contact with all the constituencies that elect members, from whatever party, to represent them in Ottawa ought to have an opportunity to have access to that minister, and that minister should seek their advice.
I raised the question of the political link a few moments ago, Madam Speaker-I will be finished in a moment-but, in fact, a week or two ago I learned that the former Liberal candidate in my riding had been appointed a commissioner of the North Fraser Harbours Commission. He was defeated, not once but twice, and he has received his due reward. I do not deny this member of the Liberal Party access to a cushy government appointment, but I would at least think I should
Privilege-Mr. Rae
have been consulted before that former candidate-who happened to have been defeated in two successive federal elections-was granted this appointment to the North Fraser Harbours Commission when, in fact, the north arm of the Fraser River represents one boundary and an important source of commerce within my riding.
Then, Madam Speaker, the previous Liberal candidate to that, who also ran against me and was defeated three elections ago, on his defeat was appointed to a very comfortable assignment with the Department of Indian and Northern Affairs. Madam Speaker, I am the member for that riding and happen to have been fortunate enough to be elected to this side of the House. At the very least I would have expected my views on that individual ought to have been sought, even if the government chose to disregard them.
The Prime Minister speaks of making government and making this Parliament more available to all Canadians, and that is as it should be. But I want to be consulted if we are going to have another bureaucratic tier within the political system. I at least want to believe that it is a two-way street, and I certainly want to have assurance. Madam Speaker, that that minister is not going to have special mailing privileges into my riding, financed by the taxpayers of Canada. After all, the government already enjoys a loaded deck by way of its tremendous advertising budget, some $30 million, we now learn, in relation to the proposed constitutional advertising program.
Will these ministers have an advertising budget, if they are non-elected and not accessible in this House? Do we have some means of questioning them? Will they continue the practice of having their photographs taken and placed on the front page of my local newspaper, handing over a cheque to the people? Why cannot Members of Parliament, of whatever party, be part of the process? Let us not call it patronage, Madam Speaker; let us call it serving our constituency, and let us give the elected Members of Parliament an opportunity to participate in that service and at least to be advised by the appropriate government minister when there is to be an announcement or a sod-turning or an appointment made in the riding for which we are responsible. Thank you, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: Does the hon. member for Yukon wish to speak?


Erik Nielsen: Yes, I do.


Madam Speaker:: On the basis that he says he has a new dimension to this question, I would like to hear him.
He has indicated to me on a point of order that he wishes to bring a new dimension to this problem. I would like to hear it before I determine whether I am sufficiently informed. I do not know what other members who are rising have to say about this question, but I want to note that arguments are being repeated. Since arguments are now becoming repetitive,

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
the judgment of the Chair is that arguments have been presented to the point where they are being repeated, and that therefore the Chair does have the views of the members on a particular question and can decide at a certain point that the Chair is sufficiently informed.
I will hear the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) on the basis that he does have a new dimension to bring to this debate.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I have several new dimensions I want to bring forward. The first one has to do with cabinet practices. We have heard the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) say here today that it has been the practice in government-I believe I paraphrase him correctly-since confederation to establish regional ministers so that regions of more populous areas in Canada can have direct access to the executive, in addition to the access that population would have ordinarily through its own elected Members of Parliament.
We are in accord with the establishment of regional ministers throughout the country for the purpose expressed by the Prime Minister, but this government and this Prime Minister have carried this practice far beyond what has been the normal and proper practice of the appointment of regional ministers for the purpose enunciated by the Prime Minister.
When we were in office we had the practice of appointing regional ministers for each of the provinces and for each of the two northern territories, but that is as far as it went. The practice now being established, as evidenced by the document tabled today, expands that principle immeasurably. It deals with the two most populous provinces-and only those two in Canada-the provinces of Quebec and Ontario, and we no longer have regional ministers. The document on its second page is entitled "Quebec regional responsibilities" and beginning on the fourth page it establishes Ontario regional responsibilities but, clearly, a cursory examination of that document will disclose that it is not regional ministers which have been appointed but constituency ministers for each constituency of the province of Ontario and ministers responsible, so-called, for each constituency in the province of Quebec. That goes far beyond the customary practice, which has been established and existed for so many years in cabinet, of regional ministers.
Had the Prime Minister and the government stopped with the first page of that tabled document, we would then be following past, well-established and proper practices, because that first page deals only with regional ministers. That is the proper practice but, having gone beyond that, they have gone far beyond the time-honoured practices of the past and have in fact established an entirely new policy and a new practice.
1 wondered why the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) became so incensed and waxed so eloquently when the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae) raised the matter last Thursday, but 1 know now. They were troubled. They knew what they were doing was wrong. That is why the Prime Minister participated today. We never see him in debate in this House. In the past 12 or 13 years I think he has participated in debate about five or six times. That is why he was here. The Minister of Finance could have tabled that
letter. Indeed, we all expected him to do so as a result of my questioning of him yesterday, but it was considered important enough, because it was trouble to them, for the Prime Minister to appear here today to do it personally.


Stanley Howard Knowles: The Solicitor General let the cat out of the bag.


Erik Nielsen: Some cat; some bag. Some bag, indeed, with this system of constituency ministers.


An hon. Member:: Carpet bag.


Erik Nielsen: That is a good name for it, the carpet bag. A new system of carpetbagging has been established now in these two provinces.
I am afraid the second dimension will escape the Chair because no attention is being paid by the Chair to the dimensions I am trying to convince the Chair it should consider. The Chair has heard the first one, and perhaps I should wait until the conversation between the Speaker and the Clerk is finished. I do not want my points to be lost on the Chair.


Mr. Lonsdale:: We didn't miss much on the first one. Give us the second one.


Erik Nielsen: The hon. member is not in his seat, so I do not know which is his riding. Undoubtedly he is speaking with his constituency office minister trying to get one of those envelope cheques fly out of every so often.
The second point I want to draw to the attention of the Chair concerns the establishment in some constituencies of so-called "ministerial offices" for which Treasury Board has approved person-years, salaries and rents. However, this appears to have been done on a very highly selective basis.
I know there is one in Vancouver. The minister who I believe has been authorized to establish that so-called "ministerial office" is in the other place. He has no ministerial responsibilities except to be the leader of the government in the Senate. I suggest that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) examine the guidelines for the establishment of ministerial offices to determine whether the existence of that office and the expenditure of those taxpayers' moneys for the upkeep of that office fall within Treasury Board guidelines.
I do not suggest that, because that particular minister has no ministerial responsibilities being the leader of the government in the other place, but he certainly cannot be considered a minister with ministerial responsibility.
I cannot hear the hon. member opposite. If he wants to interrupt, he should stand so he can be heard.
Expenditures on ministerial offices should be in accordance with Treasury Board guidelines. That is a matter very directly related to this question raised. The other aspect of this is whether taxpayers' money is being properly expended in the establishment of these offices.
Edmonton has such an office. Was that office established so that the minister in the other place responsible for economic
February 25, 1981

development in the country could carry out his ministerial responsibilities in that province? If that is the rationale behind the establishment of that office and the justification for expending taxpayers' dollars, why is there not one in every province? I suggest that is where logic leads, unless logic compels us to the conclusion that the only reason for the existence of that office is political, as is the case with respect to constituency ministerial appointments in the provinces of Ontario and Quebec.
The city of Regina has such an office. The city of Whitehorse now, for the first time, has such an office, yet we do not even have a minister responsible for that constituency.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Yes, you do.


Erik Nielsen: No. We have a regional minister, and that is proper. We do not have a constituency minister, and therefore there is no rationale whatsoever and no logic for the establishment of that office. Yet it exists. Taxpayers are paying the rent and for the staffing. Taxpayers are paying for the person-years. For what purpose? For the first time in the almost 24 years I have been representing that constituency we now have two constituency offices. One is authorized by this House, and this House of Commons pays the rent and the salary. It has been there for the last eight years for the Member of Parliament to perform a service to his constituents. Now we have another one; we have a Liberal one called a ministerial office. It performs precisely the same function on the excuse, in a constituency where there are some 1,200 federal public servants, that somehow Yukon citizens lack access to the federal public service and to the federal executive.
The same situation exists in Yellowknife. I am not completely familiar with the circumstances there. The hon. member for Western Arctic (Mr. Nickerson) wants to address himself to the added dimension which exists in that territory. This must be given very careful consideration when we are discussing this matter.
Another reason the Prime Minister gave for establishing constituency ministers was that there would be a better flow from constituents to the executive because the ministers lived in those constituencies; they knew what it was all about; they were most closely related to the problems and the aspirations of the citizens or the electorate of the country who live in those constituencies. What utter rot!
The constituency minister who has the constituency office in Yukon comes from Hamilton. He has never lived in the north. Who is better able to represent the views of Yukon citizens to cabinet, to the executive and to this House than the person who has been elected and was elected to do those very things for the last 11 or 12 elections; I forget how many. It is a totally improper use of taxpayers' funds.
I have a further point which I wish to raise.


An hon. Member:: Sit down.
Privilege-Mr. Rae


Erik Nielsen: 1 am sorry I did not hear the intervention. My third point was the residency given as a justification or an excuse by the Prime Minister for following this totally new practice. Madam Speaker should consider the dimensions I have added. I have expanded the peripheral boundaries of the question originally raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood. If Madam Speaker does not consider these matters and rule upon them as part of the question raised by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood, then I will feel compelled to raise them as a matter of personal privilege. Because this practice of establishing constituency offices affects me directly, I feel compelled to raise the matter as a personal question of privilege. I say that they are establishing constituency offices and not ministerial offices, because they are performing the exact functions of constituency offices.
The hon. member for Edmonton East or the former minister responsible for fitness and amateur sport-


Mr. McCain:: Fun and games.


Erik Nielsen: Yes, fun and games.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Edmonton North (Mr. Paproski).


Erik Nielsen: I thank the Chair. That is where the constituency office is located. I do not know where the one in Regina is located, but I believe there is one there. I know where the one in Yukon is located, but I do not know where the one is located in Western Arctic.
My questions on the Order Paper ask the government for information which we never get for months and months- sometimes years. I asked how many other constituency offices similar to these have been established throughout the country. Will all these constituency ministers have the right to establish constituency offices in all these constituencies?
I see the President of the Treasury Board smiling, or is he groaning? They have done it in Yukon and Western Arctic. They will do it in Nunatsiaq. I understand they have done it in Vancouver, Edmonton and Regina. Where else have they done it? How much further do they intend to go? This is a prostitution of the process that brought us here.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Erik Nielsen: I hear more groans. If we were to follow this new concept of the Prime Minister, in his attempt to justify the establishment of constituency ministers, what is the purpose of going through an election to elect Members of Parliament? We might as well not go through that process at all.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Don't suggest that.


Erik Nielsen: As I have suggested before, what they would really like to do, because they regard this place as a nuisance, is to do what was done in Ghana. A few very short months after democratic government was established there, they decided to abolish the opposition because it was a nuisance. That is my fear as to the direction in which we are headed

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Rae
when the government establishes Liberal Grit constituency offices where they have no business being and where taxpayers' money is not justifiably spent.


Madam Speaker:: At this particular point in the debate on this question of privilege, would members not agree with me that they are now in the course of practically exhausting arguments which would be brought forward if a motion were moved to send this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections?
I must remind hon. members that the only thing they must do, in the course of discussing a question of privilege, is to show me where there is a breach of their privilege. I must say that members have not addressed themselves to that sufficiently, and, after listening to seven, eight or perhaps more members, 1 must conclude that I have heard arguments mostly on the substance of that question of privilege.
Members ought to know that the motion is not now before the House. I have not yet found a prima facie case of privilege, therefore, the arguments must be restricted to where the privilege has been breached. That has not happened, therefore, members must understand-


Erik Nielsen: That is a generalization.


Madam Speaker:: I am sorry?


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I certainly did not mean to interrupt but I could say that I was being specific.


Yvon Pinard: In your judgment.


Madam Speaker:: When consistently, after four or five speakers, no one is able to address himself or herself to the very fundamental question which must be addressed at this stage, that is to say, where the privilege has been breached, members must understand that the Chair is tempted to cut off debate and decide that it has been sufficiently informed. That is what 1 intend to do. 1 have heard many arguments from both parties on the opposition side of the House, and very few from members on the government side. But, I have heard arguments, and I will now cut off the debate and proceed to another matter.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. 1 presume it is the intention of the Chair to consider these matters very carefully. If Madam Speaker comes to the conclusion that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I presume you will be so informing the House so as to give either the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood or someone like myself the opportunity of moving the appropriate motion.


Madam Speaker:: I thank the hon. member for reminding me of that. It is exactly what I intend to do. I will take the matter under advisement, study all the arguments, and report later to the House.


MR. BAKER (NEPEAN-CARLETON)-PREMATURE RELEASE OF ESTIMATES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 think we have disposed of that particular question of privilege, but I should like to raise another which is much more serious that the one that occurred earlier; this is in respect of the lock-up. Madam Speaker will recall that we indicated the importance of Members of Parliament having the same privileges which we believe are appropriate for members of the press, because Members of Parliament have the right to be informed about matters. I think it was made clear that the only right Members of Parliament have is to have these matters tabled in the House of Commons. The fact of the matter is that I have in my hand a photocopy of a wire story which has not gone over the wires, across the country, via Canadian Press, which reveals to the public in complete detail of the estimates, before the estimates have been tabled in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Thomas Edward Siddon: So much for Parliament!


Walter David Baker: Yes, so much for Parliament. Either that lock-up was for something or it was for nothing. I assume the government had the lock-up for something, which was to inform the press of the estimates pending the tabling in the House. It had to be that or else it was a meaningless gesture. I suggest that is what it was for.
Now the government is saying we argued this matter this afternoon on a question of privilege, therefore the estimates would be released. The document is still not tabled in the House of Commons, yet the subject matter has already been released. That is a clear violation of my rights and the rights of other Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: It is a contempt of Parliament. I think we must consider very seriously the question of the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston). I think there is an investigation owed to the House of Commons with respect to this matter. Indeed, the President of the Treasury Board must consider his own position within the government, given the fact there has been a release-


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I have in front of me the document handed to me. I am sure the Chair will want to look at it in order to consider it. The document deals with the matter of government outlays, the increase in those outlays from 13 per cent to 67.6 per cent-


Some hon. Members:: Order!


Walter David Baker: I want to go through it, Madam Speaker, so that you will be able to understand its
February 25, 1981

importance. The document points out the skyrocketing interest rates on public debt and sharp rises in military spending. It sets forth that the government has reversed a program of cuts in the size of the public service made over the last two years. That information must have been obtained from the estimates and from no other source. It deals with defence spending, which will increase 16.6 per cent to $5.9 billion. It deals with new military hardware which includes fighter jets, patrol aircraft and tanks.


Henry Perrin Beatty: With the stock exchange still open.


Walter David Baker: Yes, incidentally, the stock exchange was still open when this went over the wires. Surely that must mean that the lock-up was for something.


Some hon. Members:: Shame on you!


Walter David Baker: I am sorry that I am inconveniencing members on the other side of the House.
Madam Speaker, I think it is a clear violation of the rights of members of Parliament for others to see these estimates before they are tabled. That is why we have a lock-up. That is why the press is set aside, so that these matters can be tabled in the House for Members of Parliament, who are responsible in some way for the expenditures of government and for its accounting.
If you find there is a prima facie case of privilege with respect to this matter, I am prepared to move:
That the matter of the dissemination of details of the estimates through the news media before tabling of the estimates in this House be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it is a shame to see how the Tories have set a trap for the press.

I cannot accept, Madam Speaker, that after displaying such childish behaviour all afternoon, the members of the Progressive Conservative Party now stand up and say that the estimates have not been tabled on time and claim that since the media reported it, there has been a breach of hon. members' privileges.
Madam Speaker, if someone did not respect the hon. members and this institution today on that matter, it is the members of the Progressive Conservative Party who have been wasting the time of this House since about three o'clock this afternoon. It is a shame to see those members doing what they did this afternoon, under the circumstances. This Parliament has now to assume responsibilities in the fields of economy, energy, the constitution and various sectors in the social area. I am aghast at the behaviour of the official opposition under those circumstances. We could perhaps understand that the forthcoming events during the weekend may have some influence on their behaviour but even so it is irresponsible.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
What I want to say on the question of privilege which has just been raised by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) is that you stated earlier today that there was nothing reprehensible in the attitude of the government and especially in the action by the President of the Treasury Board when he disclosed the contents of the government estimates in a lock-up with the media. It is a fact, your decision has been made, we have done nothing-


Madam Speaker:: I would like to interrupt the minister and ask him not to put words in my mouth. I dealt with the question of privilege which has been raised but I did not pass judgment on a government action.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, in connection with your decision, you stated that there was no question of privilege when the members opposite objected to the lock-up with the media and the failure to notify the members of this House and this is what I was referring to. Now if I do not interpret your decision correctly, Madam Speaker, I beg you to correct me and tell me where I am wrong. If you do not do so, I shall infer I was right. That was my point.
The fact is we did nothing wrong. If now, as a result of the filibustering of the Conservative members the tabling of our estimates is delayed and it becomes a known fact that some aspects of our estimates have been made public, the government cannot be blamed. It is not our fault, even if we held a meeting behind closed doors with the media, since you deemed the procedure was not objectionable but normal. Now who is to be blamed? Well, those who waste our time and who have made the press fall into the trap and take the blame.
Well, Madam Speaker, the facts are as follows: in addition to the lock-up with the press, 1 am told that the press signed an agreement containing an embargo under which the media agreed not to publish the contents of the estimates until they are tabled. So, if there has been a leak, of course, neither the President of the Treasury Board nor the government can be blamed, nor anyone, to my mind, who respected the embargo. I do not know whether or not the allegations of my colleague from Nepean-Carleton are accurate. I have no reason to doubt his word, but if one or several journalists have failed to respect the signed agreement, well, they can settle their accounts with the Progressive Conservative members who laid the trap for them to fall in; but, as far as we are concerned, we have nothing to blame ourselves for.
As a government, Madam Speaker, we followed the tradition. I mentioned it before: we briefed the media at a lock-up and also, as a courtesy, sometime around noon, the President of the Treasury Board invited to a briefing a few representatives of the Progressive Conservative Party and the NDP. Under those circumstances, the government merely respected tradition. There has been no impropriety. Your decision, Madam Speaker, confirmed that there was no question of

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
privilege when complaints were made ealier today. If, as a result of all that, because of the irresponsible, thoughtless and child-like attitude of the opposition members, one or several journalists violated their agreement with the government, we are not to blame. Once again, if you feel this is indeed a question of privilege, then it is up to the journalist or journalists concerned to settle their accounts with the hon. members of the opposition who made him fall into that trap.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Madam Speaker, the matter we are dealing with is far more serious than the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) would have us believe-


Stanley Howard Knowles: The President of the Privy Council.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Your ruling earlier did not suggest that the government had no responsibility to ensure security over the estimates.
The question of privilege that you ruled on earlier was raised by a member on this side, by my deskmate, the hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington). It dealt with one matter alone, whether the privileges of Members of Parliament had been breached by their not being allowed into the lock-up that was held for the press. That is what you ruled on.
The question of privilege raised by the House leader for the Official Opposition is very different. What we find now is that as a result of the decision of the President of the Treasury Board, Members of Parliament have been denied the opportunity of gaining information about these estimates directly. However, Canadians from coast to coast, if they had access to the CP wire, have been informed of the contents of these estimates in considerable detail prior to Parliament being officially informed.
I gather that my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), will be sending you a copy of the CP wire story, but to give you some indication of how long ago this leak took place, you will notice on the top it says, "Advance for release by wire, possibly about 3.45 p.m. EST today." That means that for about two hours now this information has been available to people who have CP wires.
The argument would be made by government members that because there was a reference to possible release around 3.45, the embargo was respected; but, in fact, any Canadian who had access to the CP wire would have access to this information. For example, this copy is off the teletype in PC research. What we have is the ludicrous situation where members of Parliament on this side of the House were specifically denied, because of the decision by the President of the Treasury Board the opportunity to gain advance information about the estimates on the grounds that there was a lot of fear, that security had to be respected, and yet we could learn about it through the CP wire which printed it out in PC research headquarters. Surely this underlines-


An hon. Member:: Sit down.


Madam Speaker:: I would have to warn the hon. member not to link these two questions. First of all, I ruled on the first one. They are not necessarily linked. At any rate, the member cannot refer to a ruling I have already made. But I will hear him on that particular question of privilege. I am interested in hearing his arguments.


Henry Perrin Beatty: Gladly, Madam Speaker, I am simply indicating why the government House leader's misinterpretation of your ruling was so very unfair; and why it is that Members of Parliament, if there is to be an embargo, find themselves left in a very difficult situation if, indeed, the embargo applied only to Members of Parliament, and if the embargo cannot be made to stick.
Surely there is a purpose for the lock-up that was held. It is referred to as a lock-up. The government House leader referred to it as a lock-up; the President of the Treasury Board referred to it as a lock-up.
Presumably, the reason there was lock-up was that the government felt the government's interest would not be served by having premature release of this information. They felt they had responsibility, as they do under the precedents in this House, to table those estimates in Parliament first, before they are made publicly available. Yet what we find here is that it has been made available from coast to coast in Canada prior to being made available to Parliament. There has been no official tabling of those estimates in Parliament despite the fact that Canadians, from one coast to another, now have access to this information.
As my colleague the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton, pointed out, on the west coast the stock exchange is still open. Those Canadians, for example, are interested in defence industry stocks. You might very well have noticed the reference in the CP wire story to increases in defence spending for tanks, planes, and other items.
If it is nonsense, and if it is not a matter of concern to this House, why was there an embargo on us in the first place? If there was not any damage that could be inflicted upon the public interest by premature release, why was there a lock-up,
and why were Members of Parliament told they could not have access to this information?
There has been a grave abridgement of the privileges of the House of Commons. I think, Madam Speaker, you have no choice but to rule that there is a prima facie question of privilege, and that this matter should be sent to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I feel that the President of the Treasury Board is responsible for actions taken by his officials. He is responsible for the security of this information, just as the Minister of Finance (Mr. MacEachen) is responsible for the security of the federal budget. If there was a leak about the federal budget from any source, there would be no question but that the Minister of Finance would be forced to resign. There is adequate precedent for that.
This minister is responsible for security of his estimates. That security has been breached. This minister has a responsibility to tender his resignation.
February 25, 1981


An hon. Member:: Right on.


Donald James Johnston: Thank you, Madam Speaker. I hope the transparency of the positions being put forward, and the kinds of games being played are obvious not only to the members of this House, but to the Canadian public.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I think if there has been any breach of the privileges of the House, it has been by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) who gave information to the public and the House which has been the subject of embargo-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


An hon. Member:: It's already on there.


Donald James Johnston: I would be quite happy to send forward the embargo-


An hon. Member:: Don't make a fool of yourself.


Donald James Johnston: -that declaration which appears on the wire, Madam Speaker. I find it shocking and irresponsible that we should be subjected to this kind of childish behaviour by people who should be interested in getting on with the business of this country-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Donald James Johnston: I have been sitting in this House since three o'clock to table the estimates they want to see. I had lunch with the hon. member from the other side who is the critic so that he would know what is in the estimates. We have followed the tradition that has been followed for a hundred years, as 1 understand it; and today, for the first time, I learned that members on the opposite side of the House are not prepared to accept their responsibilities as responsible critics and to accept the tabling of these estimates as planned for this afternoon at three o'clock.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: A point of order, Madam Speaker. 1 would certainly appreciate, through you, if the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) would withdraw his last comment concerning members on this side not wanting to pick up their responsibilities.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Ronald Huntington: I am going through you, Madam Speaker-


Donald James Johnston: Did you have lunch, or did you not?


Arthur Ronald Huntington: Through you, Madam Speaker, I want to say to all members of this House that I tried, along with another colleague, to get into the lock-up with the press this
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
morning in order to be fully informed in order to perform my function in this House. True, I was invited to a luncheon at the office of the President of the Treasury Board, and he gave me the press kit. It did not give me any answers or comparative statements to last year's estimates, which I need in order to handle myself responsibly here in reply and in a press scrum afterwards.
I would like the President of the Treasury Board to lighten those remarks or apologize for any inference that I do not want to perform my duties to this House and to my country in a completely responsible manner.


Walter David Baker: Apologize.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members in this House are allowed to express opinions, all of their opinions, and I have nothing to do with those opinions.
The hon. President of the Treasury Board has expressed an opinion about something which we are presently discussing and that is his privilege; unless he uses unparliamentary language. Unparliamentary language is described in Beau-chesne, and I heard nothing in the intervention of the hon. President of the Treasury Board that was unparliamentary.
The hon. member for Capilano (Mr. Huntington), might not have liked what he said, but it was not unparliamentary, so I cannot comply with his request to ask the hon. minister to withdraw his remarks.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I wish to speak briefly to this point of order since the hon. member has referred to Standing Orders to make his point. What the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) said was that there was no evidence that the Canadian Press wire story has been published. And this has not been denied yet. On the contrary, what the Canadian Press says is not to release the information before the estimates have been tabled. So in order for you to make a ruling the House must have evidence that indeed release has occurred before the estimates were tabled. This essential fact has not been substantiated and even if it were, I would refer you to the remarks I have just made.


Walter David Baker: On the same point of order, Madam Speaker, I have been handed what purports to be a press release, and it says, "Advance-for release by wire, possibly about 3.45 p.m.", estimated today.


An hon. Member:: Eastern standard time.


Walter David Baker: Eastern standard time, and it is headed: "Highlights of the spending estimates for 1981-82 fiscal year tabled in the Commons Wednesday."


An hon. Member:: What's the department?


Walter David Baker: That is what I have here and I am going to show it to you, Madam Speaker. As I under-

February 25, 1981
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker
stand it, your duty with respect to the question of privilege which I moved is to see whether there is a prima facie case of privilege; it will be up to the House to decide whether it goes to a committee or otherwise. That is the duty.
1 think it is the duty of a Member of Parliament, notwithstanding what the President of the Treasury Board says, when there is a possibility that the privileges of members have been breached, to raise the matter if he feels he should. I feel that I should, Madam Speaker. I do not accept for one moment the appellation placed upon me by the President of the Treasury Board in a transparent defence of an obvious breach of the rights of Members of Parliament.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in supporting the question of privilege raised by my colleague, the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), I should like to mention a few things that have gone unstated so far. Frankly, I find it amazing that the President of the Treasury Board (Mr. Johnston) faced with this serious infraction, should turn and accuse Members of Parliament for sharing what is already public information. How can that minister more effectively show the contempt in which he holds Members of Parliament. To say that we cannot share the same information-


Mr. Blais:: It was not published.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -that the press gallery is sharing at the present time-


Jean-Jacques Blais: Prove that it was published.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: It was published.


An hon. Member:: Prove it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) has asked how we can prove that it was published. If this matter is referred to the appropriate committee 1 will be able to tell that committee that if any member of this House had gone to the proper print machine at Canadian Press they would have seen what I now have in my hand as copy coming off the Canadian Press machine. I personally took ten pages of the information that was put out over the Canadian Press wire and had it copied on our own facilities in the House of Commons.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The fact is that this is information any member attending the press gallery could openly get. For the President of the Privy Council and the President of the Treasury Board in their desperation to say now that perhaps it was not published, is absolutely ludicrous.
Not only was this information published but it was published with this lead: "Advance-for release by wire, possibly about 3.45 p.m. EST."


Yvon Pinard: Read the last line.


Mr. Evans:: Read it all.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I would point out to you that the Toronto Stock Exchange did not close until four o'clock, so this was actually out on the wire at least 15 minutes ahead of the closing of the Toronto Stock Exchange. It reads in part:
OTTAWA (CP)-Highlights of the spending estimates for the 1981-82 fiscal year tabled in the Commons Wednesday: Total government outlays will increase 13 per cent to $67.6 billion-a spending rate of about $129,000 a minute . .. Interest charges on the national debt-$137 billion as of April 1-will cost the average taxpayer $795 in the fiscal year.
It goes on to say:
The public service will climb by 1 per cent to 315,680 persons.


Yvon Pinard: You are announcing it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Here is where it gets very interesting. It goes
on to say:
The annual spending predictions tabled in the Commons by Treasury Board President Donald Johnston are up from $59.9 billion a year ago and work out to about $129,000 a minute.
I want to emphasize that this is a wire that has gone out from coast to coast saying that the minister has already tabled the estimates for 1981-82 in this House.


Yvon Pinard: It was not published.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The press release goes on to say:
The hefty blue book of spending plans-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I just informed the House that it was important for hon. members speaking on a question of privilege to discuss the privilege. I do not think I need have the hon. member read the full press communique to the House. In the interest of saving the time of the House I would ask him to discuss the privilege, and not necessarily quote so extensively from the press communique, unless he feels it is very pertinent to his question of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker-


Jean-Jacques Blais: A point of order, Madam Speaker.


Madam Speaker:: I can't hear.


Jean-Jacques Blais: Madam Speaker, on a point of order. You have indicated that the hon. member should confine his remarks to the matter under discussion.
Quite simply in order to reinforce your decision, I would like to indicate to the hon. member that with regard to the documents he is now reading to you, he has failed to give you
February 25, 1981

the most important words, the last ones, which are addressed to all Canadian Press editors and I quote.

It says the House is still debating the questions of privilege and there is no indication when the advance copy on the estimates will be released.
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, I want to draw your attention to the fact that on all the documents read to you by the hon. member the following words are to be found:

"Guard against premature release."
[ Translation]
Madam Speaker, the combination of both indicates that there has not been any release under the agreement between the government and the press.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: 1 must interrupt the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens) as the hon. member for Prince George-Peace River (Mr. Oberle) is rising on a point or order.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker, I am rising on the same point of order simply to ask the minister a question. 1 should like to ask him, through you, if he is an editor of Canadian Press because-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Order. That is not a point of order. It is debate. The hon. member for York-Peel was speaking on the question of privilege and I will have to continue to hear him because that was not a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: It was not a point of order.


Frank Oberle: Was his a point of order?


Madam Speaker:: Neither. The hon. member for York-Peel.


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


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming (Mr. Lonsdale) on a point of order.
Privilege-Mr. W. Baker


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, the reason I referred to the wire story saying "tabled" was because that showed how this question of privilege is clearly in order. Surely the interruptions-


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member for Timiskaming on a point of order. I am sorry, but I have to advise the House that when someone gets up on a point of order I must recognize and hear that hon. member, at least until I realize it is not a point of order. I hope this one is.


Bruce Lonsdale: Madam Speaker, I am referring to the point raised by the Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais). The hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), and the hon. member who spoke previously on the question of privilege, have not brought any evidence that their privileges have been breached because there is no evidence-


Some hon. Members:: Order, order!


Madam Speaker:: Order, order!


Bruce Lonsdale: There is no evidence-


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid that is argument and I cannot allow it. The hon. member for York-Peel.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, surely even members on the government side will see how ludicrous their argument is. They asked how we know it had been published and then they stood up reading from it a few short moments ago.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: The Minister of Supply and Services (Mr. Blais) rose on a point of order saying he wanted you to know certain other sentences that were in the wire story going coast to coast. Then hon. members stand and ask how we know it has been published. Clearly the wire story not only refers to the minister tabling in this House, which has not occurred, but it goes on to say, "The hefty blue book of spending plans for the fiscal year 1981-82 beginning-."


Madam Speaker:: Order. It is now six o'clock. Will hon. members allow me to say, "Thank God." After all, I have been four hours in the Chair.
The House stands adjourned until two o'clock tomorrow pursuant to Standing Order 2(1).
At six o'clock the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

February 25, 1981



NEWFOUNDLAND NOVA SCOTIA


[Stage Direction]
PIERRE BUSSltRES


[Stage Direction]
MacEACHEN	SASKATCHEWAN SENATOR HAZEN ARGUE
HONOURABLE ROMEO Leblanc


[Stage Direction]
BRITISH COLUMBIA SENATOR RAY PERRAULT YUKON	HONOURABLE JOHN MUNRO

[Stage Direction]
NORTHWEST	HONOURABLE
HONOURABLE HERB GRAY	TERRITORIES	JOHN MUNRO

[Stage Direction]
Saint-Leonard-Anjou
Bourassa
Gamelin
Hochelaga-Maisonneuve
Laurier
Mercier
Rosemont
Saint-Jacques
Saint-Michel
Sainte-Marie
Charlesbourg
Louis-Hebert
Montmorency
Portneuf
Quebec-Est
Saint-Maurice
Berthier-Maskinonge
Champlain
Gatineau
[Stage Direction]
Pontiac-Gatineau-La belle T rois-Rivieres


[Stage Direction]
Blainville-Deux-Montagnes
Argenteuil
Duvernay
Joliette
Labelle
Laval
Laval-des-Rapides
Terrebonne
Saint-Henri-Westmount
Dollard
Lachine
LaSalle
N otre-Dame-de-G race
Saint-Denis
Vaudreuil
Verdun
Outremont
Matapedia- Matane Bonaventure-I le-de-la-Madeleine Gaspe
Kamouraska-Riviere-du-Loup Rimouski
GILLES LAMONTAGNE Langelier
Beauce
Bellechasse
Frontenac
Levis
Lotbiniere
February 25, 1981

[Stage Direction]
CHARLES LAPOINTE	Charlevoix	YVON PINARD	Drummond
	Abitibi Chicoutimi Jonquiere Lac-Saint-Jean Manicouagan Roberval Temiscamingue		Megantic-Compton-Stanstead Missisquoi Richelieu Richmond Shefford Sherbrooke
ANDRfi OUELLET	Papineau	PIERRE TRUDEAU	Mount-Royal
	Beauharnois-Salaberry Chambly Chateauguay Laprairie Longueuil Saint-Hyacinthe Saint-Jean Vercheres		
	ONTARIO REGIONAL RESPONSIBILITIES		
JEAN-JACQUES BLAIS	Nipissing	JIM FLEMING	York West
	Cochrane Grey-Simcoe Parry Sound-Muskoka Renfrew-Nipissing-Pembroke Simcoe North Timiskaming Timmins-Chapleau		Brampton-Georgetown Etobicoke Centre Etobicoke North Mississauga North Mississauga South York-Peel York South-Weston
PAUL COSGROVE	York-Scarborough	HERB GRAY	Windsor West Erie
	Durham-Northumberland Ontario Oshawa Peterborough Scarborough East Scarborough Centre Scarborough West		Lincoln London East London-Middlesex London West Niagara Falls St. Catharines Welland
JUDY EROLA	Nickel Belt Algoma Kenora-Rainy River Sault Ste. Marie Sudbury Thunder Bay-Atikokan Thunder Bay-Nipigon	BOB KAPLAN	York Centre Broadview-Greenwood Don Valley East Don Valley West Simcoe South Willowdale York East York North
[Stage Direction]
February 25, 1981

[Stage Direction]
MARK MacGUIGAN


[Stage Direction]
Stormont-Dundas	JEAN-LUC PEPIN
Glengarry-Prescott-Russell Hastings-Frontenac Kingston and the Islands Leeds-Grenville Northumberland Prince Edward-Hastings Victoria-Haliburton

[Stage Direction]
Windsor-Walkerville Brant
Cambridge Essex-Kent Kitchener Perth Waterloo
Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe
Hamilton East	EUGENE WHELAN
Guelph
Haldimand-Norfolk Halton
Hamilton Mountain H amilton-Wentworth Hamilton West Burlington
Ottawa-Carleton
Lanark- Renf rew-Carleton Nepean-Carleton Ottawa Centre Ottawa-Vanier Ottawa West
St. Paul's
Beaches
Davenport
Eglinton-Lawrence
Etobicoke-Lakeshore
Parkdale-High Park
Rosedale
Spadina
Trinity
Essex-Windsor
Bruce-Grey Elgin
Huron-Bruce Kent
Lambton-Middlesex
Oxford
Sarnia
[Stage Direction]
Thursday, February 26, 1981