1981-03-30

ROUTINE PROCEEDINGS


Mr. Edward Broadbent (Oshawa):: Madam Speaker, given the seriousness of the situation in Poland, this motion I am sure, will get the unanimous consent I believe it deserves.
Noting the continuation of difficulties in Poland, I move, seconded by the hon. member for New Westminster-Coquit-lam (Miss Jewett):
That this House sends its warmest support to the people of Poland and strongly urges that all outside countries continue to refrain from any military interference in that country's internal affairs.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


TRANSPORT
Mr. Rod Murphy (Churchill):: Madam Speaker, despite the fact that western farmers have expressed their support for the Crow rate as an essential component of an over-all transportation policy, the Liberal leader in Manitoba has called the Crow rate "a major handicap" to western agriculture. Therefore, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Selkirk-Inter-lake (Mr. Sargeant):
That this House abhors the statement by the Liberal leader which shows more sympathy for the views of the railways than those of western farmers and this House recognizes that such statements demonstrate why the Liberal Party is nearly extinct in the west; and further, that when Mr. Lauchlan, in the long tradition of defeated Liberal leaders, receives his Ottawa reward after the next Manitoba provincial election he not be appointed to any board or Crown corporation that deals with transportation policy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


VETERANS AFFAIRS
Hon. Stanley Knowles (Winnipeg North Centre):: Madam Speaker, under the provisions of Standing Order 43, and seconded by the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent), I move:
That this House assures the Acting Minister of Veterans Affairs that it will give quick passage to legislation to eliminate or shorten the six and a half year phasing-in period with respect to the payment of pensions to widows of disabled veterans where the veteran's disability was below 48 per cent, and that this House therefore urges that such legislation be introduced without any further delay.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Ian Watson (Chateauguay):: Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43, seeking the unanimous consent of the House to move a motion related to an urgent matter.
As a result of a conflict between the Cree Indians and the Quebec government over the health services budget, a new 32-bed hospital at Chisasibi (Fort George) is empty while tuberculosis and other serious diseases threaten three Cree communities which have so far been unable to reach agreement with the Quebec government on the terms and conditions of the transfer of health services of the two higher levels of government. Therefore I move, seconded by the hon. member for Laprairie (Mr. Deniger):
That the House strongly urge the Minister of National Health and Welfare to extend health services to the Cree bands of Waswanipi, Mistassini and Great

March 30, 1981
Whale River until the parties to the current conflict reach an agreement, so that those three communities will not be deprived of basic health services after March 31, 1981.


Madam Speaker:: The House has heard the motion of the hon. member. Under the provisions of Standing Order 43, such a motion requires the unanimous consent of the House. Is there unanimous consent?


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


WESTERN DEVELOPMENT FUND
Mr. Nelson A. Riis (Kamloops-Shuswap):: Madam Speaker,
I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In recognition of the strategic economic importance of the Yellowhead Highway to western Canada's economic development I move, seconded by the hon. member for Vancouver-Kingsway (Mr. Waddell):
That the terms of reference for the western Canadian development fund include improvement to those highways used to move goods to and from western Canadian ports.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EXTERNAL AFFAIRS
Mr. D. M. Collenette (Parliamentary Secretary to President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, I rise on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity under the provisions of Standing Order 43.


Some hon. Members:: No.


David Michael Collenette: This is a repetition-almost-of the motion of the hon. member for Oshawa (Mr. Broadbent) noting the continuation of difficulties in Poland.
I move, seconded by the hon. member for Parkdale-High Park (Mr. Flis):
That this House sends its warmest support to the people of Poland and strongly urges that all outside countries continue to refrain from any military interference in that country's internal affairs.


Some hon. Members:: Order.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


EL SALVADOR-FIRST ANNIVERSARY OF MURDER OF ARCHBISHOP ROMERO-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Bob Ogle (Saskatoon East):: Madam Speaker, last week the motion I am about to move was not passed because of one hon. member who, I found out later, was not thinking about what he was saying at the time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Robert Joseph Ogle: I am sorry I used those words. He did not hear what the motion was.
Madam Speaker, I rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity, and I trust my motion will receive the unanimous consent of the House.
Last week was the first anniversary of the murder of Archbishop Oscar Romero of San Salvador. I move, seconded by the hon. member for Churchill (Mr. Murphy):
That this House join in an expression of solidarity with the people of El Salvador as they remember some of the last words of their beloved archbishop, "They can kill me, but the clamour for justice among the people they cannot silence."


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I take it from the applause of the House that the House does want to express these sentiments.


PETRO-CANADA APPOINTMENTS TO BOARD OF DIRECTORS-MOTION UNDER S O. 43
Mr. Ian Waddell (Vancouver-Kingsway):: Madam Speaker, in view of the fact that the Government of Canada announced last week some appointments to the board of Petro-Canada, amongst whom were lone Christiansen and Jerry Grafstein, plus another appointee from the maritime provinces who has firm links with the Liberal Party, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Broadview-Greenwood (Mr. Rae):
That in future appointments to Petro-Canada, if the government really wishes to take Petro-Canada seriously, it appoint to the board of directors people with some experience in the oil business.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
March 30, 1981


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
Mr. Jim Fulton (Skeena):: Madam Speaker, 1 rise under the provisions of Standing Order 43 on a matter of urgent and pressing necessity. In view of the position taken by the Most Reverend E. W. Scott, Primate of the Anglican Church of Canada, calling for the withdrawal of the special order in council permitting Amax Corporation to dump its effluent into Alice Arm and to declare a moratorium on development of the resources until technology is developed to dispose safely of the tailings, and in view of the support given this intervention by the Canadian Conference of Catholic Bishops chaired by the Most Reverend Remi J. De Roo, and the refusal of the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) to meet with the Primate regarding this issue, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House call unanimously for a comprehensive environmental impact assessment and a full public inquiry on the Amax project and go on record supporting the positions of the Anglican and Catholic churches of Canada.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.


THE ECONOMY
Mr. Ian Deans (Hamilton Mountain):: Madam Speaker, in light of the continued decline of Canada's manufacturing sector caused primarily by high interest rates for mortgages, business inventories, business expansion and consumer purchasing, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles):
That this House require that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce produce for this Parliament his long overdue industrial strategy.


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


Some hon. Members:: Agreed.


Some hon. Members:: No.
Oral Questions



ORAL QUESTION PERIOD


Right Hon. Joe Clark (Leader of the Opposition):: Madam Speaker, my question would be to the Minister of Justice who I thought was going to be in the House today, but in his absence, and the absence of the Prime Minister, I will ask either the Acting Prime Minister or the Acting Minister of Justice.
The government will know that the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the Manitoba constitutional appeal on April 28, and that an expeditious hearing has been assured by the court. Will the government now give its assurance that it will delay sending its joint address to the parliament of another country before Canada's highest court has had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of that joint address?


Hon. Bob Kaplan (Acting Minister of Justice):: Madam Speaker, I understand the Prime Minister will be here before the end of question period, and in view of that I take note of the question on his behalf.


Mr. Baker (Nepean-Carleton):: Can you assure us of that?


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, if we can take that assurance, I will wait until the Prime Minister or the Minister of Justice arrives.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I am sorry; the information that I have is that the Minister of Justice will be here before the end of question period.


An hon. Member:: Here he is.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, on behalf of the House may I welcome the Minister of Justice back to a chamber in which men and women are offered equal admission.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: My question to the Minister of Justice, whose late arrival momentarily delayed some of the proceedings of the House-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Charles Joseph Clark: -was to draw his attention to the fact which he will already know, that the Supreme Court of Canada will hear the Manitoba constitutional appeal on April 28, and that they have promised an expeditious handling of that appeal. 1 ask him whether the Government of Canada will now give its assurance that it will delay sending its joint address to the

March 30, 1981
Oral Questions
parliament of another country until Canada's highest court has had a chance to rule on the constitutionality of that joint resolution?


Hon. Jean Chretien (Minister of Justice and Minister of State for Social Development):: Madam Speaker, the position of the government is well known. This House will be called upon to vote on the resolution and, after it is passed, it will be transmitted to the Parliament in Westminster. We have no intention of delaying. We have said since the beginning that we have to legislate, and the courts have to adjudicate, and we should not mix the two.


POSSIBILITY OF REQUEST FROM SUPREME COURT
Charles Joseph Clark: Some of us would prefer a system that would allow the courts in Canada to adjudicate in Canada rather than rushing the question out of this country.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POSSIBILITY OF INDIVIDUAL REQUESTS FROM SUPREME COURT JUSTICES
Charles Joseph Clark: Let me
ask the Minister of Justice whether the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Canada, any justice, any other member or official of the Supreme Court of Canada has sought an assurance from the government that the Supreme Court of Canada would have the opportunity to consider the question of the joint resolution in Canada, before that matter was sent out of our country to another country? Has there been such a request that the courts should be given the opportunity to do their job before the case before them is shanghai'd off to another country?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Not that I know of, Madam Speaker. If the hon. member would like to be useful in the matter, I think he should permit the courts to have a final decision in front of them, and we should have the power and privilege of disposing of this matter in the House as quickly as possible so that the courts will know exactly with what they have to deal.


Charles Joseph Clark: Let me ask the Minister of Justice a question on government policy. If the government were to receive a request from the Supreme Court of Canada that the joint resolution not be sent out of this country until they have the opportunity to rule on it, beginning April 28, would it be the policy of the Government of Canada to accept that request to keep that Canadian question in Canada, or would it be the policy of the Government of Canada to send that question out of our country before our courts decide?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I said earlier it is for this House of Commons to legislate and for the courts to adjudicate. I think the policy is well known, that we want to settle this matter in the House as quickly as possible, and in fact when it is settled the courts will have a definitive situation to deal with.
As to such a request, I do not think it would be appropriate for us to mix the political debate with the role of the courts. The courts decide on what this House has disposed of, and I do not think we should try to mix the political debate into the problem before the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, that is precisely the point. We do not want political considerations to deny the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to come to a legal decision, which is what the Government of Canada is trying to do.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


MINISTER'S TALKS WITH MEMBERS OF BRITISH CABINET
Hon. Jake Epp (Provencher):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Justice in his role as Attorney General of Canada. The answer he just finished seems quite inconsistent with the action of the government in the 1978 constitutional package, known as Bill C-60, which dealt only in federal jurisdiction, and which the federal government in fact referred to the supreme court for a ruling.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Possibly the minister could answer that. As well, when the minister was in London did he tell the British House leader, the Right Honourable Mr. Pym, or other ministers in the Thatcher government, that the Canadian government would insist that Westminster proceed with the Canadian constitutional resolution, before our Supreme Court had ruled on its constitutionality?
[ Translation]


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, in every circumstance the policy of the government has been the same and it remains unchanged. We decided we were going to dispose of the resolution here in the Parliament of Canada and then send it to London, and the British Prime Minister has repeated that several times at Westminster since last August. She has always said that the policy of the British parliament was to dispose of the Canadian resolution in accordance with the precedents and the tradition, that is to say very rapidly, and we have no intention of urging the British Parliament to change the policy which has been the only correct one since 1867, namely to accept a resolution of the House of Commons and the Senate of Canada.
March 30, 1981


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question is directed to the same minister. He did not answer either one of the questions I asked him, but he said that the British Parliament indicated that it would act according to precedents and that it would not change its policy. If that is the case, I should like to ask him about stated policy.
During his meetings with the British ministers, did any British minister repeat to the Minister of Justice, in any form of words, the substance of the warning of November 10 of the then House leader, St. John Stevas, when he said, expressing British government policy, the "British Parliament could not act if any challenge before the Supreme Court of Canada"?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, the answer to the hon. member will be very well known, because I hope that the British government will table very soon its reply to the Kershaw report. Personally I am convinced it will act in accordance with the word of Mrs. Thatcher and rapidly dispose of the resolution in light of the precedents and the law.


ENVIRONMENTAL AFFAIRS
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. He has risen in the House on a considerable number of occasions and indicated that his scientists have always supported the idea of the special order in council for the dumping of mine tailings at Alice Arm by Amax. On October 31, 1980, he said in the House:
-the officials in the Pacific region did make a review as I requested. They have now made it clear that nothing has emerged from their re-examination to lead them to change the recommendations they had made and which were eventually put into the order in council which was passed.
However, a member of the task force which looked into the dumping at Alice Arm said the following:
In the present situation, the records will show that the JDCC approved the task force recommendations. This, of course, is false.
In the same letter, the minister's own scientific team rejected the project in 1978, for the following reasons: "The heavy metals associated with the tailings-"


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The quotations the hon. member is reading are quite long for the question. Could the hon. member proceed to his question?


James Ross Fulton: In view of the fact, Madam Speaker, that the minister has stood in the House a number of times and said that his scientific team has always said that this project was fine and that there were no problems, will the minister rise in
Oral Questions
his place and tell us on what scientific data he bases that? In light of this information will the minister revoke the special order in council?


Hon. Romeo LeBlanc (Minister of Fisheries and Oceans):: Madam Speaker, I did say some months ago, when the question arose, that I was asking my department to review this matter, which it did. They said that there was no new evidence to change the recommendation which had been made to approve, by order in council, the regulations which were put into effect.
At what I would call the first level of expertise, an interdepartmental committee did examine this question. There were conflicting views. The next level of authority in the department came to the conclusion that this was a desirable approach, on the opinion of an outstanding scientist dealing with the problems of marine dumping. Following normal departmental procedure, the recommendation was to the effect that permission should be granted. This is the recommendation upon which I acted.
As I said, there was a difference of opinion at the primary level of discussions between officials of different departments. I have asked that this be reviewed to ensure that the divergent opinions had been transmitted as the subject moved up through the various levels. I have not yet received information on this matter.


CALL FOR PUBLIC INQUIRY
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, this matter has been raging in the House of Commons for a year now. Of the original task force four of the five scientists, the Canadian Wildlife Service, the oceanographic people, and the minister's own Department of Fisheries and Oceans are opposed to this project. In light of Mr. Trethewey's letter, which describes the joint committee report as being highly irregular and completely unacceptable, would the minister tell us why he will not place a moratorium on the project, revoke the special order in council and call for a public inquiry, since there are only two days left until the dumping begins?


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, a week ago, after a considerable delay, partly due to the worries and fears which the hon. member has been spreading-


An hon. Member:: Sit down!


Roméo LeBlanc: Finally, a panel of reputable scientists got to work. They are examining the data which was provided when the decision was made, and when the recommendation of the first level of scientists was overruled by the next level. This is not an unusual procedure on a highly technical and complex scientific matter. The panel will indicate to us if the procedures were correct, if the scientific data was properly exam-

March 30, 1981
Oral Questions
ined, or if changes in the monitoring and changes in the regulation should be put into effect.
Surely, at the moment, since the hon. member has been clamouring for an independent investigation of this issue, he would not want to prejudge or paralyse further the work of the panel of reputable scientists who are looking into this matter. The scientists on this panel are not governmental people.


POSSIBLE DANGER TO HUMAN LIFE
James Ross Fulton: Madam Speaker, this is the most serious issue facing us here in this House at this point in time.


Some hon. Members:: Oh!


James Ross Fulton: According to the minister's own officials, human life is being endangered by this measure. They have said:
The heavy metals associated with the tailings discharge will result in the elevation of heavy metal levels in sediment, algae, invertebrates, and fish within Alice Arm, possibly to levels which exceed the recommended maximum for human consumption.
Is the minister telling us that we should allow dumping to commence and accept a sort of tinkering form of review over the next couple of months when human life is in danger? Let us see some guts. Let us see him call for a moratorium, in this House, today, before they start dumping.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Roméo LeBlanc: It is obvious that the hon. member has decided that he will gain footage out of this issue.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Roméo LeBlanc: The fact of the matter is that for weeks now the hon. member has stood in this House and used words like "toxic", "poison", and a great many scare words to create headlines. I am sorry if I have to disappoint him. By the way, Madam Speaker, he quotes from reports which are not identified. At no place, in any of the documents that I have seen, was there any indication of danger to human life or human health.


An hon. Member:: It's in your own report!


Roméo LeBlanc: If the hon. member has any evidence to this effect, besides selective quotes, I wish he would make it available to me.


INFORMATION GIVEN TO MINISTER
Hon. John A. Fraser (Vancouver South):: As you know, in reply to my question a couple of weeks ago, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans said that:
The reality is that I have looked in the records to see if there was unusual haste-1 have no evidence of this at all.
He went on to say:
It was made very clear when the permit was issued and the order in council was passed, that on judgment of the scientists who had reviewed this situation they felt this type of tailings deposit was acceptable.
When the minister gave that answer in the House of Commons, had he seen or been informed of the communication from Mr. Trethewey to Mr. R. Hoos, dated December 11, 1978, which talked about the process and the task force report as being against the final recommendation, including the use of the words "unilaterally prepared", "without approval"- that is, of the task force, and-"did not reflect the majority of the task force"-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please.


John Allen Fraser: My question, given all that, in view of the fact that in addition Mr. Trethewey's statement said that there were-


Some hon. Members:: Question!


John Allen Fraser: -levels which would exceed the recommended maximum for humans-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member knows that he should not use long quotations in a question, and I would ask him to proceed to a question now. Otherwise, I will have to recognize another member.


John Allen Fraser: Thank you, Madam Speaker. Did the minister know about this document when he gave the answers to me in the House a few weeks ago? If he did know about it, how can he continue to say that all the scientific evidence showed that it was acceptable to proceed?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I did not know the details of these conversations which had taken place in what I call the first level of interdepartmental discussion, any more than the hon. member knew, when he was minister of the environment and he wrote a letter of congratulations to the Amax company wishing them well in their new project. He did not know, and I did not know what had been the discussions at the working level of departmental officials, the interdepartmental committee. That information would then be passed on to the next level, and then finally to those who have to make clear recommendations in the region. I did not know what those details were. I have been apprised of those in the last few days, and I am looking into this right now.


John Allen Fraser: In reply to the minister, if I made a mistake, I admitted it. The minister has made a mistake, and does not admit it but compounds it by continuing without a public hearing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
March 30, 1981


REQUEST FOR PUBLIC HEARING
John Allen Fraser: In view of the fact that now, because of a leaked document, the minister knows something he has to take responsibility for, and which he should have known before, will he take steps immediately to change the terms of reference to the scientific committee and insist on a public hearing, and insist that guidelines will be laid down in such a way that both sides of this issue will be properly aired, and in the meantime, take steps in consultation with the company to ensure that dumping will not proceed on April 1?


Roméo LeBlanc: If having more information now than one had a week ago constitutes a mistake, then I made a mistake. I had incomplete information. I had the information and the recommendation that I was given.
As for the matter of public hearings, it is very clear. I understand the scientific panel intends to hold public hearings. They are perfectly entitled and invited to have a total public discussion of the issue. I hope that they do it on a scientific basis, and if we did make a mistake and if the permit should be cancelled, then I will approach my cabinet colleagues with this issue, and I will ask for a change in the order in council. But surely, while this matter is being discussed now-


An hon. Member:: What about the dumping?


Roméo LeBlanc: -I do not think I could proceed, and I do not think the hon. member would have proceeded differently when he had this position.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Mr. Donald W. Munro (Esquimalt-Saanich):: My question is directed to the Solicitor General, if I could have his attention. In light of the disclosures which are continually being made in Britain, and in light of the findings of the Taschereau-Kellock report, more than one spy ring was disclosed, and those people involved in one of the spy rings were brought to justice. 1 am wondering if the minister could tell us, from his knowledge of the papers, what has happened to the investigations into the second, third, fourth and fifth spy rings.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: As I indicated, I have not read the Taschereau papers. They are now being examined under terms of reference which I described to the House a few days ago. Hopefully, if the investigation permits or recommends that they be made public, and if they are, the hon. member will have his own opportunity to comment on them.
Oral Questions ACCESS TO PAPERS


Donald W. Munro: I would like to inquire how it came about that these papers now are being made available for examination when access to them was denied to the Solicitor General in the previous government.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: I do not agree that access was denied to the solicitor general in the previous government. I think earlier question periods established that the former government had exactly the same right of access to them as the present government. In fact, the present Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, indicated in this House-on December 12, I believe it was-that he was planning to establish a task force, or a committee of some sort, which would review those papers to determine whether they should be made public. His answer at that time made it perfectly clear that he had the same authority to make that decision that this government does.


Walter David Baker: If we had access.


CONSUMER AFFAIRS
Ian Gardiner Waddell: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs.
The minister is certainly aware that the annual report of Imperial Oil shows a 70 per cent increase in profits, that is, of $682 million. A month ago, this same minister told this House that his department would investigate the recent increase of 6 cents on a gallon of gas. I therefore ask the minister if this investigation is finally completed and if he is willing to refund the Canadian consumers who have been ripped off?


Hon. Andre Ouellet (Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: No, Madam Speaker.


Ian Gardiner Waddell: I wonder if the minister is aware that because he did not do anything on this matter, for 30 days, Canadian consumers have lost, with a six-cent increase piggybacked-as the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources admitted-onto the previous increases, $25 million. That is $1 million per day. I again ask, in light of those figures, and in light of the fact that the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources has said that there was something wrong with this increase, is the minister prepared to tell this House now that he will roll back that price increase pending the report of his department?
[ Translation]


André Ouellet: No, Madam Speaker.

March 30, 1981
Oral Questions


HEALTH AND WELFARE
Mr. J. R. Ellis (Prince Edward-Hastings):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Health and Welfare. A week ago Friday the hon. member for Regina East asked a question in the House which could indicate that there is an unnatural amount of dioxine in the Bay of Quinte, and further that it was causing birth defects. I frankly both resent and regret this type of irresponsible scare tactic, and ask if the minister would clarify this situation.


Hon. Monique Begin (Minister of National Health and Welfare):: Data concerning the number of stillbirths in the Bay of Quinte area during a four-year period in the early 1970s- to which a member of the New Democratic Party referred last week-came from a student at the University of Ottawa who carried out this study as a class project. I just want to make that very clear to the House, because I am not saying the project is good or bad. I am just stating its limitations. I have asked my officials to review the project.


John Raymond Ellis: I have discussed this with the medical officer of health for the area. He finds nothing irregular in the number of birth defects or stillbirths in the area. Would the minister assure us that she will give us facts and figures on that, either now or when the report is ready?


Monique Bégin: I can give that assurance. I find it important in view of the technique of spreading anxiety without good findings and data, to make these findings public as soon as I receive them.

[ Translation]


COMMISSION ON TEXTILES AND CLOTHING
Mr. Irenee Pelletier (Sherbrooke):: Madam Speaker, in the absence of the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, I shall address my question to the minister responsible for small businesses.
As suggested in the report submitted nine months ago by the Canadian Textile and Clothing Commission requesting that the government make public its position concerning the recommendations of the commission before March 31, can the minister tell the House whether he intends to make this position public today or tomorrow and, if not, when he intends to do so?


Hon. Charles Lapointe (Minister of State (Small Businesses and Tourism)):: Madam Speaker, as previously indicated by my colleague, the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce, the government will be able to make its position public in this regard in the very near future.


INCOME TAX
Hon. George Hees (Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Minister of National Revenue. Is it the intention of the government in future to tax the free transportation enjoyed by those people employed by transportation companies and educational institutions?


Hon. William Rompkey (Minister of National Revenue):: Madam Speaker, there was a report suggesting that we would tax passes for employees of air, rail and other modes of transportation. That is an error. The author of that particular article did not consult with the department but simply inferred from an interpretation bulletin that the passes were to be taxed. At the present time, although the situation is under review, these passes are not to be taxed. With regard to tuition, it is true that in future taxation years those people who receive tuition will have to pay taxes on that, but for the 1980 and 1981 taxation years, tuition will not be taxable.


REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT
Mr. Bob Corbett (Fundy-Royal):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the minister who is responsible for New Brunswick, the Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. Can the minister tell the House what advice he has given to his colleagues in cabinet concerning the funding, for New Brunswick in particular and Atlantic Canada in general, for such programs as the general development agreement, primary highway strengthening programs, tourism, DREE, and other programs?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I am not sure that this is within my area of responsibility as Minister of Fisheries and Oceans. If the hon. member wants an answer, then the advice I give is that we should make sure that the federal government gets credit for federal money spent. Not only that, federal Members of Parliament are also elected to represent the people from my province and they should be consulted before agreements are signed in a definite way.


Robert Alfred Corbett: Based on the minister's answer to the House, I assume that he supports the request from the Premier of New Brunswick that the Prime Minister instigate an investigation into the allegations by the hon. member for Restigouche that

March 30, 1981

there has been misspending of funds in New Brunswick. Can the minister tell the House, specifically, if he supports the future funding of those programs in New Brunswick and Atlantic Canada-yes or no?


Roméo LeBlanc: Madam Speaker, I really think that now I am in an area that is the responsibility of my colleague, the minister for DREE. I am certainly in favour of anything that helps the people of New Brunswick.


EMPLOYMENT
Mr. David Orlikow (Winnipeg North):: Madam Speaker, 1 should like to direct a question to the Minister of Labour. The Women's Bureau of his department just sponsored a conference on the effect on women in the workplace of the development of the micro-electronics industry. Given the fact that it has been estimated that one million to one and a half million women workers in offices will be displaced in the next ten years by micro-electronics, can the minister tell the House what plans his department, or the Department of Employment and Immigration has made to protect the right of women who wish or need to work, to be able to continue to work?


Hon. Gerald Regan (Minister of Labour):: Madam Speaker,
I am grateful to the hon. member for a very timely question. The conference to which he refers, on the effect of microtechnology on employment, not just of women workers but of all workers in the future, is still under way at the Chateau Laurier. There are exceptionally able authorities from many parts of the world participating in an examination of exactly what will be the effect of the microchip revolution. Indeed, the authorities who are speaking are quoting sources that indicate everything from a vast reduction in jobs to, in some cases, an actual increase in the number of jobs.
The conference is sponsored by the Women's Bureau because of the fact that the type of jobs that are most likely to go out of existence as a consequence of the microelectronic revolution, are jobs in the banking industry and offices, that have traditionally been held by female employees. I think the results of the conference will enable my department and other departments, and other governments, to plan to meet this challenge in the future.


INTRODUCTION OF LEGISLATION TO PROTECT WORKERS
David Orlikow: Madam Speaker, in the 18 months since the Carrothers report was made, four times as many people have been laid off from jobs as in the 18 months before that. Yet the only comment from the government is an indication that it would implement the proposal of the Carrothers commission. Is the minister's department working on any real legislation which would protect workers who
Oral Questions
are laid off because plants are closing down as the result of microelectronic expansion?


Gerald Augustine Regan: Madam Speaker, the hon. member will be aware of the announcements made by the Department of Labour of intended legislation as part of the industrial adjustment package that the government brought forth about a month ago. In addition to that we have undertaken such things as this conference, which has been in the preparation stage for a substantial period of time and, as I say, has brought together what are perhaps the best authorities in the world on this subject. It is hoped that this conference will show the way for the type of legislation about which the hon. member speaks.


PENITENTIARIES
Mr. Stanley Hudecki (Hamilton West):: Madam Speaker, my question is directed to the Solicitor General of Canada. Would he please advise this House whether the government is considering revising the surveillance procedures on prisoners who are taken on special day outings, or doing away with that completely in the interest of public safety?
I raise this question in light of the recent escape in Toronto of a convicted murderer of two children who, with several other prisoners, was allowed to visit the Sportsman's Show at Exhibition Place. The prisoner has since given himself up.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, in the case of that particular inmate I should like the House to be aware that he had been under psychiatric care during the period that he was incarcerated and had been pronounced to be sane. On that basis he was returned to the general inmate population at Warkworth. He had had a number of absences under escort from the institution which had gone very well indeed. On this particular occasion it was highly unpredictable that he would have escaped from escort at that time. As the facts indicate, he turned himself in a couple of days later.
We have no 100 per cent accurate way of predicting the behaviour of any human being, let alone of someone who has been incarcerated in an institution. I think the system we have is a secure and safe one in over 99.5 per cent of all cases. I cannot tell the House that any dramatic changes are possible which would make the system more secure than it is now.


REQUEST FOR RE-EXAMINATION OF PROCEDURES
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, 1 have a supplementary question. As 1 understood the hon. member's question, it was whether the situation was going to be re-examined, notwithstanding the assurances of the Solicitor General. Would the Solicitor General undertake to the House that he will look into the question and re-examine the

March 30, 1981
Oral Questions
procedures that are in effect, given the importance of this matter to public safety?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am looking into it. In fact there is a study on conditional release which I will be making public sometime soon, which examines this and other forms of conditional release of inmates. I think conditional release is a justified form of program for inmates, when you consider that almost all of them are eventually returned to society. This type of program gives them an opportunity to be released under supervisors with some attention to their reintegration into society. That is what was happening in this case.
I cannot imagine a change which could be made in the future which would completely eliminate the risk that we take which, as I indicated, in the case of these temporary absences is a very small one. In the case of Kehoe, the only offence that was committed was the escape. As far as we are aware, no other offences were committed by the individual during the two days he was at large.


HEALTH AND SAFETY
Hon. Ray Hnatyshyn (Saskatoon West):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Justice. There is some concern across the country with regard to the establishment or development of a number of so-called "head shops", stores which sell drug paraphernalia. Attorneys general of the provinces, of whom action has been requested, have indicated that this is a matter of federal concern. Does the minister plan any legislative initiative with respect to the curtailing of this kind of activity and the availability of drug paraphernalia on the open market?


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: Madam Speaker, I will look into the matter. I am not in a position to give the hon. member an answer today.


HEALTH CARE
Mr. Lome Greenaway (Cariboo-Chilcotin):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of National Health and Welfare and concerns the impending withdrawal of federal health services from the James Bay Cree tomorrow, March 31, 1981. The minister has told this House that "as for the health of the Cree, wherever we have the slightest responsibility, we fulfil it completely. I monitor the situation once a week." If she is indeed doing so, weekly, why did her officials tell us at a
meeting of the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs on Thursday, March 25, that there was only one case of tuberculosis in the village of Mistassini when in fact Dr. Elizabeth Robinson, a medical practitioner, reported finding seven active cases and 20 suspects fully two weeks before that date?
Is the minister receiving the correct information from her officials? Is she fully aware of the deplorable lack of sanitation facilities and services in the villages, facilities and services that were promised by the governments of Canada and Quebec upon signing the agreement?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, the hon. member has asked two questions regarding the transfer of health facilities to the Cree health board and the province of Quebec. The agreement includes seven parties. I discussed the possibility of obtaining a legal waiver from the Cree to make us free of any legal responsibilities, but that does not cover the right of the other six parties to the agreement.
I have asked the Minister of Justice to review the situation once more. The way the agreement stands, and because the province of Quebec has lifted the trusteeship of the Cree health board and is ready to receive the transfer, I must execute it. By the way, the Cree lost three injunctions against us in this matter. In other words, I do not have the choice the hon. member suggests.
As to the cases of tuberculosis, I am satisfied from information I have received from Dr. Lyall Black, the Assistant Deputy Minister in charge of medical services, that the hon. member's figures are wrong.


REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF GOVERNMENT ACTION
Lorne Everett Greenaway: Madam Speaker, I disagree with the last part of the minister's answer. We spoke to two medical doctors who were up there last week. They definitely found seven active cases at Mistassini and are treating 20. This was reported in the Montreal press on two occasions. I disagree wholeheartedly with the minister's figures. A way out of this could be Section 5 of the National Health and Welfare Act which reads:
The duties, powers and functions of the minister extend to and include all matters relating to the promotion or preservation of the health, social security and social welfare of the people of Canada over which the Parliament of Canada has jurisdiction-
In light of this, will the minister reconsider withdrawing these important services from the Cree tomorrow?


Monique Bégin: Madam Speaker, I suppose the hon. member is referring to the general mandate of the Minister of National Health and Welfare. When we talk of the specific situation in northern Quebec which follows the James Bay agreement, we talk of an agreement signed by seven parties, I repeat, which forces me to transfer facilities according to a calendar worked out with the Cree some time ago and which includes the transer by March 31 of some facilities in some communities. I
March 30, 1981

must honour that transfer. I am satisfied that the province of Quebec has informed me officially as to the rules of the game-


An hon. Member:: It's not a game.


Monique Bégin: -that it is ready to take over the facilities and provide the health services required for the Indians. I would like to inform the hon. member that the social services for Indian communities in Canada are under the responsibility of the Minister of Indian Affairs, not my department.


NATIONAL ENERGY PROGRAM
Hon. Michael Wilson (Etobicoke Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the Minister of Energy, Mines and Resources. In answer to a question last Wednesday, the minister stated to me that he has been aware for some months about the drop off in drilling activity in the oil and gas industry in 1981. I am sure he has seen the recent report which shows the drop off has continued for one further week. What level of drilling activity did the National Energy Program anticipate? Last year there were 9,000 wells and this year it is anticipated there will be 6,000. What level did the National Energy Program anticipate for 1981 and 1982 relative to those figures?

Hon. Marc Lalonde (Minister of Energy, Mines and
Resources): Madam Speaker, I can say to the hon. member that when we developed the National Energy Program we examined the projections of the drilling companies association which forecast that the drilling industry would operate at only 59 per cent of its capacity this year. We have no additional information on this subject.


Michael Holcombe Wilson: Madam Speaker, I am astounded that the minister is unable to answer a question as basic as that. Let me try to go about it another way. Since the future production of oil in this country is directly related to the drilling activity that is now taking place and will take place in subsequent years, will the minister advise whether the objective of self-sufficiency as set out in the National Energy Program, and the numbers put in that program to achieve that objective, are consistent with the level of drilling activity projected for this year of 6,000 wells?


Mr. Lalonde:: Madam Speaker, they are certainly not inconsistent with that objective.
Oral Questions AGRICULTURE


HERD MAINTENANCE PROGRAM-DELAY OF PAYMENT IN DISPUTED CASES
Mr. Vic Althouse (Humboldt-Lake Centre):: Madam Speaker, my question is for the minister responsible for PFRA. As we approach the end of March the herd maintenance review board is reported to be holding about 4,000 cases in which a dispute exists between the review board and PFRA officials as to whether a payment should be made. Since at some point ministerial intervention will be required, can the minister tell us what kinds of issues are being reviewed, whether he will be looking at changes to the snowfall data being used to determine precipitation, whether there will be changes to use actual rather than extrapolated rainfall data, or will superior farming techniques be allowed to go into the computation? If none of these, what will his criteria be?


Hon. Pierre De Bane (Minister of Regional Economic Expansion):: Madam Speaker, I am surprised that the hon. member is speaking of a dispute between the review board and PFRA. There can be no dispute because the only authority of the review board, PFRA or the minister responsible for PFRA, is to implement the criteria set by Treasury Board. There can be no discretion as to whether to issue a payment except in accordance with the regulation of Treasury Board. That is the first step. I hope that all cases will be processed before April 15. Then all cases worthy of further consideration will be sent to me. Cabinet and Treasury Board will then have to decide which of those which have been rejected should be paid. This is the second step which is beyond the authority of the review board, PFRA or the minister. It will be cabinet and Treasury Board which says that.


Victor Fredrich (Vic) Althouse: I hope members of the Treasury Board will be aware that there was a meeting at Invermay over the weekend with about 240 affected producers present, of whom over 90 per cent had applied for payment and had been turned down. Of the 240, some seven had received cheques. Even though a number of them had crops of two to three bushels per acre they were not eligible; they had no hay and spent $20,000 for Ontario hay. Will the minister assure us that Treasury Board will be given this information and use it to redraw the requirements under the program so that in the end justice will prevail for these producers?


Pierre De Bané: Madam Speaker, I will certainly bring to the attention of my colleagues all those cases which are worthy of further consideration. Second, while I do admit the program does not help every person who has suffered from this drought, if we compare what the federal government has been doing for farmers with what the provincial governments, particularly the government of Saskatchewan, have been doing, I do not think there has been any relationship whatsoever between our efforts and the efforts of provincial governments.

March 30, 1981
Oral Questions
Last week the federal cabinet adopted another measure concerning water supply in the west, and I think in the next few days we will announce other measures also.


NATIONAL SECURITY
Hon. Allan Lawrence (Durham-Northumberland):: Madam Speaker, the Solicitor General last week outside the House confirmed that Sir Roger Hollis had been one of the interrogators of Gouzenko, that he had taken away Canadian security secrets at least twice from this country, and also that the British government had later warned the Canadian government of the suspicions, at least, respecting him. On February 24 of this year, as reported at page 7609 of Hansard, I asked the Solicitor General to report to the House:
-some of these situations which have been hidden in the past on the grounds that these circumstances would endanger the security of those self-same allies?
The Solicitor General replied that he would be glad to look into that matter to see whether there are any such matters which could be made public at this time. My question to the Solicitor General now is, has he been briefed by his officials and can he now report some of the circumstances of some of these matters to which reference has been made?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I have indeed been briefed on some matters touching our national security over the past few decades in respect of which countering and deterring action was recommended by the security service. Perhaps as was the case for my hon. friend when he held this office, I am not prepared to disclose any details of them which have not already been made public.


OPERATION &quot;NAIL POLISH&quot;
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, my supplementary question to the Solicitor General is simply this. Why can he not tell the story, for instance, of the two Canadian traitors and the other blackmailable activities which took place in the Canadian mission in Moscow which are code named in his own files under the code name of "Nail Polish"?


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I am familiar with the operation which is known under the code name "Nail Polish", but I will not comment to indicate whether the Nail Polish operation was accurately or inaccurately described by my hon. friend. I have no comment to make on it.


POINT OF ORDER
Charles Joseph Clark: Madam Speaker, I am rising to pursue a point of order I raised for the first time late in the day on Friday having to do with an exchange during the question period on that day in relation to a matter which has been before the House for some time. It has to do with the appropriateness of this House of Commons dealing with the government's constitutional resolution at a time when that matter is under consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada.
On Friday Madam Speaker made a ruling in relation to a similar question but on a very different point. Her ruling at that time had to do exclusively with a citation in an earlier argument I had made, Citation 338(4) of Beauchesne's fifth edition. Let me quote that citation for the record:
The reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament. If the constitutional situation of human rights is submitted to the Supreme Court, it thereby becomes sub-judice and cannot be considered by a committee of the House until the Court has given its decision. The question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.
In making her ruling on Friday, Madam Speaker indicated this particular citation referred specifically and narrowly to bills and not to motions.
1 want to distinguish the situation I am raising now from the ruling that Your Honour made on Friday. I can do that initially by referring to an earlier subsection of Citation 338, namely, 338(3), which states:
The convention applies to motions, references in debates, questions and supplementary questions, but does not apply to bills.
The reason it does not apply to bills-and I will not dwell on this at any length-is that there never has been the intention to preclude Parliament from taking legislative action on a matter which happened to be before the Supreme Court. In other words, our ability to be the highest court of the land was not intended to be limited by the rules of the House. There have been precedents in relation to motions, references and debates, and other matters of that kind.
I want to make specific reference to another element of Citation 338(4), because it refers to a reference by the federal government. That is an important point and it is a point on which I wish to dwell for a moment in making the case I want to bring before Your Honour; that is, that we should not be properly dealing with a matter, the legality of which is under consideration by the Supreme Court of Canada. I will be arguing that later.
The federal government had the option-I will get into the citation evidence available to us as parliamentarians regarding proof of the option that exists for the federal government- knowing that there was question about the legality or constitutionality of what it was proposing, to make a direct reference of that question to the Supreme Court of Canada. The government had a precedent for doing that.
March 30, 1981

Not very long ago there was another bill before this House which attempted to change the nature of the Senate of Canada. Questions were raised as to whether it was proper for the Parliament of Canada, acting alone in relation to a federal institution like the Senate, an institution in which the provinces had a very real concern, to proceed with that bill.
The government at that time decided that the question of constitutionality was sufficiently important that it would exercise its right to refer that question directly to the Supreme Court. After that reference was followed through, the Supreme Court decided in fact that what this government had tried to do to the Senate was illegal; it did not possess the powers under our Constitution to proceed as it had intended.
During the time that matter was before the Supreme Court of Canada, debate on the question was suspended in this House. We did not consider in this chamber a matter, the constitutionality of which was before the Supreme Court of Canada. As I say, the Government of Canada, knowing that the constitutionality of what it was proposing was very much in question, had the option to do that in this case. It declined to do so. 1 believe you will treat this belief as you will.
I believe the reason the federal government declined to act in this case, as it did in an earlier case when there was an accusation of illegality about its actions, was that it believed what it was doing was not constitutional and it did not want the Supreme Court to stop the matter as the Supreme Court stopped the Senate matter.
The first point I want to ask the Chair to consider today is the question whether there is any significant difference caused by the fact that this question of the legality of Parliament's action is before the Supreme Court of Canada as a consequence of a reference made by a provincial government as distinct from a reference made by the national Government of Canada. I think that that is a very important point and one on which I want to elaborate. As the House knows, and as the Chair knows, only governments have a right of reference. A private citizen cannot make a reference as to the constitutionality of a question. As the Leader of Her Majesty's Official Opposition, I cannot make that kind of reference. Only governments can make that reference, and each provincial government in our system of two orders of government can make that reference only to the superior court in its jurisdiction. In other words, it is not possible for a province to make a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. Provinces make direct references only to the highest courts in their jurisdiction. Only the Government of Canada can make a direct reference of the constitutionality of a question it is debating to the Supreme Court of Canada.
As I say, the matter I want to raise is whether the question of directness and indirectness is germane. What has happened here is that a number of provinces exercised their right under our law and practice to make a reference as to the constitutionality of this measure to the superior court in their jurisdiction. It happened to be the superior court in the province of
President of the United States
Manitoba. They had nowhere else to go, nor did anyone else have anywhere else to go. The only people who could have brought the matter to the Supreme Court of Canada directly were representatives of the Government of Canada, and they declined to do that. They preferred to run through something that may not be legal rather than exercise their exclusive right to have the legality of what they were doing referred directly to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The point I want to make here is that the question on which the Supreme Court of Canada will begin consideration on April 28 and the question with which it is seized is the same question which would have been referred by the federal government had the federal government referred it. The question is the same. The court is the same. The only difference is the process of getting that question to that court.
To summarize again, the federal government can take one step to get this question of the legality of its actions to the Supreme Court of Canada. A province has to take two steps to get the same question to the same court. If the federal government had acted, Parliament would be precluded from talking about this question.
I want to dwell on that for a moment. If the federal government had made the reference which Manitoba has made, and if the question which is now before the court was before the court because the government in Ottawa moved it there rather than because governments of the provinces moved it there, then we would be denied the opportunity to debate that question in this House. We would be precluded from having the opportunity to debate that question in the House. All that is at stake here is not the nature of the question and not the nature of the court but the nature of the process by which the matter got there. It got there through the provinces by two steps: first, by going to the highest court in their jurisdiction, and then, on appeal, going to the Supreme Court of Canada.
The question which Your Honour will have to decide is: When the question is the same and when the court is the same, does the fact that it takes two steps to get a reference to that court rather than one step change the practice absolutely? I argue as strongly as I can that when we are dealing with a question of importance so fundamental to our system as the legality of the actions of Parliament or the integrity of our country on the constitutionality of things, this Parliament should not alow a very minor question of process to change the practices which exist in this House.


PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
Charles Joseph Clark: might impose upon the House, I have just been advised that, contrary to earlier reports, the attempted assassination of President Reagan this afternoon did result in President Reagan being wounded. He was hit in the left chest. I am sure

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
members of the House of Commons would want to join with me in expressing our most sincere condolences to President Reagan and to the American people and the hope that his recovery will be speedy and complete.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the point of order of Mr. Clark.
Charles Joseph Clark: To get
back to the matter before you, Madam Speaker, the first question I raise for Your Honour to decide is: When the issue is the same and the court is the same, does the fact that the process is different make so overwhelming a difference that what would be illegal for us to do if this government had acted becomes legal for us to do because it was another government which got the same question to the same court? That is very much a question of judgment.
I remind Your Honour of your words on Friday when you said, and I quote:
Sub judice is a convention which is "a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interests of justice and fair play", as stated in Citation 335 of Beauchesne's fifth edition.
I think that is absolutely correct. The Chair will have to decide whether justice and fair play have to do with the substance of the question rather than with how many steps it took to raise the question or how many steps it took to get a contentious question before the court which must ultimately decide it.
I want to go back, if I might, to the principle of sub judice in our parliamentary system, and I would like to cite briefly from the nineteenth edition of Erskine May, page 427. The general principle is stated as follows:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter-
In other words, that does not preclude the right of this Parliament to act on matters which might be before the courts in the application of existing law. But, when there are questions which relate to the substance of that law, the principle stated by Erskine May is quite clear:
Following the first report of the Select Committee on Procedure, 1962-63, the House passed a Resolution-
That was on July 23, 1963.
_-which set out the rule in detail. This resolution bars references in debate-
As well as in motions and questions.
-to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all courts exercising a criminal jurisdiction and in courts martial from the moment the law is set in motion by a charge being made to the time when verdict and sentence have been announced, and again-
This is germane.
-when notice of appeal is given until the appeal is decided-
There is then some reference to courts martial, which is not relevant here.
The resolution of 23 July 1963 also applies to the civil courts, and in general it bars reference to matters awaiting or under adjudication in a civil court from the time that the case has been set down for trial or otherwise brought before the court, as for example by notice of motion for an injunction; such matters may be referred to before such date unless it appears to the Chair that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the trial of the case; the ban again applies when notice of appeal is given until judgment is given.
So the appeal procedure, which is the matter we are dealing with here, is very much within the practice cited by Erskine May.
On 28 June 1972 the House came to a further resolution, that notwithstanding the resolution of 23 July 1963 and subject to the discretion of the Chair, reference may be made in questions, motions or debate to matters awaiting or under adjudication in all civil courts, in so far as such matters relate to a ministerial decision which cannot be challenged in court except on grounds of misdirection or bad faith, or concern issues of national importance such as the national economy, public order or the essentials of life; and that in exercising its discretion the Chair should not allow reference to such matters if it appears that there is a real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings-
Prejudice to the proceedings of the court is a matter to which I want to turn some attention now. I find it difficult to think of a prejudice to the proceedings of the court that is more dramatic or substantial than exporting the question to another country before our courts can decide on it. In my opinion, there is a very real and substantial danger, to quote the authorities, if the question that the Supreme Court wants to decide is rushed out of our country before the court has had a chance to consider it.
We received today from the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) a very clear indication, if the government get their way in pushing this matter through the House of Commons and if you decide it is legal for this matter to remain before the House, it is their intention to get this question out of the country before the Supreme Court can begin consideration of it on April 28. That seems to me to be a real and substantial danger of prejudice of the most extreme kind. I cannot think of prejudicing a court's decision in a more dramatic way than to, in effect, kidnap the question and get it out of the country before that court can become seized of it.
We are told part of the reason for this is that there is a timetable problem in Westminster; they want to deal with it more quickly. Well, I think we as Canadians, as a sovereign Parliament, have the right to ask why the timetable of Westminster should prevail over that of a Canadian court.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now, Madam Speaker, that is one question I would ask you to turn your attention to-whether or not the process of getting the question before the courts makes a significant difference. Then, if you find the process does not matter, I ask you to find whether or not there is the kind of
March 30, 1981

real and substantial danger of prejudice to the court that is referred to in all the authorities.
The second matter to be dealt with is whether Parliament can proceed with a measure when the Supreme Court of Canada is considering precisely the question of the legality of Parliament's enacting that measure. That has nothing to do with how the question got there; it has to do with the fact the question is there and it speaks directly to the legality of what the House of Commons and Senate of Canada are being asked to do. Let me draw everyone's attention to the questions that were put before the Manitoba court. I apologize for taking the time to do this, but I think it is important we know precisely what is at issue here before the issue is forced out of the country. The first question to the Manitoba Court of Appeal was:
If the amendments to the Constitution of Canada sought in the "Proposed Resolution for a Joint Address to Her Majesty the Queen respecting the Constitution of Canada", or any of them, were enacted, would federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments be affected, and, if so, in what respect or respects?
The second question is:
Is it a constitutional convention that the House of Commons and Senate of Canada will not request Her Majesty the Queen to lay before the Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland a measure to amend the Constitution of Canada affecting federal-provincial relationships or the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments without first obtaining the agreement of the provinces?
The third question is:
Is the agreement of the provinces of Canada constitutionally required for amendment to the Constitution of Canada where such amendment affects federal-provincial relationships or alters the powers, rights or privileges granted or secured by the Constitution of Canada to the provinces, their legislatures or governments?
You will see, Madam Speaker, that each one of those questions has to do directly with whether or not we have the legal power as a Parliament to do alone what this government is asking this Parliament to do alone.
There are other questions raised by Mr. Justice O'Sullivan. For example, he made the point that when the Parliament of Canada is controlled by a party majority in both Houses, what is happening, in effect, is that it is not a parliamentary decision but a party decision that is being taken in this case. That was obiter dicta in the Manitoba court but it is a matter that Your Honour may well want to consider. What is precisely at issue before the Supreme Court is the right of Parliament to act alone on this question. That is precisely the legal question.
Now, I think there are real questions as to whether what we are being asked to do is legal. The court will begin to consider the legality of the government's proposed action on April 28. The government wants to act before the court decides whether our action is legal. That certainly offends my sense of justice as an individual Member of Parliament and as a Canadian, but it also fundamentally offends our rights and practices as a Parliament and people, and does so on one of the most fundamental questions that Parliament can ever by seized of.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Charles Joseph Clark: The difficulty for you and this House, Madam Speaker, and the reason I raise the matter, is that we are on new ground here. To my knowledge, this matter has not been raised in Parliament before. If the question has arisen in practice, it has not been raised in this House before. We have never been involved in a direct conflict between a timetable of the Canadian government and that of the Supreme Court, yet that is what we are involved in here. The Supreme Court has set a timetable that begins on April 28, and the government is following a timetable that will end before that date. They are trying to get the question out of the country before the courts can begin consideration of it. To my knowledge, that has not happened before so you will have to consider the newness of this question in coming to your decision.
When Parliament has ruled on questions that are sub judice, the practice has always been to avoid prejudice to the courts; to protect the right of Parliament to bring in bills and legislate, but always to avoid prejudice to the courts. And as Madam Speaker argued in Friday's citation, the criterion has always been justice and fair play.
What must be decided now, in circumstances in which there is no specific parliamentary precedent, is whether it is just, fair, and without prejudice to the courts to allow a party majority to enforce enactment of a matter before the courts have a chance to decide whether that action is legal. That is the question before us and it is one of very real importance to us all.
In coming to your decision, Madam Speaker, you will want to consider a number of matters, including the stated intention of the government in the so-called Kirby document. I want to quote from that document because, among other things, it made reference to possible legal challenges to the unilateral implementation process. Under the heading "The Legal Position" it says:
As soon as the contents of a unilateral patriation package become known, upon introduction in Parliament, it can be assumed that opposition both inside and outside Parliament will focus more on the validity of the procedure than on the contents of the package and most likely will demand that a reference be taken to the Supreme Court before the resolution proceeds further in Parliament.
In other words, the government expected that would happen back in August and September of last year. It goes on:
It will be necessary to have a position on this matter at that time.
As to the question of validity, it is the view of the Department of Justice-
This is not just somebody in the Privy Council writing a memorandum; this is reporting the view of the Department of Justice.
-that a law passed by the U.K. parliament to patriate the Constitution, with an amendment formula and other changes, could not be successfully attacked in the courts.
What that is saying, Madam Speaker, is that if we get this question out of Canada to Britain, then it could well be beyond the courts- of Canada forever. That is the view of the Department of Justice upon which presumably this government is acting. That is why the government want to get away from our

March 30, 1981
Point of Order

Mr. Clark
courts now, because they know that if they do the question will never again come to our courts.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: The briefing goes on to say:
It seems abundantly clear that the legal power remains for the U.K. parliament to enact such a law for Canada-
That is the view of the Government of Canada:
And it also seems clear that they will do so whenever so requested by the Parliament and Government of Canada.
I will not get into the argument on that particular paragraph. I want, though, to continue the quotation:
The more troublesome question is that of the requirements of the conventions that is the practices of the Canadian Constitution with respect to constitutional amendment. While the convention is that the U.K. parliament will act when requested to do so by the Canadian Parliament, there is a potential problem with the Canadian convention concerning the role of the provinces prior to such a request being made.
This is one of the matters which has been raised by the provinces in the courts; it was foreseen in August and September by the government. The government document goes on to indicate:
An argument is already being advanced by Ontario that patriation with an amending formula would involve a change of a fundamental nature affecting the provinces and that on the basis of past practices there is now a clear convention in Canada that such action requires consultation with, and the consent of, all provinces.
According to the government's document, this was the position of Ontario which was put forward during the summer. Presumably this is still the position of Ontario. Certainly it is the position of eight other provinces involved in court actions. The document goes on to indicate:
This is based on the premise that the "unilateral" adoption of an amending formula would affect existing rights of the provinces, at least their "right" of veto over amendments. (Unilateral patriation combined only with an amending formula requiring unanimity would, on this basis, not be assailable.)
But that is not what we are dealing with; we are dealing with something that by the extension of logic would be assailable. It continues:
Further, it is argued that this convention would be enforced as a rule of law by the courts.
They anticipated that at the time they decided whether they would exercise their exclusive right to make a direct reference to the Supreme Court of Canada. I suspect, on the basis of this document, that one of the reasons they decided not to act in this case, as they acted on the Senate case, was that they were afraid the Supreme Court would find that what they were proposing was illegal now, just as it found what they were proposing was illegal in the case of the Senate.
I think it would be highly unsatisfactory for a country like ours to allow a legal device, such as the refusal of the government to exercise its exclusive right of reference, to permit the passage of a matter which would be unconstitutional. The document goes on to indicate:
It may therefore be fairly safely assumed that if the question somehow came before a Canadian court, it would uphold the legal validity of the U.K. legislation affecting patriation.
In other words, if they can get a British law back here, we cannot touch it. It continues:
The court might very well, however, make a pronouncement, not necessarily for the decision, that the patriation process was in violation of established conventions and therefore in one sense was "unconstitutional" even though legally valid.
That was the advice the government received from its own advisers back in August and September of last year. The document continues:
Obviously, the foregoing suggests that while unilateral action can legally be accomplished, it involves the risk of prolonged dispute through the courts and the possibility of adverse judicial comment that could undermine the political legitimacy, though not the legal validity, of the patriation package.
In other words, they are arguing and clinging to the narrowest kinds of interpretation of law. They are admitting, in light of the advice of their own advisers, that even if what they are doing were legal-and we on this side have yet to be convinced of that-it is illegitimate.
The document goes on to offer advice which unhappily was not taken:
This points up the desirability of achieving agreement with the provinces on a patriation package.
Obviously the government did not follow that course. Instead of waiting today for premiers who are looking for agreement on an amending formula, the government is continuing to ignore the advice received from its own advisers back in August and September and is trying to bull this question through.
The point is that this advice offered by its own advisers back in August and September was not accepted by the government. Instead, they acted unilaterally; they refused to make the reference to the Supreme Court which only they could make to ensure that what we were doing was legal, to ensure that what we were doing respected and did not abuse the constitutional law and practice of this country. They have sought to avoid the courts. After the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) has been waiting, as he is fond of saying, for 54 years, why else would he want to rush this through before April 28? If we have waited 54 years, surely we could wait for the Supreme Court of Canada to act within 29 days.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: Now they are trying to export the question before the courts can decide on it.
There is a section of this document which is germane to Your Honour's ruling because it speaks to the state of mind of the government, particularly as it addressed the question as to whether it would make a reference. I remind Madam Speaker and the House that if the government had made a reference, there would be no question about our ability to discuss the question: we could not discuss it. It would not be discussible before the House of Commons if the government itself had made a reference. I respectfully suggest that Your Honour
March 30, 1981

must give some consideration to what caused the government to avoid doing in this case what it did in the Senate case, why it did not exercise its right to make a reference in this case.
I suggest that the answer is contained in the subsection entitled "Legal Strategy" on page 52 of the leaked Privy Council memo, which reads as follows:
(6) There would be a strong strategic advantage in having the joint resolution passed and the U.K. legislation enacted before a Canadian court had occasion to pronounce on the validity of the measure and the procedure employed to achieve it.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Charles Joseph Clark: The advice to the government then continued:
This would suggest the desirability of swift passage of the resolution and the U.K. legislation.
This has clearly been the purpose throughout, to try to bull this through the Parliament of Canada.
Most of us have focused on what it has done to our institution, the institution in which we work. We know the damage it has done to Parliament; I will not repeat those arguments. But the point is that there was also an attempt made to get around the Supreme Court of Canada. It was not simply an attempt to get around the Parliament of Canada but to get around a second major and central Canadian institution. I suggest that was done with absolute deliberateness. The fact that it was done deliberately is a matter which will have to weigh upon Madam Speaker's decision as you consider whether or not the interests of justice, of fair play and of the importance of prejudice to the courts have been respected in this case. That is the Kirby document.
Another matter Your Honour will want to consider-and we are dealing with new ground here-is the questions upon which some authorities have written but on which no legal or parliamentary authorities have yet decided. I am sure Madam Speaker will want to consider such commentary upon questions of sub judice as has occurred in learned writings, such as the book entitled "Judicial Review of Legislation in Canada", the author of which is Mr. Barry Strayer, who is presently the deputy minister of justice of the Government of Canada. I should like to quote from two sections of Mr. Strayer's book. The first appears on page 188 after a review of the practices concerning the relation between courts and Parliament. He said:
From this brief historical review of the reference system two facts emerge which place it in an interesting perspective. First, it may be seen that at both the federal and the provincial level this device was looked upon as an integral part of the functioning of the Constitution.
It was not something incidental; it was at the very base of the functioning of the Constitution. He continued:
After several years of experience with the reference power under the Supreme Court Act, unsatisfactory as it had been, both government and opposition in the House of Commons were agreed that it should be retained.
In other words, when the question had arisen before in this institution, both government and opposition decided that the principle, which the government decided not to exercise for its
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
own partisan reasons, was sufficiently important to the system that it should remain a part of the system. He continued:
The debates in 1890 and 1891 primarily reveal a concern that the system should be made to operate properly.
I want to emphasize the following sentence:
There was a general assumption that this is an important device for ensuring that neither Parliament nor the legislatures exceed their constitutional powers. Similarly, the resolutions at the 1887 interprovincial conference show that the provinces placed great emphasis on this device, their concern being that they should be equally entitled to resort to it.
I raise the question, that if they are to be equally entitled to resort to it, they should be equally entitled to all the consequences of a resort to the reference. One of the consequences of a resort to the reference, when it is exercised by the federal government, is that this Parliament cannot debate the question. What I am arguing is that it has always been the understanding in relation to references to the Supreme Court of Canada that wherever the reference arose, so long as it arose legally from a province or the federal government, the consequences should be the same. If a federal reference would have stopped Parliament from debating the matter, then a provincial reference should stop Parliament from debating the matter.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: This device, then, has always been seen as a protection of the Constitution. It has always been seen as being a guarantee against excesses by one level of government or the other. There are many cases which come to mind. I can think of some cases in my own province where, in the past, actions were taken by the provincial government of the day which seemed to be excessive. We can all think of cases where those excesses have been taken. We all know the need to have some protection in a federal system against those kinds of excesses being taken. The reference device is there precisely to provide that kind of protection, as Mr. Strayer said in his authoritative and respected work.
I want to quote one last reference from Mr. Strayer's book because it specifically deals with one kind of excess. On page 193 he says:
Finally, references provide a flexible means for each level of government to police the constitutional excesses of the other level of government.
I emphasize, Madam Speaker, "to police the constitutional excess."
We have been arguing, and it is a matter of argument in this House, whether or not there is a constitutional excess being practised now. The point is that the question whether there is a constitutional excess has moved beyond this institution into the Supreme Court of Canada. As Mr. Strayer points out in his authoritative work, the reason for the reference provision is precisely to provide either level of government-the provinces in this case and the national government in other cases-a means of protection against that kind of excess. That, I suggest, Madam Speaker, is something you will want to consider very carefully in coming to your decision.

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
On Friday Your Honour ruled on a very limited question with respect to the forms that were used, that is to say, bills as against motions, and that kind of thing. The question I am raising today does not have to do with forms; instead, it has to do with the nature of the government's initiative and whether it is inappropriate for Parliament to pursue the discussion of that initiative while the question is being considered by the Supreme Court of Canada. The government wants to proceed on a process which the court has not decided is legal. That question is very much before the courts. There was a very preliminary decision in the Manitoba Court of Appeal where the question was decided very narrowly-three to two. There is no clear legal opinion on that question. If there were, the Supreme Court would not be seized of it. The Supreme Court is seized with it and we will not have a clear legal opinion until after April 28. We want to ensure that the resolution will still be in Canada for the courts to be judging on a Canadian question rather than passing opinions on a matter that has been exported to another country.
By proceeding with the resolution, by refusing to exercise its right with respect to a reference and by threatening closure again, as it has imposed closure before, the government wants to get the question out of the country before the courts can decide. I make the point again that action may well put this fundamental Canadian question beyond the Canadian courts forever. It may well never come back here, which could create for us, in our country, some very real legal problems.
I do not intend to quote at length from the proceedings before a committee of this House, but Professor La Forest in his presentation to the joint committee established by this House to look into this matter asked a question which you, Madam Speaker, and the rest of us must consider. He asked:
-what would be the situation if Canadian courts decided that the act was not valid because it has not been properly presented to the British Parliament? The act would be valid in the United Kingdom-
But there would be some question as to its legality here. The government believes it could not be challenged, but according to Mr. La Forest:
We would be left in a judicially created limbo from which it would be hard if not impossible to extricate ourselves by legal means.
There is a way around this. The way around that legal limbo is just to wait awhile to let the Supreme Court decide whether or not what the government is asking us to do is legal.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There were other quite important observations made in the testimony before the joint committee. One question was put to Mr. Justice Clyne, the former chief justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia, which had to do with whether or not it would be appropriate for Parliament to be considering the matter while the courts were considering it. His answer was categoric. He said:
1 think my own opinion is clear, that if the matter is before the courts then action should be suspended until the courts rule.
That was the answer of Mr. Justice Clyne, the former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of British Columbia and a jurist
m
respected for his reputation as much as for the positions which he has occupied.
Professor Cohen, who is a very distinguished Canadian jurist, was brought before the committee as a government witness and as an expert. In answer to a question posed by my colleague, the hon. member for Wellington-Dufferin-Simcoe (Mr. Beatty), he said:
In answer to your question I must say that politically I think it unwise of Parliament to proceed helter skelter with a piece of legislation when before the Supreme Court of Canada the same problem is now in issue.
I think it does something to the respect for the court-
I remind you, Madam Speaker, how important that is to the sub judice rule. He went on to say:
-something for the respect of the legal system. I am not willing to go that far for the provincial courts because, certainly on a reference case, because I think the reference can be abused as a technique for halting the work of Parliament.
He said "abused as a technique." We are now beyond that.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


André Ouellet: Beyond that!


Arthur Jacob (Jake) Epp: Listen to what he has to say.


Charles Joseph Clark: I will not comment on the hon. member's former associations with the courts.


André Ouellet: Go ahead!


Charles Joseph Clark: The fact is that we are not dealing here with a matter that has now been confined to a reference to a province. We are now dealing with a matter which has moved beyond a reference raised by a province. That was the only way it could be raised, since this government refused to raise it in the Supreme Court of our land. It has moved on to become a question of which the Supreme Court of Canada is seized.
Professor Cohen went on to say:
Having said that, Mr. Beatty, I am reluctant to really go much deeper into this because it is almost a case by case situation, but the general principle I think that ought to be a guideline for all of us is this. Do we do anything which brings the work of the supreme tribunal into any disrepute or give it the attribute of appearing to be second rate in its importance, and that we should not do.
So said Professor Cohen and so I say to you, Madam Speaker.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: You will recall from the long debates in this House that one of the questions of contention relative to the joint committee was that many of us believed that there should have been more experts allowed to testify on these very questions of constitutionality. We sought to do that, as did others. The government insisted upon very stringently limiting the number of constitutional experts who could come before that committee. Thus, the kind of questions you are being asked to consider today, Madam Speaker, are those kinds of questions which were not explored en profondeur before the committee. This was as a result of the government deciding to limit the number of expert witnesses whose views on these
March 30, 1981

matters would be persuasive to yourself, Your Honour, to any parliamentarians, or to any Canadians.
Those who did appear were quite consistent in what they said. They warned of the dangers to our system of allowing the government to proceed in the way it is now trying to proceed- to get the question out of the country before its constitutionality has been decided by the Supreme Court in this country.
The sub judice rule has been raised in this House in a variety of forms before. Some cases are clear and Your Honour ruled on one of them on Friday. But some cases are not so clear. This is one of them, in my judgment. It is brand new. There is obviously no obstacle to Parliament acting to change a law which it chooses to change if that law is within the jurisdiction of this Parliament. That is beyond dispute. But precisely what is in dispute today? What is at issue before the Supreme Court of Canada is whether the matter we are being asked to enact is sufficiently within our jurisdiction to allow us to pass it in a way that the Canadian courts would not strike down if they were given the chance to strike it down.
I repeat, this government has very recently tried to act beyond its jurisdiction on the Senate case. When the Supreme Court became seized of that case, it decided that the government was acting illegally, that it was trying to do something that it should not be allowed to do, and so the Supreme Court stopped it. The government is now stopping the courts from stopping the government because it will not let the question go to the courts.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: The principle of the sub judice rule has been to protect the courts; the principle of the sub judice rule has been to uphold the law, including-although this is a new aspect of it-the constitutional law; when one level of government tries to act in a way that is beyond its jurisdiction, it then finds a device by which it can sneak the question out of the country before its constitutionality has been decided.
What is in question here is whether the resolution before the House is within the legal competence of Parliament to pass. That is exactly the question which is now before the Supreme Court of Canada.
Through our long practice in this place and in Parliament, we have established that when there is a conflict between what the courts can do and what Parliament can do, we have acted, in the past, to protect the courts and to protect the law. Authorities on this brand new question-which it falls to Your Honour to decide-have expressed deep concern about the effect on the courts. These are not passing authorities. They are not men on the Clapham omnibus. I believe I have correctly cited that. These are former chief justices of the Supreme Court of British Columbia. These are distinguished legal authorities. These are people who have made a life work of their study of and respect for the courts of the land. They are concerned that there could be damage done to the respect for the legal tradition, respect for the courts of the land,
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
respect for the authority of the Supreme Court of Canada, if this Parliament acts on a matter, the legality of which that court wants to decide before Parliament can consider the question.
My argument to you, Madam Speaker, is that just as the Senate provision should not have been discussed by this Parliament while it was before the Supreme Court of Canada, so should this resolution not be discussed or considered by this Parliament while the Supreme Court of Canada is seized of this resolution. 1 want to protect the Canadian way of doing things.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: We have argued here before about federalism and the damage this measure does to the Canadian partnership. We have argued, too, about the damage that closure does to the Canadian way of parliamentary debate. What we are arguing now is that there is another institution being menaced by the proposal this government is bringing forward, and that is the Supreme Court of Canada. I respectfully submit that it is important for you, Madam Speaker, to decide a complex question-a question which you would probably not to have to face but, nonetheless, a complex question-as to whether this Parliament is being asked to act in a way that damages the Supreme Court of Canada and abandons the Canadian way.
In my submission, that is what we are being asked to do and that is wrong. I hope you find, Madam Speaker, that the proposal put before the House of Commons by the Government of Canada-that we should ignore and consequently endanger respect for the Supreme Court of Canada-should be put down, and that this debate should be stopped until the Supreme Court has had the right to decide. We have all sorts of other matters to discuss. We would like to talk about inflation. We would like to talk about energy policy. We would like to talk about housing.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Charles Joseph Clark: There is not a lack of will in this House to deal with the real issues which are facing Canadians, but the government controls the agenda of the House. The government has been pushing forward a bill which we have argued, in the past, was not high on the priorities of individual Canadians who face high rates of inflation and unemployment in the country today. We have argued that in the past, but our argument now is that there is another dimension to what the government is doing. That other dimension is that if it persists in its action, then it will damage, perhaps very deeply, another institution of this country, the Supreme Court of Canada. We do not want that court avoided. We do not want that court damaged.
I make my case and appeal to Your Honour to make a decision which will respect the practices of Parliament, respect the Canadian way and protect the right of the Supreme Court of Canada to discuss a question which should be before it, rather than allow this government to rush that question out of

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
our country before our highest court can decide on its constitutionality.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) both on Friday and again this afternoon, has spoken on a point of order. I propose to offer a few comments on the point of order. In other words, I do not choose to comment on the merits of asking Parliament to wait until the Supreme Court has made a decision. I do not choose to comment on the greater importance of other legislation. Rather, I propose to direct my remarks specifically to the point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition.
I thought he stated that point of order succinctly and clearly in a sentence uttered not many minutes before he concluded his remarks. Referring to the constitutional proposal which is before this House, he asked this question: Is it within the legal competence of Parliament to pass it? I believe I am doing full justice to the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition when I say that that is the point.
During the course of his remarks he referred to constitutional items as well, but certainly I think it is fair to sum up the case which has been made to Your Honour by saying that he wants you to rule the proposed resolution out of order on legal and constitutional grounds. Madam Speaker, I am sure you have been pouring over the literature in the last few days. You must be completely aware of citations which tell you that that is precisely what Your Honour must not do. For example, I refer to Beauchesne's fifth edition, pages 38 and 39, Citation 117, paragraph 6:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
In other words, there is no question about the right of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to raise questions regarding the law and the Constitution, but it is clear that Your Honour must not rule on legal or constitutional questions. That same dictum is found at page 79 of Beauchesne's fifth edition, Citation 240, which reads as follows:
The Speaker will not give a decision upon a constitutional question nor decide a question of law, though the same may be raised on a point of order or privilege.
Your Honour will be aware that this issue has been raised in the House of Commons a good many times. If I were to dig out all of the rulings from the Chair on the question, I would take up a lot more time than I want to take. I have chosen a couple within reasonably recent times.
On Friday, October 25, 1963, Mr. Speaker Macnaughton had before him a question of the law and the Constitution and he gave a ruling which begins on page 488 of the Journals for the day. Having quoted quite a bit by way of preliminary remarks, he said:
In other words this limits the powers and responsibilities of the Speaker to deciding on questions of order, not questions of law. This is further confirmed in
Citation 69(3) of Beauchesne's fourth edition, at page 59: "Standing Order 12 being restrictive should be given the strictest literal interpretation-"
Then he quotes from a ruling made by Mr. Speaker Wall-bridge on June 25, 1864. None of us was here then! He brings it up to date by saying:
Lastly, I should like to refer to a more recent ruling made by Mr. Speaker Lemieux, reported in Hansard for June 4, 1925, page 3875:-
These are pretty important words and I shall be quoting them again as Mr. Speaker Lamoureux used them:
"The Parliament of Canada is supreme, and if it should pass any act which is ultra vires, the courts would decide the validity of such act. It is not for the Speaker to declare-although he presides over the highest court in the land-as to whether any proposed legislation is ultra vires"-
We have before us proposed legislation. The ruling is clear that Mr. Speaker does not rule as to whether or not proposed legislation is ultra vires. Mr. Speaker went on to say:
For these reasons, and in view of the citations to which I have just referred my honourable friend and which I have brought to the attention of the House, I cannot agree with the validity of the point of order raised by my honourable friend.
That was said by Mr. Speaker Macnaughton on October 25, 1963. A little later, on Tuesday, July 8, 1969, Mr. Speaker Lamoureux had a point that was raised by a good friend of all of us, the former member for Peace River, Mr. Baldwin. Mr. Speaker went through all of the precedents and citations, and finally he said:
In other words, this limits the powers and responsibilities of the Speaker to deciding on questions of order, not questions of law.
Remember that what the Leader of the Opposition is asking you to decide, Madam Speaker, is that it is not within the legal competence of Parliament to pass the resolution that is before us.
Then he goes on to apologize to the hon. member for Peace River for going back almost as far as the hon. member had gone in his argument. Still quoting the former Speaker, he says:
"The Parliament of Canada is supreme, and if it should pass any act which is ultra vires, the courts would decide the validity of such act. It is not for the Speaker to declare-although he presides over the highest court in the land-as to whether any proposed legislation is ultra vires"-
I submit, Madam Speaker, that there is the utmost of common sense in that proposition. If this Parliament were to be run by the Chair on the basis of the Chair's decision that certain matters were not legal or certain matters were not constitutional, that would certainly inhibit to a considerable extent the rights and privileges of this Parliament as the highest court in the land.
So, Madam Speaker, I defend on the basis of the citations the right of the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition to raise this matter as a point of order. But I suggest to Your Honour that the citations make it clear that you cannot rule on a point of law, on a constitutional issue. That is the position in which you will find yourself, not only from citations but from the precedents that are on the books from many learned Speakers.
March 30, 1981

I move on to a second point that was raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. I have in mind that portion of his speech where he dealt with the sub judice convention.
Incidentally, while he was talking, I was reading the books that I have in front of me, Beauchesne and May. He referred particularly to the fact that we must not say things in this House that are prejudicial to the courts. I do not find that phrase anywhere in the literature that I have before me. The restriction is that the House must not say things or debate things in a way that would be prejudicial to the proceedings of the court or prejudicial to the parties before the court.
As a matter of fact, the citations relating to sub judice state that there are some exceptions to the rule that matters in the courts must not be dealt with here because, in the final analysis, Parliament is supreme. Parliament has the right to legislate as it will. The courts can rule on the legislation afterwards, but the right of the House to legislate as it will is not to be restricted by some doctrine of sub judice.
Let me read the main citations. On page 118 of Beauchesne, Citation 335 is brief and clear. It reads as follows:
Members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts or tribunals which are courts of record.
Let us pay close attention to this:
The purpose of this sub judice convention is to protect the parties in a case awaiting or undergoing trial and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play.
Citation 336(1) reads as follows:
The sub judice convention has been applied consistently in criminal cases.
Then there are other references and it continues:
(2) The precedents in criminal cases are consistent in preventing reference to court cases before a judgment is rendered; however, the convention ceases to apply after the judgment is given .. . Nevertheless, the convention is applied again when an appeal is launched.
Citation 337(1) reads:
No settled practice has been developed in relation to civil cases, as the convention has been applied in some cases but not in others.
As I say, I have read more in Beauchesne, and I have read a good deal in May, the nineteenth edition, and the rationale for the sub judice convention is well spelled out. It is not that we lose our rights to legislate as we see fit, but we must not do things here that would prejudice proceedings in the court or prejudice the position of either party to a dispute in the court. If we carry that to the conclusion that we must not discuss the Constitution because it is in the courts, that in my view goes way beyond any of the language that is to be found on the sub judice convention.
In particular, I chide the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition for saying so often that the sub judice convention is one that keeps us from doing anything prejudicial to the courts. I do not find that phrase in any of the literature available to me.
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
I have referred to May so let me pick up one or two things here. In May's nineteenth edition, at page 333 there appears the following:
By a resolution of the House matters awaiting or under adjudication in a criminal court or a court martial, and matters set down for trial or otherwise brought before a civil court may not be referred to in any debate or question; though the House has more recently resolved to allow reference to be made to matters awaiting or under jurisdiction in all civil courts, subject to the discretion of the Chair, provided that there is no real and substantial danger of prejudice to the proceedings.
That is the phrase which keeps coming back.
If the subject matter of the question is found to be, or becomes, sub judice after notice of the question has been given, the member is asked to withdraw it, or the Speaker may direct it to be removed from the notice paper or refuse to allow it to be asked if it is on the Order Paper.
As I say, all of this deals with the courts as dealing with issues between parties. In all fairness, we say that if an issue between parties is in the courts, we should not prejudice the proceedings or the position of either one. Like many members of this House, I have no training in law school, but it seems to me that these things are simple and very clear.
I then refer to page 368 of May's nineteenth edition where some of this language is repeated. I quote:
Subject to the discretion of the Chair, reference may be made to matters awaiting or under adjudication in the civil courts in so far as they relate to certain ministerial decisions or concern certain issues of national importance.
Surely the issue of the Constitution is one of national importance and that is excepted from the list of things that the Speaker of the British House must not allow to be discussed.
The general rule applies to motions for leave to bring in bills, but the House has expressly resolved that in cases other than motions for leave to bring in bills, the rule is subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter.
It seems to me that is the doctrine. The Leader of the Opposition has all the right in the world to raise this as a point of order and all the right in the world to plead with the government to leave the matter. However, to put it on the basis of its being sub judice is contrary to the citations as I read them. Of course, in asking you to rule that this motion is out of order, he is asking you to make a decision on something that the citations and the precedents enjoin you against doing. The only other sentence I would like to read from May is at page 427:
Matters awaiting the adjudication of a court of law should not be brought forward in debate, subject to the right of the House to legislate on any matter;-
This is the highest court of the land. Can other persons or governments, if you will, stop the proceedings of this highest court in the land by referring the matter to the Supreme Court? I do not see how they can. As I said, Madam Speaker, I am trying to avoid a discussion on the merits of the issue or the substance of it. I am trying not to get into the Constitution debate. I am trying to be helpful to the Chair. It seems to me that you cannot call it sub judice if you are asked to discuss a matter concerning which we wish to legislate in this House. You cannot be expected to rule on a matter that is legal or constitutional in view of the very clear prohibitions against the Speaker doing that.

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
The third part of what I want to say-and here I say I have had the gall to divide my remarks into three parts-has to do with the reference again today by the Leader of the Opposition to Citation 338(4) of Beauchesne's Fifth Edition, which reads:
The reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada withdraws that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament. If the constitutional situation of human rights is submitted to the Supreme Court, it thereby becomes sub judice and cannot be considered by a committee of the House until the Court has given its decision. The question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.
That is the citation. The other night I was arguing for something and I was quoting citations as though they were iron-clad. Your Honour may throw that back at me when you get to rule on that point. Incidentally, in going through the book today I find that there is a citation that says we can address the Speaker as "Mr. Speaker," "Sir," or "Your Honour". You, Your Honour, are not a sir, so there are some things in Beauchesne that have to be considered as to their origins!
Citation 338(4), as it is stated right there in the book, had its origin in the Journals of April 12, 1948, at page 344. The first thing I did when the issue came up the other day was to send to the Library for the Journals of April, 1948.


Miss Jewett:: You mean you didn't remember?


Stanley Howard Knowles: My friend the hon. member for New West-minster-Coquitlam (Miss Jewett) says, "didn't you remember?" 1 have to confess that the matter rang a bell.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: As members will discover in a moment, I was here. The bell that was ringing was not in the belfry, it was a real one. What was before the House at the time was a government motion proposed by Prime Minister Mackenzie King that a joint committee of both Houses of Parliament be set up to consider the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms. That was in 1948, 33 years ago, and it has not got there yet. At any rate, Mr. King presented this motion. A respected friend of ours, the late Right Hon. John Diefen-baker, moved as an amendment to that motion:
-that in order to assist the committee in its deliberations the government do immediately submit to the Supreme Court of Canada such questions as are necessary to determine to what extent the preservation of the fundamental freedoms of religion, speech, press, assembly and the maintenance of constitutional safeguards of the individual are matters of federal jurisdiction.
There was considerable debate on the procedural admissibility of that amendment. Mr. Speaker Fauteux ruled at that time. Since they are both gone, I can say that John Diefen-baker used to like to say of the Speaker that he was a dentist, and he sometimes pulled some boners.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Stanley Howard Knowles: That was his humour, not mine. The ruling was as follows:
This amendment actually proposes that the Supreme Court be asked to consider the same matter that the main motion proposes to refer to a select committee. It seems to me that both those propositions cannot be approved at the same time by the House.
It had nothing to do with a bill or with anybody referring something to the Supreme Court. The issue was that right here on the floor of the House of Commons there was a proposal that the question of human rights and fundamental freedoms be referred to a committee and, by way of amendment, that at the same time it be referred to the Supreme Court of Canada. Mr. Speaker Fauteux ruled it out of order. It is in that context that he says the question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time.
This means that Citation 338(4) in its attempt to abbreviate that long ruling has missed the point. There is nothing in this ruling about a bill. It has to do entirely with the House of Commons itself trying to do two different things with the same subject at the same time. The Speaker of the day said that that could not be done. I suggest, therefore, that to ask you, Madam Speaker, to rule the discussion on the constitutional resolution out of order in this House because some provinces have referred the matter to the Supreme Court is not covered by this citation at all.
1 go on just a moment more in this regard to say to hon. members-and if I seem to be doing what we are not supposed to do, forgive me for it-that right after the ruling out of Mr. Diefenbaker's motion, the Journals state:
And the Debate continuing on the main motion;
Mr. Knowles, seconded by Mr. Jaenicke, moved an amendment thereto:-
I will not read it as it is a bit lengthy. My motions and amendments were much longer in those days than they are now. The gist of my motion was that the committee to which the matter was being referred be given the power to request a reference to the Supreme Court if it wished to do so. What happened to that motion? The Speaker allowed it and the House passed it.
In any case, I conclude now by summarizing the three points I have sought to make. In the first place, I contend that the citations are clear, that Your Honour does not have the authority, the power or the right to rule on a matter which is legal or constitutional. My second point is that the custom regarding sub judice, if it is looked at carefully, does not prevent this highest court of the land from considering or dealing with any matter concerning which it feels it has the right to legislate. My third point is that Citation 338(4) does not cover the case of a request being made to the House of Commons to send the same thing to two places at the same time. That is not the present situation.
I go along with those who have referred to the citations that say that this is the highest court of the land, that our acts can be reviewed by the Supreme Court or by courts up to the Supreme Court and can be thrown out, but the courts do not have the right to tell us what we can do before we start.
March 30, 1981

I leave the merits and the substance of the subject before us to others, but on the procedural point I hope that what 1 have said will be helpful to you.


Hon. Yvon Pinard (President of the Privy Council):: Madam Speaker, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) has covered the question very well. It would be pretentious on my part if 1 wanted to add anything at all to the arguments he has raised. He has covered the question very well and 1 must confess that his rational and intelligent explanation did contrast with the remarks made by the member who spoke before him.
While resorting to his procrastination tactic the Leader of the Official Opposition (Mr. Clark) indicated that his party was serious and wanted the House to make progress in fields other than the constitutional issue. We will have a good opportunity today to test his sincerity. We will be in a position to do that very soon because again I want to confirm what the Minister of State for Finance (Mr. Bussieres) said to the Progressive Conservative Party critic, namely, that when motions are called today we have the intention of moving the motion aimed at granting two days of debate to end the discussion on the bill authorizing the government to borrow a certain sum of money.
Since the adoption of that bill has become very urgent we have no alternative other than introducing that motion, and if the Leader of the Official Opposition had been really sincere-and that is why his remarks sound false-we would not have been forced to proceed with that motion today because he would have agreed to let that bill through report stage and third reading without our having to give the notice required under Standing Order 75c. But we will take him at his word today and see to what extent he can be sincere. If we can move that motion today and debate if for a maximum of two hours, as provided in the Standing Orders, we will see if at least we can make progress on a question of procedure since otherwise we cannot get anywhere on the constitutional question.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, I support the representations made to you by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. His explanation really covers the entire matter, and I regret that the Leader of the Official Opposition has essentially tried to do indirectly what we are forbidden to do directly. There is an old legal principle, Madam Speaker, as any graduate in law will tell you-my colleague can ask his fellow member on his left to confirm this-which says that you cannot do indirectly what you are forbidden to do directly.
What the Leader of the Official Opposition did today was nothing but present the same question that he himself submitted last Friday when he asked you, on the basis of so-called precedents, to find that the House could not study the constitutional proposal because it had already been submitted to the Supreme Court. He is now submitting exactly the same ques-
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
tion, but since his argument could not be supported by the precedents, or by our rules, traditions, and practices, he is now saying that he is on new ground. Well, Madam Speaker, this is not a very good argument. Moreover, 1 respectfully submit that this is a way of doing indirectly what you had forbidden him from doing directly. I find it unfortunate that he has wasted one hour of the time of the House today in an attempt to abuse the rules of this House and get around what he had no right to do as your decision already covered this matter. In view of the circumstances-


Walter David Baker: On a point of order, Madam Speaker.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: We are already on a point of order.


Madam Speaker:: Order please. We are already dealing with a point of order and I cannot entertain two at the same time.


Walter David Baker: I would ask the hon. member if he would entertain a question.


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, I shall close by saying that your ruling of last Friday is another argument that I add to those given by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. As indicated on page 8694 of Hansard, you stated the following in giving your ruling, and I quote from the English version of Hansard:

Sub judice is a convention which is "a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interests of justice and fair play", as stated in Citation 335 of Beauchesne's fifth edition. I have not been persuaded by the particular argument brought forward by the Leader of the Opposition which he offered in his presentation yesterday, namely that the House cannot debate that motion because the matter has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada.
Therefore, Madam Speaker, you ruled on this very question, except last Friday you ruled on the basis of citations from Beauchesne and the rules and practices of this House. Today the Leader of the Opposition wants to try his case again. Since he lost it on the basis of practice, the rules and Beauchesne, he says it is now on new ground. I understand what kind of new ground he is talking about. He said, "I want to protect the Canadian way of doing things." If we look at what he did last week and what he is doing this afternoon, we certainly are on new ground, particularly when we see this kind of filibuster.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have a pretty good idea of what this point of order is all about. Several citations have been brought before us which I am sure will help me to make a judgment. I want to give notice that I will not be listening to too many interveners as I feel that many citations have been brought forward. When I find there are no new arguments being offered I will cut off debate.

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, in respect of the point of order argued so eloquently by the gentleman who has now become the deputy House leader of the government, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles), I have to say with respect-


Stanley Howard Knowles: You call that respect?


Walter David Baker: -that his point of view was narrow indeed. I should like to raise some points in rebuttal and to refer Your Honour to a precedent which has not been referred to in the course of the discussion during this debate. This is a precedent of the Canadian House of Commons on the matter of sub judice.
If I may say so, 1 think the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre was wrong-of course, the government House leader was wrong as well to adopt the argument of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre-when he said that the Chair will not decide a question of law or stand in the place of the Supreme Court. I listened very carefully to the argument put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), and that is not what he said at all. He was not arguing that Your Honour should stand in the place of the Supreme Court of Canada. He was arguing precisely the reverse, that is, that the Supreme Court of Canada is another institution, an institution which ought to be respected by the rules, precedents and practices of the House of Commons. That is the first point, and I think it speaks for itself.
The second matter he argued-and I thought he was becoming a bit of an advocate before a court rather than a parliamentarian in Parliament-was that the court would have the opportunity to deal with the constitutional matter after it had been decided in a foreign country, as put by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. The court would have a chance to deal with it, but that, of course, is wrong. At least it is wrong in so far as the Kirby memorandum is concerned, and I believe it is wrong in so far as the Pitfieid memorandum is concerned. It is also apparently wrong in so far as the Department of Justice is concerned because the Department of Justice has given an opinion which I presume it would advance in a court of law. It certainly advanced it to the government and to the Privy Council. The opinion of the Department of Justice is that precisely the opposite is true and that after the foreign country, Great Britain, has dealt with it-Westminster-and it comes back to Ottawa, it is beyond the purview of the courts. That is what the Department of Justice said. If there was any assertion made on the floor of this House, it was the assertion made by the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) himself to his own colleagues as to the propriety and importance of the sub judice rule. I have to agree that we have to look at each case on its merits, and to the Chair the opinion given by the Department of Justice is an important consideration.
In speaking of the sub judice convention, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre referred to two publications on the
customs, traditions and precedents of the House. He referred to the sub judice conventions as set forth in Beauchesne and May. I suggest there are other matters on sub judice to consider which ought to give Your Honour pause with respect to the importance of this argument. I am referring to a report of the House of Commons itself. It is the report of the special committee of this House on rights and immunities of members of the Thirtieth Parliament of 1976 to 1977. The committee was composed of some rather distinguished members and former members of this House. One was the former member for Peace River, Mr. Ged Baldwin. Another was Mr. Gordon Fairweather, who is now the chairman of the Canadian Human Rights Commission, and yet another was the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre himself.


Mr. Nowlan:: Oh, no.


Walter David Baker: The report was unanimous. I think it is important that Your Honour consider this report of the House of Commons. Just to put it in context, the order said in part:
That a Special Committee of the House to consist of Mr. Speaker-
This was a committee chaired by the Speaker.
and seven other members be appointed to review the rights and immunities of members of the House of Commons, to examine the procedures by which such matters are dealt with by the House and to report on any changes it may be desirable to make.
The committee held a number of meetings on how the rights and immunities of members were affected by the sub judice convention or related directly to that. During the course of those proceedings, the committee received the assistance of Mr. Alistair Fraser, a former distinguished Clerk of this House of Commons, Mr. Phillip Laundy, the director of the research branch of the Parliamentary Library, and Mr. Norman B. Willans, a legal research officer with the Library of Parliament.
The matter with which we are dealing is very important. It is not something we can treat lightly. I will read part of the report because it does demolish some of the things which have been said about where the rule of sub judice applies. Paragraph 3 of the report reads in part as follows:
The freedom of speech accorded to Members of Parliament is a fundamental right without which they would be hampered in the performance of their duties. It permits them to speak in the House without inhibition, to refer to any matter or express any opinion as they see fit, and to say what they feel needs to be said in the furtherance of the national interest and the aspirations of their constituents. This basic parliamentary freedom is to some extent limited by the sub judice convention. Under the convention as it has developed over the years members are expected to refrain from discussing matters that are before the courts. No distinction has ever been made in Canada between criminal courts and civil courts for the purpose of applying the convention. It has also had application to certain tribunals other than courts of law. The purpose of the convention is to protect the parties-
Litigants.
-in a case awaiting or undergoing trial-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Walter David Baker: Then the report goes on to broaden it even more than that.
March 30, 1981


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is on trial?


Walter David Baker: -and persons who stand to be affected by the outcome of a judicial inquiry.
If my friend, the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, was to be affected by it, then he would have that protection. If the province of Ontario was to be affected by it, it would be entitled to it. If the province of Manitoba and the province of Saskatchewan were to be affected by it, they would be entitled to it.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is on trial?


Walter David Baker: The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre is interrupting me in an uncharacteristic fashion.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Who is on trial?


Mr. Crosbie:: You are on trial.


Walter David Baker: If the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre will contain himself, I will get on with the question of who is on trial. Paragraph 3 goes on to say:
It exists to guarantee everyone a fair trial and to prevent any undue influence prejudicing a judicial decision-
It does not say who is on trial. It says "a judicial decision". The Supreme Court of Canada is a judicial body. That stands.
-or a report of a tribunal of inquiry. It is important to emphasize that it is a convention and not a rule. It is a voluntary restraint imposed by the House upon itself in the interest of justice and fair play, but which the House is free to disregard should it so resolve.
There has been no resolution of the House to disregard or stand aside the principles of justice and fair play.
Then the report goes on-and this raises a point for the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre with respect to who is on trial-in paragraph 4 to say:
A definition of "prejudice" is not easily formulated. An attempt was made by a select committee of the British House of Commons-
It should apply here. If we are going to send our Constitution to Great Britain to be decided, perhaps we can regard some of our decisions in the light of the Parliament to which we are going to send our fundamental documents. It says this:
"In using the word 'prejudice' your committee intend the word to cover possible effect on the members of the court, the jury, witnesses and the parties to any action. The minds of magistrates, assessors, members of a jury and of witnesses might be influenced by reading in the newspapers comment-
And so on.
The research efforts of the Committee have not succeeded in providing a more precise definition. What effect a parliamentary discussion may have on "the court, the jury, the witnesses and the parties to an action" is not easy to determine. One thing that can be stated with certainty is that courts in interpreting statutes have no regard for anything that might have been said in the course of parliamentary debate.
That is with respect to statutes, because they deal with words of precision. We are dealing with conventions in the case of a reference to the Manitoba court. That is the issue. Finally, it says-
Point of Order-Mr. Clark


Madam Speaker:: May I interrupt the hon. member to tell him that it would be in his own interest if he could address the particular question we are dealing with here. I know the citation to which the hon. member is referring very well; he is referring to the effect that might have on individuals. He is referring to commentary in Parliament concerning individuals who might be on trial. With respect to such cases I have some citations which say that the House would exercise some discretion, although it is open to the House in some cases to comment on them. I would like the hon. member to refrain from pursuing that line, because it seems to me quite clear that is with reference to civil or criminal cases but perhaps not too germane to the particular situation we are discussing now.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, with respect-and I will have to point the argument because I want to put it to you-I think the sub judice rule has been almost beyond dispute with respect to criminal cases. The difficulty has always arisen in the interpretation of the rule with respect to civil cases. There have been some civil cases where it was allowed, some where it was not, and in considering the appropriateness of this House proceeding while the issue is before the Supreme Court of Canada, one has to consider what it is. It is a reference put to the Supreme Court as set out by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in a civil proceeding under the reference provisions and rules of practice in the Manitoba Supreme Court. It is a civil proceeding.
Now, I put it to you that there is a party involved; there can be a prejudice involved, and that is the issue of the rule. That is why the report of this Parliament put it precisely this way. I do not think there is any doubt as to the rule. It has always been the practice in this House, and it is the rule, that a matter which is the subject of a judicial inquiry is outside the purview of the House during the proceedings. So the rule is not limited to criminal or civil matters; rather it is wide ranging and includes an inquiry. As the Leader of the Opposition has said, it is new ground and includes a reference to the Supreme Court of Canada on a matter before a provincial court.
The rule evolves, it moves ahead. This is the first time this has been considered in this context. That does not say that this process is not subject to the sub judice rule. In fact, the burden would be on those attesting otherwise, because the object of the rule is to ensure that the interests of the parties are not affected by a proceeding in the Parliament of Canada. That was the essence of the case and that is the burden on the Chair.
It has applied, Madam Speaker, in many civil cases. The report refers to one in 1938, one in 1973 and another in 1966. The reports are replete with them. So 1 have to say that the sub judice rule is a dynamic thing. It is not narrow, as the member for Winnipeg North Centre and the government House leader seemed to argue; it is a dynamic concept that moves as it is applied.
I can think of no place where it ought to apply more fundamentally, more strongly and firmly than in a matter

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
dealing with the Constitution of Canada and with the rule of law. What we are really asking the government to do- whether or not they will consider it is something else-is that in observing the rule of law and the concept of sub judice, they are being asked to put off the ultimate decision on this question until the Supreme Court of Canada has ruled, in about three weeks, on the appropriateness of the appeal from Manitoba.
I have read the reasons for the appeal and I submit that it makes good and interesting reading because it covers the customs, traditions and law, all the issues involved. All we are saying is that this country is-at least, I thought it was-a country governed by the rule of law, not by the rule of men, and that it is inappropriate for there to be advanced here something which might remove it from the jurisdiction of the courts.
To put the matter the other way, supposing the memorandum was wrong and after Westminster there was a judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada that went against this resolution. What constitutional position would the country be in? 1 do not know how that has been explored, but it has been explored by the Minister of Justice and they say we will not even get that far. That is why I commend this report to you.
1 will not argue much longer, Madam Speaker. I have done my best to stay on this point, the sub judice rule. I have asked you to consider the new ground that has been presented by the Leader of the Opposition and consider it in light of the importance of the case. It is a case that has split the NDP, it has caused the Parliamentary Secretary to the Secretary of State for External Affairs (Mr. Duclos) to make a speech in this House saying he will vote against his party, and it has caused the member for Edmonton East (Mr. Yurko) to say that he is going to vote against his party. This is the right of every member. But I think it is also the duty of Parliament to ensure that nothing is done here to prejudice legal rights, even when we are breaking new ground. That was the purport of the brilliant argument advanced by the Leader of the Opposition, and I support him. I ask you, Madam Speaker, not to decide the issue on narrow, procedural grounds, as you have been invited to do by the deputy House leader of the government and the member for Winnipeg North Centre.


Madam Speaker:: There are no other members of the other parties in the House rising; therefore I will hear one more speaker on the opposition side.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I will be brief; 1 do not want to delay the proceedings of the House unduly.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: In dealing with this matter I am going to make reference to some of the arguments put forward, because I submit to you, Madam Speaker, that this question raised by the Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) is indeed new and novel, one that has to be considered by you.
1 want to make this observation with respect to the matter before you to underline that particular point. What we have before us today, notwithstanding the statement of precedents and citations by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre (Mr. Knowles) that this somehow is a matter of legislation, is something quite different. It is a resolution in which the Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien) asks this House to address itself to a proposed bill to be passed by Westminster. Therefore, I want to look at this question from the point of view of finding out precisely what we are dealing with.
I suggest that when we read the precedents and the citations presented to us, we are in fact dealing quite specifically and precisely with our order of the House, a matter completely within the jurisdiction of the Parliament of Canada and not one which calls upon Your Honour to consider and resolve any question of law or of constitutionality, whether it be a legal interpretation or any of the references made by the member for Winnipeg North Centre. What we are talking about now is the appropriateness and propriety of this House dealing with a matter which is before the Supreme Court of Canada. We are creating disorder in this House by proceeding on the resolution of this matter in final form before the Supreme Court of Canada has an opportunity to rule on whether or not what we are doing is in fact legal. That is the very simple fact of the matter.
What is before the Supreme Court of Canada? As I have said, this is a matter of which your Honour can take judicial notice. The matter before the court quite frankly is a reference under the provisions of the Manitoba reference act dealing with whether or not the resolution before us is within the powers of government or Parliament to deal with.
To put it another way, the statement has been made that in this resolution we are dealing with matters which in fact infringe on provincial jurisdiction and provincial rights. Does Parliament have the right, in terms of this resolution, to beg the Parliament of the United Kingdom to proceed with legislation, based on the premise of a resolution for which there is no legal justification, no justification in the rules of the House or under existing law with respect to the ability and power of the Parliament of Canada? This is the question facing the Supreme Court of Canada.
I do not want to deal with the consequences of what might happen if the British Parliament acts on this resolution. It constitutes a message. It is not a bill. It is not a piece of legislation which raises the taxes or in fact changes the specific laws of Canada under what we normally call legislation. It is a resolution brought in under a motion.
1 never thought I would see the day when the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre, or the New Democratic Party, would associate themselves with the facilitation of closure in this House. The fact of the matter is that in this particular situation we are looking at a motion. I should like to turn to the citations quoted by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He referred to Citation 338 of Beauchesne's Parlia-
March 30, 1981

mentary Rules and Forms, fifth edition, wherein Subsection (3) reads as follows:
The convention applies to motions, references in debates, questions and supplementary questions, but does not apply to bills.
It applies to motions, and that is with what we are dealing here. We are not dealing with a bill. We are dealing with a motion, a resolution, a unique situation in which the Parliament of Canada, by this joint resolution, addresses itself to the Parliament of the United Kingdom and asks it to take legislative action.
In the press conference which he held last week, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) indicated that once the matter gets out of the Parliament of the United Kingdom, the Supreme Court of Canada will have no jurisdiction over the matter. The contention of the Prime Minister last week was that we wanted to get this matter through because the Supreme Court of Canada, at that point, will not have the jurisdiction to judge or pass on the constitutionality of a bill or legislation of the Parliament of the United Kingdom. So it is an unusual and unique situation.
We must ask ourselves what is the role of the Supreme Court of Canada and what is the role of the House of Commons and Parliament at this point in time. Certainly the role of the House of Commons is to ensure the resolution of the motion we are sending to the United Kingdom in fact is within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons. If a simple resolution was brought forward-perhaps for the purposes of illustration this is an extreme example-to abolish the Senate or to abolish the provinces, in both cases Your Honour would give some serious consideration, if the matter was attacked in the courts, as to whether or not it should be postponed until the courts determine the constitutionality of either of those particular resolutions.
I should like to quote no less an authority than Mr. Justice Huband of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba who addressed himself to the question of the reference we are now discussing. During the course of his judgment, he said:
It would be unthinkable if Her Majesty acted upon a request of the provincial legislatures to assent to provincial legislation purporting to limit the scope of powers conferred upon the federal government under the British North America Act. The Queen would not heed such a request, and if by chance assent were granted, the courts would deem it an error, and would rule such legislation ultra vires in spite of Her Majesty's assent. The converse is also true. If Her Majesty acted upon the request of the federal authority to assent to federal legislation purporting to limit the legislative powers enjoyed by the provinces, such legislation would be struck down.
This is part and parcel of the decision of Mr. Justice Huband of the Court of Appeal of Manitoba. The matter has now been received, the notice of appeal has been received, and the order has been made in the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to the hearing of this appeal. This was not done unilaterally; this was a consent order which the Attorney General of Canada, who is sitting across the aisle this afternoon, concurred in and consented to. The government agreed to this appeal proceeding. Also it agreed to the terms of the appeal, the date on which it will be heard, the participants and the intervenors, the dates of filings of facta. Every aspect of
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
this matter has been concurred in; the order was with the concurrence of the Attorney General of Canada.
So where do we find ourselves? We find ourselves in a situation which has been referred by Professor Cohen


Mr. McGrath:: A government expert.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: As the hon. member for St. John's East (Mr. McGrath) points out, Professor Cohen was an expert presented on behalf of the federal government's position. In the course of his evidence before the parliamentary committee with respect to the whole matter-


Madam Speaker:: I apologize for interrupting the hon. member, but I must put the subject matter of the questions to be debated this evening.



PROCEEDINGS ON ADJOURNMENT MOTION


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. It is my duty, pursuant to Standing Order 40, to inform the House that the questions to be raised tonight at the time of adjournment are as follows: the hon. member for Laval (Mr. Roy)-Income Tax-Inquiry whether decisions concerning Canadians working abroad will be respected; the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott)-Health and Safety-Measures to eliminate hazard of infant crib deaths; the hon. member for Saskatoon West (Mr. Hnatyshyn)-Grain-Compensation to farmers for embargo on shipments to Russia.


POINT OF ORDER
[Stage Direction]
The House resumed consideration of the point or order of Mr. Clark.
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Madam Speaker, I gather we are not having private members' hour today.


Madam Speaker:: No.


Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien: You are just buying time.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: It allows me to carry on without breaking my train of thought. I would not want to think up new and more cogent arguments over the supper time, because what I am about to say now will be devastating to the position of the government House leader.

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
With reference to the whole question of proceeding before the Supreme Court of Canada has had an opportunity to adjudicate on the process of what were we are doing in this resolution, Professor Cohen said:
That would be very, very unwise to do, very unwise of Parliament to say: we stop talking about a particular subject because it is before the Court of Appeal of Manitoba or Newfoundland or Quebec because of the way it can be abused.
However, when the matter is before the Supreme Court of Canada that is a different kettle of fish. There I am not so sure that I would want to see a serious public debate about an issue of this kind while the case is pending before the Supreme Court-
This is a very important and telling argument out of the mouth of an expert brought forward by the Government of Canada whose representative in the House, the government House leader, is arguing that we should proceed with this resolution, notwithstanding the fact that the Supreme Court of Canada is dealing with the constitutionality of the process on a resolution which admittedly moves in areas of acknowledged provincial jurisdiction. Certainly that is not the question before Madam Speaker. The question is whether or not we should be proceeding in this House while the very issues we are discussing are being decided by the Supreme Court of Canada.
The question on the process which is being carried out by the government, with its mere majority and not by unanimous consent, is of serious consequence to the future of our country. We in the official opposition have opposed this measure and we make no apology about that.
We can look back to an analogous situation in 1978 when the government had a constitution package called Bill C-60. That was a bill before the House. It was an actual bill as opposed to a resolution, it was a bill which dealt with matters totally and exclusively within the jurisdiction of the federal government. In that bill there was no attempt made, at least on the face of it, to interfere with the rights of the provinces. If we look back to the precedents with respect to that bill, we will see that the government respected the convention which had been established. The government respected the expert witnesses who were brought forward before the committee and who made reference to the Supreme Court of Canada with respect to amendments to the Senate of Canada.
1 would like to point out, Madam Speaker, that while the matter was referred to the Supreme Court of Canada, the consideration by Parliament of amendments to our Constitution was then suspended. That was the proper way to deal with the matter. It was the proper convention and an appropriate decision on the part of the government. But the opposite is happening now, notwithstanding the fact that this matter is coming up within the month to be determined by the Supreme Court of Canada. The government is proceeding before determining whether the process it is using is, in fact, valid and within its jurisdiction.
The first point I wanted to make to you, Madam Speaker, is to reinforce the point that we are not talking here about a bill. We are talking about a motion. If we are to use Beauchesne as a guide to what the traditions of Parliament are with respect to
this matter, then let us read Beauchesne very carefully. Let us make sure that we understand that we are not talking about legislation in the strict and literal sense of the word. We are talking about a resolution which will lead to an address to Her Majesty the Queen and to the British Parliament. It asks these parties to take some steps in the name of Canada and its provinces.
In this particular instance I suggest to Your Honour that there has never been, and should not be, any question as to whether the Supreme Court of Canada is about to adjudicate whether or not what we are doing is proper and legal and we should proceed. I agree with those members on both sides of the House who have said that Parliament, and the Supreme Court of Canada representing the judiciary, are separate on the division of powers. There is a separate role to play where the courts have the constitutional ability to determine whether or not the process going on in the House of Commons is valid and constitutional. The House of Commons should defer to the court until it is able to make a decision on the whole process which is taking place in the House of Commons.
I wanted to make that point because I think it is quite important to understand that we are not talking about a bill here. The hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre raised points to the effect that Parliament has a right to pass bills and that we should not be constrained with respect to court actions which are taken. He said that somehow we can proceed with legislation and bills before the House, which is very much different from what we are facing today. What we are facing today is a resolution, not a bill. The court is considering what is happening in the House of Commons and whether or not what we are doing is within our competence. That is a very different proposition from the one pointed out by the New Democratic Party House leader in his defence of the government.
I also want to reinforce that point by giving a different interpretation to you, Madam Speaker, with respect to the reference made by the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. He referred to events which took place on April 12, 1948, as entered in the Journals of this House. You will recall, Madam Speaker, that was with respect to a reference of a bill to the Supreme Court of Canada, withdrawing that bill temporarily from the jurisdiction of Parliament. In that context the Speaker at that time was looking not at a bill but at a resolution, or motion, to establish a special committee, as the hon. member pointed out.
The decision that was rendered at that time was that a question cannot be before two public bodies at the same time. 1 suggest that is a very interesting, analogous situation, but it does not have the same weight with respect to the issue now before us. I have a quite different interpretation of the decision reached at that time from that of the hon. member for Winnipeg North Centre. The reason my interpretation differs is that in that instance what was attempted was to look at ways in which the House can protect civil liberties and human rights, and at the same time ask the court to make an adjudication with respect to the ability of the House of Commons to deal with that issue. The Speaker at that time was
March 30, 1981

saying that if the matter is before the court then it would be inappropriate for the House to deal with it. 1 think those circumstances are very supportive of the question raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition in his outstanding presentation to you this afternoon, Madam Speaker.
I submit that this is a situation which we in Parliament must look at, not only from the point of view of our own rules of procedure, since we are a political body, but also from the point of view that what we are doing will allow us- to proceed under the rule of law. I say that with all seriousness at this point of time in our history. If we do not operate under the rule of law we will have legal anarchy in our country.
Another point I wish to develop briefly for the Chair's consideration is that you must be cognizant of the expert advice which was given to the members of the committee, not only by those witnesses brought forward by the government but also by those who were brought forward by the opposition parties, witnesses who were acknowledged experts in their field. The point they make is a very interesting one, particularly since they exposed a unanimous point of view.
If we proceed with this resolution and it goes to the Parliament in the United Kingdom, if in its wisdom that body passes the package which it has been requested to pass, and if in its wisdom the Supreme Court of Canada determines that the process was not within the competence of the Parliament of Canada, then we would have a situation of legal anarchy. There would be legal chaos in our country and the rule of law would be prejudiced. When the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition refers to the fact that by proceeding we attack the judicial system and the Supreme Court of Canada, he is quite right. What we do by our action is put the Supreme Court of Canada in an impossible situation.
The argument put forward in the Kirby memorandum, and in the Prime Minister's own words in his press conference last week, is that the Supreme Court of Canada is not seized with an interpretation of the jurisdiction of the legislation because it is a statute of the United Kingdom. So what happens is that we get the United Kingdom passing a bill which says, "We wash our hands of any further responsibility on constitutional matters and, incidentally, here is your charter of rights, here is your amending formula, here is your bill, your Canada Act. Au revoir, goodbye, and good luck, Canada". That is the end of it. They have no further legislative powers. If the Supreme Court of Canada finds that we, in effect, had no jurisdiction to make that resolution, what would happen to our judicial system? What would happen to the Supreme Court of Canada?


An hon. Member:: It's a prejudice to all Canadians, every Canadian.


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Every Canadian would be subject to the abuse that has been perpetrated upon them because of the fact that we moved against a convention which should be observed by the House of Commons and our Parliament, that we should
Point of Order-Mr. Clark
not move until such time as the Supreme Court of Canada has decided the question.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: The rationale of the government is mystifying because its action is a complete reversal of what it is suggesting in its package. What the government is saying is that henceforth matters with respect to the Constitution, as defined in the constitutional package, will be outside the purview of Parliament. In other words, the courts will be responsible for interpreting the package, and legislators will not be able to take steps, collectively or individually, that would go against the principles contained in the constitutional package. But now, when we are talking about the whole process and whether the courts should adjudicate at this point in time, the reverse argument is used by the government. It says that it is a political question; the courts have no role in this process. The government cannot have it both ways. The House of Commons cannot have it both ways. We must decide whether the rules are consistent, whether the courts have the right and the ability to adjudicate not only upon the constitutionality of laws, but also the processes within Parliament. Nobody disputes that. No one in this House would stand in his place and deny that the court has a recognized and fundamental role to play. Under our Constitution, under the British parliamentary tradition, in any democratic system, the court must have the ability to adjudicate upon what is happening within the House.
How can the government House leader, in all seriousness, argue, before the courts of this land have the chance to say that what we are doing is proper, that the courts should not be referred to before we take the next step on this process? I make no apology for it. If the courts say it is within the jurisdiction of the House of Commons to proceed, that is fine. We have had the courts speak on this matter. We may not agree with the decision which has been taken by the government and the way in which it has moved, but at least the courts have spoken on this matter.
What is the situation if the courts find against this matter, and we have already acted and cannot undo what we have done? I do not subscribe to the position taken by the Minister of Justice. When he was asked about this very matter, he said there would be absolutely no purpose in having this matter go to the Supreme Court of Canada. We should move on it; it is a political issue. The Minister of Justice said at that time, in response to a question, "I do not want this question to go to the Supreme Court of Canada because the courts are unreliable". Unreliable!


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame!


Ramon John Hnatyshyn: I would have expected the Attorney General and Minister of Justice of this country to have shown a far higher regard for the judicial process. The Minister of Justice is a Shawinigan lawyer. He is the best kind of lawyer: he is a country lawyer. He knows of the value of an independent judiciary in a properly democratic country. The fact is that

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Lawrence
what we are doing here is taking steps which cause me to have serious concern for what we will have perpetrated on the people of our country.
It is not a matter of interpreting laws and whether we should answer a constitutional question one way or the other. It is a process which you must address yourself to, Madam Speaker. Should you, as Speaker, rule that the House may proceed with the completion of this particular resolution before the court has adjudicated upon the process? If that happens, we may all be standing in different parts of this country in years to come. If the court does hold as I have indicated, we will be asking ourselves, "How do we recover from the position we have put the people of Canada in? How do we recover as far as the courts are concerned?" That is the matter that should be considered by Your Honour, and I very strongly support the submission and the excellent presentation made by the Leader of the Opposition.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: 1 would like to rule immediately on this important point of order, but precisely because of the importance of the arguments brought forward and the very numerous references and citations that I will be called upon to reconcile, I will take the matter under advisement and rule on this point of order later.
I have some questions of privilege and I will call first the one that was deferred yesterday by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence).


PRIVILEGE
Allan Frederick Lawrence: Madam Speaker, on Friday, the last sitting day of the House, on coming to my office I found certain press comments. As a result, I gave you written notice of what I considered to be a breach of my privileges as a member of the House.
Because it does summarize the matter, and since this is a very serious point of privilege, as far as I am concerned in any event, may I merely for the attention of the House read the letter that I sent to you on March 27:


Madam Speaker:: It has just now come to my notice, upon reading the Canadian Press wire story in The Globe and Mail of today's date, that I have what I believe to be a question of privilege, and I give you notice that I wish to raise it today, this being the earliest possible moment.
You will remember that in the House yesterday, after the oral question period,
I asked the Solicitor General two questions relating to security occurrences of approximately 20 to 25 years ago. On both occasions, the Solicitor General refused to answer my questions on the grounds that it would not be in the public interest, and that traditionally the Solicitor General has made no public comment on such matters.
I am therefore more than surprised, I am disappointed and hurt, and I believe my privileges have been transgressed to just now read in the above mentioned
Canadian Press wire story, that the Solicitor General, minutes later, went outside the House and in a press interview answered both questions that earlier he had refused to answer in the House of Commons.
Yours truly.


Some hon. Members:: Shame, shame.


Allan Frederick Lawrence: I am aware of Citation 19(2) of Beauchesne, found on page 12, which says:
The failure of a minister of the Crown to answer a question may not be raised as a question of privilege.
I am not arguing that point. I am not arguing that the minister of the Crown involved in this matter did not answer my question. He answered my question. I have no argument at all with a minister if he wants to sit down and do nothing; but in this case, this did not happen. The minister answered my question.
It does not fall under Citation 19(1) either, which I quote:
A dispute arising between two members, as to allegations of facts, does not fulfil the conditions of parliamentary privilege.
I am not arguing that point. This is not a disputation between the minister and myself as to an allegation of fact.
Citation 19(3) says:
Statements made outside the House by a member may not be used as the base for a question of privilege.
I am not arguing that the statements made outside the House by the Solicitor General (Mr. Kaplan) constitute my question of privilege. My question of privilege is simply this. In answer to a question in this House, Madam Speaker, the minister misled me and he misled you; he misled all members of this House. I think it directly pertains to my privilege as a member of this House because he was answering my question.
I would just bring to your attention the question that I asked in the House. I asked if he, as Solicitor General would establish the identities of the British interrogators of Mr. Gouzenko. One of two questions that I asked was whether the Solicitor General had established the identity of the British interrogators of Mr. Gouzenko? In his answer the Solicitor General said to me, to you and to this House that he refused to answer that question and he implicitly referred to his answer to my first question, and I quote:
-it is not the practice or policy of the Solicitor General to comment on such allegations, and I have no intention of doing so.
"I have no intention of doing so." Then the minister has the gall and the nerve, I suggest to you, to breach my privileges in this House by going outside the House and, in a press interview with a number of members of the press gallery, give the very answer that I requested him to give in this House and which he said he had no intention of giving.
I cannot find a more blatant, blunt attempt to mislead me. I know I can get into trouble if I say that the minister intentionally did that so I will not say that, but I will point out to you that less than 12 minutes elapsed between the time the minister said in the House that he had no intention of answering
March 30, 1981

that question and the time he gave the answer to the press outside the House. I do not say that he intentionally did that.


Mr. Nielsen:: How could it be anything else?


Allan Frederick Lawrence: 1 am not agreeing with anonymous voices that come over the PA system asking whether it could be anything else. I say it was a breach of the privileges in this House, if not a breach of common courtesy and etiquette to all members of the House.
That, simply, is my question of privilege. I believe that the Solicitor General misled this House, misled you and misled me by an answer which he completely contradicted a few minutes later outside in the corridors of this House.
There is no question now in my mind concerning the information that he gave to the press outside this House, because since Friday morning his comments have appeared in direct quotations in a number of other press stories. I shall not repeat them to you as I do not want intentionally to hold up proceedings in this House.
1 bring to you now, Madam Speaker, what I sincerely and honestly believe to be a very serious breach of my privileges as a member of this House resulting from the actions and comments in this House of the Solicitor General. If you are prepared to find that a prima facie case exists, I have prepared a notice of motion in the usual form for reference of that matter to a committee.


Robert Phillip Kaplan: Madam Speaker, I should like to begin by thanking you for deferring consideration of this question of privilege until I could be present in the House. I was watching the proceedings on television the other day when my hon. friend rose to begin his question of privilege. I prepared to rush into the House but I saw, after one or two seconds, that you decided to defer it.
Like my hon. friend, I do not want to prolong the matter or to appear to be engaging in any dilatory tactics. I would simply observe that I do not believe a valid question of privilege has been made out. Beauchesne's Fifth edition is quite clear on this. I draw your attention to Citations 363(1), 19(2) and (3) and 264 without even quoting them, since they have been quoted so often in this debate.
I would simply say that the question that the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence) asked me contained a great many allegations that I did not want to comment on and which I still have not commented upon. I did not reply to the part of the question, only a small part, which touched on the identity of British interrogators.
I have not received a full answer to the question whether Mr. Gouzenko had been interrogated by other British interrogators. I do not know the full answer to that question; I have not got to the bottom of it. I knew, though, that he was interrogated by one in particular, whom I identified in reply to a specific question outside the House. If the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland had asked that very specific question in the House instead of the long song and dance that
Business of the House
constituted his question, I would have given him the straight and direct answer to it.
As 1 understand the rules of this House, I am not obliged to do that. If I were to respond to every allegation that he laid and every question that he asked me, I would have needed all of the question period to do so and he knows that perfectly well.
In conclusion, I do not think that a valid question of privilege has been raised or, from the point of view of gentlemanly practice in this House, that I was in default in any way.


BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE
Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order regarding something I have discussed with the government House leader. It is with respect to what he said in the middle of his statement on the sub judice question which is now before you. It relates to House business.
I confess that I did not hear quite what he said as well as I might have, so I wonder what his intention is. What did he say with respect to the borrowing authority bill and his intentions, I believe on motions, with respect to that matter? Could he repeat that for me please?


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, as I said to my colleague in the hall a few minutes ago, and I am glad to repeat it here, if we were to reach motions, that is, even before orders of the day, before six o'clock, then the Minister of State for Finance will move the motion to allocate two days to conclude the debate on report stage and third reading stage on the borrowing authority bill. If he cannot move it before six o'clock, then we will see about it later.


Walter David Baker: Madam Speaker, I want to thank the President of the Privy Council for clarifying that question. I have an additional question.
The motion in the name of the Minister of State for Finance says that he gives notice of his intention to move a motion at the next sitting of the House to allocate one sitting day to each of the stages of the bill. There are two stages left, the report stage amendment and third reading stage. Can the government House leader tell me what his intention is with respect to calling the report stage and third reading stage of this bill? Does he intend to call it tomorrow and the next day and the next day? I think it would be helpful if we knew what the government's intentions were with respect to the other business that he refers to.
[ Translation]


Yvon Pinard: Madam Speaker, it has not been decided yet when the two-day debate to be granted under the motion is going to take place. Still, in view of the urgency of the matter, we shall act quickly. As for the suggestion of the hon. member to proceed with one or two days this week, we shall certainly take it into consideration. As soon as a decision has been
8758

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Fretz
made, probably some time tomorrow morning before the question period, I shall be pleased to advise him accordingly.


PRIVILEGE
Madam Speaker:: I should like to go back to the new question of privilege raised by the hon. member for Durham-Northumberland (Mr. Lawrence). He took great care to tell me what citations did not apply and he read Citation 19 from Beauchesne. There is another citation which I should like to put before hon. members in response to that question of privilege, namely, Citation 264 of Beauchesne, on page 87, which reads as follows:
The option of a minister to make a statement either in the House or outside it may be the subject of comment, but is not the subject of a question of privilege.
I remind hon. members of the ruling by Mr. Speaker Lamoureux on February 28, 1972, where he said:
-suggestions that statements not made in the House were made outside the House, or that information not given to members in reply to questions was supplied to the media or in some other way given outside the House. There is a long line of learned rulings, going back many years, indicating that this is more a grievance than a breach of privilege-
Therefore, I think 1 am on solid and traditional ground in ruling that the hon. member might have a grievance, that he might be hurt and disappointed by the fact that the question was not answered in the way he would have wished, but that the matter of privilege does not cover that kind of situation.
I have notice of another question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Madam Speaker:: Yes, 1 have others. I will call them in the order in which 1 have received them.


MR. FRETZ-ALLEGED UNSATISFACTORY ANSWER FROM MINISTER OF NATIONAL DEFENCE
Mr. Girve Fretz (Erie):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege flows from answers which the Minister of National Defence (Mr. Lamontagne) gave me in this House on Friday as a result of questions I posed to him. The answers were misleading and contradictory. I would like to read in part the questions and answers.
It concerns recent press reports that pressure from the Quebec Liberal caucus has caused bidding to be reopened on the contracts for the F-18 fighter-
I asked the minister if those allegations were correct. He replied:
The bidding has been going normally. Nothing has been changed on the international principle of the bidding... As far as I am concerned, nothing either illegal or erroneous has been done.
My next question was:
-if the minister alleges that the bids have not been reopened, what is the reason for the delays which constitute a loss of work for Canadian plants?
The minister replied:
-I would suggest that the hon. member ask McDonnell Douglas about the delays if any.
We have a confession by the chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus. It was confirmed on Thursday that the Quebec Liberal caucus pressed the McDonnell Douglas firm to reopen bidding on the contracts months after the competition had closed, giving a Quebec firm a chance to bid late. McDonnell Douglas reopened bidding in February to consider what it called a late unsolicited bid from Canadair Limited of Montreal. In the original bidding period last year, Canadair had gone after only one of four contracts because it was busy with other work.
The chairman of the Quebec Liberal caucus said that his group met with the directors of Canadair a month and a half ago to force them to reconsider and submit bids on all the contracts. He stated that Canadair did not have any choice. The firms affected are in Ontario, Manitoba and New Brunswick. Sources close to the situation say that two Ontario firms would have won the contracts if the federal government had accepted McDonnell Douglas' first recommendation.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is well aware that if he is not satisfied with an answer received from a minister in the House, that does not constitute the basis of a question of privilege. The hon. member has been speaking now for a few minutes and has not yet stated what the question of privilege is. I would ask him to do that very promptly because my suspicion is that he does not have a question of privilege. I cannot deduce that from what he has said. He is debating the matter of the question of privilege, but he is not exposing or debating the privilege itself.
Since there are several other members who have given me notice of questions of privilege, I would ask the hon. member to be brief. In any event, he may have a long series of arguments to put forward. I cannot force him to be brief. I can ask him to come to the point very quickly.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege is that the minister said that the bidding has been going normally. My question of privilege is that it is not going normally. If bidding has been reopened as a result of pressure from the Liberal caucus-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That is obviously a difference of opinion between the minister and the hon. member. It is debate. The hon. member has to tell me why he feels he has a question of privilege, not to debate anything pertaining to the specific question asked during the question period or any of the answers which were given. That does not constitute a question of privilege.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, the answer the minister gave me was that things were going normally. As we can see, they
March 30, 1981

have not been going normally. That affects me as a member. What about the plants in my riding which are affected as a result of something that is going on here? That affects my privileges as a member.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member may feel that things are not going normally and that he has arguments to support that. The minister might have arguments to support exactly the contrary. This is obviously debate. Up until now the hon. member has not proved to me that he has a question of privilege. Unless he stops debating the question immediately, I will have to rule that he does not have a question of privilege.


Claude Girvin (Girve) Fretz: Madam Speaker, what 1 would like to do is move that this go to a committee. May I move that motion? I move, seconded by the hon. member-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The motion would only be in order once I had decided there was a prima facie case of privilege. Up until now the hon. member has not proved to me that there is a prima facie case of privilege. Therefore, since the hon. member does not have any further arguments to produce in support of his question of privilege, I have to rule that the hon. member for Erie (Mr. Fretz) does not have a question of privilege.


Erik Nielsen: On a point of order, Madam Speaker. I do not quarrel with the ruling at all, but it has been a long-standing practice in this House that notwithstanding the correctness of what you have just stated, you allow a member raising a question of privilege to say "if the Chair finds that I have a question of privilege, it would be my intention to move the following motion". It may be something quite acceptable. That is a long-standing practice, Madam Speaker, and the hon. member should have been allowed to do that.


Madam Speaker:: Hon. members may sometimes offer a motion before 1 rule, but the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) said "if'. That was a very big if in light of the exchange that just took place between the Chair and the hon. member for Erie. I did not think it necessary to read the motion because I had already found there was not a question of privilege.
mr. Mcknight-use of initials mp by senator


Mr. Bill McKnight (Kindersley-Lloydminster):: As you will recall, Madam Speaker, I gave you notice of my question of privilege by letter on Friday last and again today. As I said today, the matter affects the ability and the capacity of all members of this House to respond and to discharge their official duties for which they have been elected by the unauthorized and unfairly misleading use of the initials MP, which are commonly accepted and traditionally used to designate members elected to the House of Commons, by individuals other than those elected to this House.
That being said, I will carry on hopefully to present to you several instances regarding the use of the initials MP. I should
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
like you to keep in mind that I will be referring to the initials MP, not the written words Member of Parliament, as those words, through usage, common acceptance by the people of Canada and, indeed, common acceptance by members of this House, reflect that we are members of the House of Commons.
I am fully aware, as are all members of this House, that our Parliament is made up of two Houses; the House of Commons in which we serve, and the Senate. I am not attempting in any manner to present any argument which would suggest members of the Senate are not members of the Parliament of Canada. I am attempting to point out to you what the initials MP have become over the past years to represent to the people.
Let me point out to you that I have a copy of a letter-and I believe other members of my caucus have received similar letters-from the hon. Senator H. A. Olson, where at the bottom in which, under his signature he includes MP. If you will allow me to continue, Madam Speaker, I would remind you that on March 26 last you asked my colleague, the hon. member for Calgary West (Mr. Hawkes), a question. He was referring to another matter concerning members of the House, and then you said:
If people believe he is a member of the House of Commons, that is nothing upon which I can act. But does that hon. member indicate anywhere that he is a member of the House of Commons?
I should like briefly to give you some outlines of how the initials MP have been accepted in Canadian usage and by the Canadian electorate of Canada, and draw attention to the fact that a member of the other place, in this case Senator Bud Olson, in using the initials MP is signifying in the minds of the electorate of Canada that he is a member of the House of Commons. We all know he is not. Let me refer to the Canadian Almanac-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. If the hon. member is speaking exclusively of members of the other House who allegedly have used those initials to indicate they were members of Parliament, then that question should be raised in the other House. There is no way this Speaker can reprimand a member of the other House or correct a situation or an action taken by him. In order that we do things here properly, we must concern ourselves with the business of our own House and not that of the other House.
I know the initials MP have traditionally been used to designate members who sit in the House of Commons. The hon. member has pointed out rightly that Parliament means the House of Commons, the Senate and the Queen. I do not know in what sense the hon. member from the other place might have used those initials, but I am sure this question must not be dealt with in this House but in the other place.


William Hunter (Bill) McKnight: Madam Speaker, I do not intend, far from it, to enter into debate with the Chair. I know that you exercise your authority to protect the privileges of the members of the House of Commons, those who have been elected to serve constituents across this land. Unless people know and

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. McKnight
understand, and I am talking of the electorate of Canada, what the designation MP is, and if those initials are being usurped, and I think I am using that word properly, then it is your duty to protect the rights and privileges of those of us who serve in this House.
Going beyond that point, I would return to the Canadian Parliamentary Guide for 1980. At the back of the guide I find the personal index. On looking at several names, I find that the members who serve in this House have the initials MP after their names, and Senator Olson's name from the other place is designated as "Hon. Horace A. Olson, PC".


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member will probably be bringing up all sorts of indications of how those initials have been used in the past. This refers to usage and has nothing to do with the Standing Orders of this House. I can understand the hon. member being concerned about this matter, but all matters are not to be solved in this House. There are other places where questions of that nature can be brought forward and discussed properly. It is not for me to determine that the initials MP will be solely applicable to members sitting in this House. Many members, and other people outside this House, would perhaps argue that the meaning could be more general and that other Members of Parliament might be able to call themselves Members of Parliament, perhaps without using the initials. Even if they did use the initials, it would have to do with usage. This is not a matter for me to determine. I would plead with the hon. member to refrain from raising this now. I cannot hear this question as it does not deal with members of this House. I would not want to rule on it.


Erik Nielsen: Madam Speaker, without again in any way questioning the decision you have made, may I urge you, Madam Chairman, to refer to page 36-


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker.


Erik Nielsen: What did I say?


Stanley Howard Knowles: You said "Madam Chairman".


Erik Nielsen: I am very sorry. I did not realize that. Madam Speaker, I would urge you to consider page 36 of Beau-chesne's, Citation 111 which states:
The Speaker of the House of Commons is the representative of the House itself in its powers, proceedings and dignity. His functions-
I should state "his or her" functions. The citation continues:
-fall into two main categories. On the one hand, he is the spokesman or representative of the House in its relations with the Crown, the Senate and other authorities and persons outside Parliament.
That is as far as I need go with that citation. Might I suggest that you reconsider the question and how you have directed yourself in dealing with the matter raised by the hon. member, and perhaps confer with your counterpart in the Senate with a view to determining whether a member of the other place has the right to use letters which by right belong and have always belonged to members of this place. It is just as illogical to assume they have that kind of right as it is for
members of this place to assume they can call themselves senators, perish the thought.
You might wish, Madam Speaker, to take that citation under consideration and perhaps discuss the matter with your counterpart in the Senate with a view to stopping a very undesirable practice. I received the same kind of letter from the senator concerned. I might say, it is the only instance of which I know when an individual senator has used those letters.


Madam Speaker:: I am thankful to the hon. member for pointing out this particular citation, but he did not quote it to its end. I read:
On the other hand, he-
It should read "he or she". We will have to change Beau-chesne. It continues:
-presides over the debates of the House of Commons and enforces the observance of all rules for preserving order in its proceedings.
That is what I have to do. When I see there is no rule I can apply to a particular situation, it is not for me to invent or write a new rule in order to resolve a situation. I am sure hon. members will understand that all I can do is apply the rules as they are written in our Standing Orders, and there is none which pertains to this particular circumstance.
I contend, and I stand to be corrected because I am not now applying the rules, that hon. members are quite capable of walking to the other place themselves and discussing this with senators or deciding between themselves who will be entitled to put the initials MP after their names.
I have notice of another question of privilege.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Madam Speaker, I rise on a point of order. Would not the simplest way to solve this problem be to abolish the Senate?


Mr. Gauthier:: Question.


Stanley Howard Knowles: Agreed.


Madam Speaker:: I have notice of another question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for York-Peel (Mr. Stevens).


MR. STEVENS-ALLEGED LACK OF IMPARTIALITY OF MINISTER OF JUSTICE AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF CANADA IN CARRYING OUT HIS DUTIES
Hon. Sinclair Stevens (York-Peel):: Madam Speaker, as you know from the letter I delivered to your office before one o'clock I wish to raise a question of privilege which, if you should find a prima facie case in my favour, would lead to my moving the following motion:
That the increasing tendency of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to act in a manner incompatible with the separate requirements and traditions of each of his two portfolios, and the continued inability of the House to obtain independent legal advice from the Attorney General in keeping with the proper constitutional place of that officer of the Crown, as set out in the Department of Justice Act and in particular Section 5 thereof, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
March 30, 1981

Having read that proposed motion into the record, I would like to emphasize that my question of privilege centres on the obligation of the Attorney General of Canada to provide independent, impartial legal advice to this House and to every member of this House with respect to certain issues which may arise from time to time which the House considers.
My argument will take us through various authoritative sources. I intend to refer Your Honour to various provisions in the Department of Justice Act itself, but I will begin by summarizing the main thrust of what I hope will satisfy Your Honour that I have a prima facie case.
I will start by saying that one of the duties of the Attorney General is to provide legal advice to the House of Commons in a non-partisan fashion, even if such advice should prove embarrassing to the government itself. That is in part the crux of what we will be arguing.
The Attorney General of Canada is a unique officer of the Crown. We find that in defining the duties of the Attorney General of Canada Section 5 of the act itself draws attention to the fact that the Attorney General of Canada shall:
(a) be entrusted with the powers and charged with the duties that belong to the office of the attorney general of England by law or usage, so far as those powers and duties are applicable to Canada, and also with the powers and duties that, by the laws of the several provinces, belonged to the office of attorney general of each province up to the time when the British North America Act, 1867, came into effect, so far as those laws under the provisions of the said Act are to be administered and carried into effect by the Government of Canada;
I read that section into the record because I feel that I can make a case that our Attorney General of Canada has so compromised his position in his partisan endorsation of the government's constitutional resolution that is before us that he no longer can freely advise members of this House concerning our legal position in dealing with that resolution.
I say that because I will be reading into the record what certain supreme court and court of appeal justices have already said concerning the possible illegality of what we in this House are being asked to do. When we face the reality of a government having brought in a resolution which is being contested from various quarters of the land and which has already been before the Court of Appeal in Manitoba where two justices have indicated in their judgments that there is considerable doubt as to its legality I suggest it is absolutely essential that we have an Attorney General in the House- who, after all, is responsible to this House, and I emphasize that-who does not compromise his impartiality and remains in a neutral role which would allow us to call on him for specific legal advice on the legality of what we have before us.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I had some grave reservations when I saw the text of the written notice which the hon. member sent to me with respect to his question of privilege. 1 felt that the way it was written came very close to what I am now sure he is doing. I think he is reflecting upon the conduct of another member, and I want to read to him from Erskine May at page 428. I refer to the paragraph entitled "Reflections on the Sovereign, Etc.". It says:
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
Unless the discussion is based upon a substantive motion, drawn in proper terms, reflections must not be cast in debate upon the conduct of-
A number of people, including members of either House of Parliament.
Nor may opprobrious reflections be cast in debate on-
The people referred to.
The hon. member is reflecting on the conduct of the minister and on the way he has carried out his duties, and I am afraid I can only hear him under a substantive motion in which he clearly charges the hon. minister with whatever he feels has been done improperly.
I cannot judge whether a minister or a member has properly carried out his duties. Therefore, there is no point in discussing that in the House unless the hon. member wants to make a substantive motion, and then he can give us notice of that.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, certainly over the dinner break I will read the citation in Erskine May to which I have referred, but I suggest that if you hear me out on the main thrust of what I am raising as a question of privilege, you will agree that the office of Attorney General of Canada is in truth a very unique office, especially in relation to this House of Commons. Madam Speaker, this is not a reflection on a member, as you say. It is a question as to whether the person filling the office of Attorney General of Canada can, because of certain other extenuating circumstances, continue to perform his function as Attorney General of Canada as the House of Commons may from time to time require.
In order to substantiate my case I will have to refer Your Honour to some of the precedents which are available concerning the role of the attorney general in England. I will be reading into the record some very important statements which have been made by previous attorneys general in Canada as to the nature of their role-


Madam Speaker:: Order. It being six o'clock 1 do now leave the chair until 8 p.m.
At 6 p.m. the House took recess.


[Stage Direction]
AFTER RECESS

The House resumed at 8 p.m.
Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, during the dinner break I had an opportunity to refer to the quotation on page 428 of the nineteenth edition of Erskine May to which you referred earlier and I would like to have the subprivilege of being able to comment concerning your dilemma as you outlined it to the House just prior to dinner. On reflection, Madam Speaker, I felt you were really saying that if I was saying something that was a reflection on a Member of Parliament or, in this case, a minister of the Crown, I could only speak to that through a substantive motion. I felt that then brought me to the dilemma of how to put the substantive motion before you, because if we refer to the general heading "Matters Requiring Immediate

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
Intervention of the House,'7 Erskine May, in dealing with the bringing forward of a question of privilege, points out that before a substantive motion on a question of privilege is moved, the member must first make a prima facie case.
So, Madam Speaker, I am caught in what is colloquially called a Catch-22 situation. However, I think I have some help for you because I was able to find precedents which, I think, will show clearly my approach is quite in order, and if you will permit me to make what, I believe, is a prima facie case, I would then move my substantive motion.


Madam Speaker:: 1 want to interrupt the hon. member because I, too, during the break had a chance to look at this question and I also looked at the blues and the motion that the hon. member would propose if I found a prima facie case of privilege. Looking at that motion and the notice of the question of privilege as submitted by the hon. member, I find that whatever he wants to say about the minister does cast a reflection on his conduct in quite a vague manner, he has not given the reason for which such reflection should be made, and his own motion says that the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada (Mr. Chretien) acted in a manner incompatible with the separate requirements and traditions of each of his two portfolios.
It seems to me that what the hon. member is saying in this motion leads to questioning the ethics of the minister in one or both his functions. The hon. member should be very precise in order to allow me to judge very soon whether this should be considered as a question of privilege or a motion under Standing Order 35, in which case the hon. member would have no trouble in giving the House notice of his substantive motion. If he wants me to advise him on how to get his motion before the House, I can tell him that he must simply give notice of that motion, following which it is debatable and the House may vote on it. This question of privilege requires a different kind of procedure.
So I would like the hon. member to be very precise because I will not allow these kinds of aspersions to be made on different members of the House. If he has a distinct charge to make, he can make it under his substantive motion. If he has a question of privilege that he is not satisfied with an answer or with something the minister has said, that is a different question and I can hear him.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I will try to satisfy you on all counts, and in saying that, I hope that you will be reasonably patient with me because I am dealing with a subject which perhaps has never before been raised in this form in the House. As I see the thrust of your comments, you are in effect saying that I should clarify whether I have made or intend to make a reflection on a minister of the Crown, and in that connection I would draw you attention to the fact that even if I were to make a reflection on a minister of the Crown-which I think I can satisfy you I will not be doing in the sense that it is an unparliamentary reflection-I would point out that only last Friday, March 27, you accepted two motions that I think could easily have been regarded as reflections on ministers of the
Crown. I refer to proceedings under Standing Order 43 where the hon. member for Cariboo-Chilcotin (Mr. Greenaway), as reported on page 8639 of Hansard, said:
Madam Speaker, yesterday in the Standing Committee on Indian Affairs and Northern Development members of this House were subjected to a litany of examples of the complete and utter abrogation of the government's obligations to the Cree and Inuit under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement. Given the devastating effect that this abrogation has had on the health of the Cree, and specifically in light of the fact that tuberculosis is rampant in at least one Cree village, I move, seconded by the hon. member for Prince George-Bulk-ley Valley (Mr. McCuish):
That the Minister of National Health and Welfare admit her residual responsibility for natives as outlined in Chapter 955 of the Indian health regulations under the Indian Act, and not withdraw health and social services to the Cree as is presently scheduled for March 31, 1981, until all commitments under the James Bay and Northern Quebec Agreement are fulfilled by both governments involved.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. That was a substantive motion on which, had the House given its unanimous consent, it would have voted upon, and that is what I am telling the hon. member. If he has a charge to make against a minister, he can do it under a substantive motion.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Well, Madam Speaker, my dilemma-


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I was referring you to the procedure which I understand, partly from Erskine May, I have to follow before I can put my substantive motion. Under my question of privilege, as I understand the references in Erskine May appearing on page 345 and others, I have to satisfy you of my prima facie case prior to-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am sure the hon. member is not as confused as it appears. There are two things: if the hon. member wants to raise a question of privilege, then he has to satisfy me that there is a prima facie case. Now, I am telling the hon. member that from what I know of what he is about to do, he is about to cast a reflection upon the conduct of a minister, and because I have some doubts about that, I am asking the hon. member to be very specific now about what he wants to bring before the House. If it is a grievance, or if he wants to express an opinion about the conduct of a minister, he can do it under a substantive motion. The member does not have to explain to the Chair his substantive motion before he gives notice of it. He simply gives notice of it; then it will be debated and we can hear the hon. member on the subject of his substantive motion. What I am saying is that a substantive motion can be debated and voted upon, but a question of privilege is different and must be dealt with in a different manner.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege affects every member of the House including myself. The question of privilege upon which I am attempting to make my prima facie case centres on the rather unique job which our Minister of Justice (Mr. Chretien), who in turn is also the Attorney General of Canada, must perform. Because of the
March 30, 1981

way the Department of Justice Act is worded, it is a job which puts an extremely heavy onus upon the Attorney General of Canada to perform his function in a neutral manner in various capacities. One of those capacities happens to be his role to supply legal advice to the House of Commons.
The reason this is so significant is that when we refer to the various comments made by previous attorneys general, either in Canada or in the United Kingdom, we find that this duty or role of trying to be neutral and to give an independent, unchallengable advice to Parliament is a very, very important function.
For example, I refer to the functions of the attorney general of the United Kingdom. As I read into the record earlier, Section 5 of the Department of Justice Act makes the precedents of the United Kingdom applicable to the role of the Attorney General in Canada. I should like to refer to an article which was written by the Right Honourable Silkin, Q.C., MP, Attorney General for England. On page 154 of his article, he spoke about the English counterpart of the Attorney General of Canada. Mr. Silkin stated:
As an officer of the House of Commons, the Attorney General is often asked and customarily undertakes to give legal advice to Parliament, and in that capacity to take part in debates and to attend before committees of the House. In giving legal advice he owes a special duty to the House, separate and apart from his duty to the Crown, and in these matters he occupies a different position from an ordinary minister of the Crown.
I am attempting to outline what the Department of Justice Act sets out are certain duties of the Minister of Justice, but in Section 5 it incorporates all the duties and obligations which fall on an attorney general, in this case the Attorney General of Canada. Specifically it refers to the precedents which exist in the United Kingdom.
We are in a situation where Parliament should feel free to call on the Attorney General of Canada for advice on what is relevant concerning parliamentary activities. For example, those activities touch on various matters of procedure. Mr. Silkin specifically said that they touch on the duty to the House, that is, the duty of the Attorney General of Canada to the House does not extend beyond the giving of legal advice in relation to the Constitution of and conduct of proceedings in the House, the conduct and discipline of members, and the effect of proposed legislation.
The problem before us is that in question period today, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) put certain questions to the Attorney General of Canada as to what was his attitude with regard to the legal status of the constitutional resolution before the House and which may be debated later this week or some time during April. The Attorney General said that essentially it was for this House of Commons to legislate and for the courts to adjudicate. In that answer, I felt, was confirmation of the notice I have given. My notice was based partly on what I had read about what the Attorney General of Canada did and said in the United Kingdom.
As I read what he did and said in the United Kingdom, I felt that he could no longer be held out as an impartial person who could be called upon to advise us on our legal rights as
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
members of the House. In short, he seemed to take the role of an advocate in the United Kingdom, an advocate of the resolution he was hoping would be passed by this House and subsequently by Westminster. If that is so, we must think of the consequence.
As we read the various judgments which have already been rendered in the court of appeal of Manitoba, we can see the significance of what perhaps the Attorney General of Canada has done. For example, I draw Your Honour's attention to the opening sentence-this is not buried in the judgment-of Mr. Justice O'Sullivan in Winnipeg who stated that in this constitutional case, the submission of the Attorney General of Canada ends up in the proposition that a political party, if it forms the majority of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament, has the power to amend the Constitution of our country as it pleases.
Surely it is a question of privilege to be able to call the Attorney General of Canada before the appropriate committee to find out if his feeling is that any party having the majority of both Houses of the Canadian Parliament has the power to amend the Constitution of our country as it pleases. I say this remembering that the Attorney General of Canada, in effect, is an officer of the House of Commons. Among his functions, he is expected to advise us on the legal implications of whatever we are being asked to do.
I could go on to cite what Mr. Justice O'Sullivan mentioned as to what he feels may well be the illegal grounds which we are being asked to accept. He stated that by a non-legal convention the British Parliament is bound constitutionally, but not legally, to amend the Canadian Constitution in whatever way both Houses of the Canadian Parliament concur in requesting. I could mention the various instances where Mr. Justice O'Sullivan quoted the Attorney General of Canada as taking certain positions with respect to the question which may be before us later this week or during the month of April. I would like to put it succinctly, Madam Speaker. It is as simple as this. I, as a sitting Member of Parliament, and other Members of Parliament who have read the various judgments which have been rendered in the Manitoba Court of Appeal, are being told that it may be that the resolution we are being asked to pass is, in effect, illegal. We are told that we in this House are being asked to do something which invades or somehow detracts from the sovereignty of provinces and which is beyond our jurisdiction.
Surely it behooves every member of this House now that this matter, only within this week, has been referred to the Supreme Court of Canada and will be finally adjudicated starting on April 28, to seek out our own legal advice as to whether we are possibly doing something illegal if we continue not only to consider but eventually to pass the constitutional resolution the government has asked us to deal with. I say this because, as I indicated before, Madam Speaker, you will recall that prior to his trip to the United Kingdom the Attorney General of Canada, in a release which bore his name, put out a

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
rebuttal of the Kershaw position in the United Kingdom, a decision of a committee on the Westminster House. When you read that item, Madam Speaker, you can see clearly that the so-called rebuttal is a stout defence of the government's or the Crown's position on this question. It is not a matter of a neutral Attorney General keeping his impartiality. He is an Attorney General who is indicating that he is more like the prosecutor or the advocate. He is the person advancing the case. That is why I feel I do have a prima facie case of privilege.
As far as the minister is concerned on this matter of whether or not 1 am unduly reflecting on the minister, I would point out that if I am reflecting on the minister, much worse language has been held to be parliamentary previously, much worse language touching on ministers. In that connnection, at page 12387 of Hansard for April 1, 1976, there was an exchange in this House in which the then member for Levis stated:
Mr. Speaker, we have the worst President of the Privy Council we have ever had.
That president of the privy council is no longer in this House, Madam Speaker. The former member for Levis then rose and said:
Mr. Speaker, I rise on a point of order.
He then changed his point of order into a question of privilege. He wanted to challenge that wording, and the Acting Speaker said:
The hon. member probably did not like the words of the hon. member who has the floor but there is nothing unparliamentary in what he said.
To use the words of the then Acting Speaker, if there is nothing unparliamentary in saying that the president of the privy council was the worst that they had ever had, surely when we read my words we will see that they are extremely timid. To say that I am reflecting unduly on the minister and that you cannot hear me out, Madam Speaker, I think would be odd.
There is another case dealing with the subject that I have referred to. It appears extensively in Hansard, again in 1976. As far as this case is concerned, I can remember it well. I see certain members in this House, my colleague the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker), my colleague the hon. member for Yukon (Mr. Nielsen) and the hon. member who now represents Lincoln (Mr. Mackasey)-I have forgotten the riding he represented at that time-


Mr. Comtois:: Verdun.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: They all spoke on this case. At that time, as the sitting member for York-Simcoe, I was challenged for making a statement about members of the cabinet in general and indicating that they may have been involved in certain illegal activities and yet, in spite of being so involved, carrying on in power. There is a lengthy discussion in Hansard concerning what is a reflection on a minister. The arguments begin at page 11950 of Hansard for Friday, March 19, 1976. The
ruling of Mr. Speaker Jerome is given on March 22, 1976, wherein he stated:
In reply to a question of privilege raised by the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Sharp), I indicated I would want some time to deliberate on the matter. The question arises from certain remarks made in the course of debate on Thursday evening of last week.
These were remarks made by myself, Madam Speaker.
The basic rule of the House with respect to the procedure and practice in this regard can be found in Citation 140 of Beauchesne's. It is probably familiar to all hon. members, and it reads as follows:
"The rule relating to personal reflections occurring in debate may be stated thus, namely: that it is doubly disorderly for any member, in speaking, to digress from the question before the House and to attack any other member by means of opprobrious language applied to his person and character or to his conduct, either in general, or on some particular occasion, intending to bring him into ridicule, contempt, or hatred with his fellow-members, or to create ill blood in the House."
With all due respect, I would like to say, in case there is any doubt, that my statement, and certainly the form of my proposed motion, if you find I have a prima facie case, would do none of those things that Mr. Speaker Jerome indicated. He did refer to the same Standing Order 35 that you have referred to, Your Honour. He then went on to deal with the question of this word "illegal", and finally he asked that I withdraw the word. I then said I would withdraw the word "illegal" and put in its place "improperly" or "wrongfully". As a result, I then stated: what administration at a senior level of government in Canada, other than this administration, would allow cabinet ministers who have acted improperly or wrongfully to carry on in their posts? At the conclusion of the question of privilege, as reported at page 12001 of Hansard, Mr. Speaker said the following:


Mr. Speaker:: Order, please. I should like to thank the hon. member for York-Simcoe for his very important intervention and simply conclude the matter by indicating that, in the opinion of the Chair, in any event, whatever offensive language was used in the hon. member's intervention has now been rectified.


Some hon. Members:: Shame.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, in short, changing from the word "illegal" to the words "improperly" or "wrongfully" was sufficient, as far as Mr. Speaker Jerome was concerned, to satisfy him that I was not unduly reflecting on the minister who happened to be the president of the Privy Council at that time.
The present Attorney-General has demonstrated his lack of impartiality by, first, publication of the role of the United Kingdom in the amendment of the Canadian Constitution which presents the government's view on constitutional amendment. Second, he has demonstrated his lack of impartiality by his recent trip to the United Kingdom in that he argued the government's position. I could refer to the various newspaper articles which followed his trip to the United Kingdom. The various quotations which are attributed to the Attorney-General include one which appeared in The Globe and Mail on March 26, wherein he is reported to have stated:
Of course, we can't do this with the agreement of all the provinces ... But if they don't agree, the people of Canada can throw us out.
March 30, 1981

The minister is reported to have said the move is "a gamble-but that is democracy." He went on to say:
The British parliament is not "a rubber stamp," the text quickly added, but Westminster "understands that its role is to give legal effect... to the wishes of Canadians as expressed by a sovereign sister Parliament."
I could read into the record various other quotes which I think would show very definitively that the Attorney General, certainly when he was in England, spoke not like a neutral attorney general and not like a person who was, in effect, going to England saying that there are arguments on this side and there are arguments on that side. In short, unlike the attorney general of England-who, incidentally, is not even a member of their cabinet, because the office is put in that type of relationship to the government of the day-our own attorney general of Canada when in England was advocating the government's case.
My dilemma now-


An hon. Member:: Shocking!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: My dilemma is: how can we members of this House turn now to that same Attorney General of Canada and say, "Do you feel that the resolution that the government has put before us is of such a nature that those judges in Winnipeg are perhaps right, and there are illegal aspects to what we are being asked to do?"


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: In the March 25 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, the Attorney General is quoted more definitively. He states:
Chretien is in London today for a four-day visit in which he will put the federal government's case for patriation to British authorities.
As I have indicated, the act empowering our Minister of Justice as an ex-officio attorney general of Canada makes it clear that he must observe the precedents and the traditions, in other words, the rule of law which exists in England concerning the role of the attorney general.


An hon. Member:: We are not in England.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: As I have often indicated, one of those very clear roles, is to operate as an officer of the House of Commons to give us impartial and free legal advice. I have referred to one article concerning the role of the attorney general in England. I would like to refer briefly to another article. This is the Cambridge Law Journal of 1969. It is from the office of the attorney general, written by the Right Hon. Sir Elwyn Jones, attorney general, in England. In that article, at page 50, Mr. Jones states:
-but the basic requirement of our constitution is that however much of a political animal he may be when he is dealing with political matters-
He is referring to the attorney general.
-must not allow political considerations to affect his actions in those matters in which he is to act in an impartial and even quasi-judicial way.
Privilege-Mr. Stevens
I notice that the hon. members on the government side are becoming a little more aroused as we go along. But perhaps-


An hon. Member:: Sounds like Gilbert and Sullivan!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Perhaps they will note what one of their former colleagues said in 1978 concerning the role of the Attorney General of Canada. I am referring to the then minister of justice, now the Hon. Ron Basford-


John Carnell Crosbie: Gone to his reward.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -who, speaking in this House on March 17, 1978, at page 3881 stated:
The first principle, in my view, is that there must be excluded any consideration based upon narrow, partisan views, or based upon the political consequences to me or to others.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Here was a former attorney general of Canada, who happened to be serving under the partisan Prime Minister of Canada (Mr. Trudeau) at that time, who was stating what he felt was the proper role for an attorney general in Canada. He went on to say:
In arriving at a decision on such a sensitive issue as this, the Attorney General is entitled to seek information and advice from others but in no way is he directed by his colleagues in the government or by parliament itself. That is not to say that the Attorney General is not accountable to Parliament for his decisions, which he obviously is.
The then attorney general went on to say, as reported at page 3882 of Hansard:
-the Attorney General should ensure ... as a member of this House, he has responsibilities toward the rights, privileges, traditions and immunities so necessary for the proper functioning of Parliament;
That is the heart of my question of privilege. We have evidence before us, in the press, in what has been tabled in this House, in statements made in this House by the Attorney General of Canada as recently as today, which indicate that the present Attorney General of Canada is no longer an impartial officer of this House who is available to give us the legal advice that I would suggest we will need before we can proceed to consider the constitutional resolution before us.


An hon. Member:: Completely compromised.


John Carnell Crosbie: Completely partisan.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I touch on those references because I hope it will bring the thrust of what I am saying into focus. Even more to the point, I would suggest that Parliament is being forced to act in a manner which has been declared illegal and unconstitutional by at least two justices in the province of Manitoba. Parliament should be able to ask the advice of the attorney general on the issue; but because he has compromised his position, he is no longer fit to render that advice. As he is unable to fulfil his responsibility to Parliament, the Attorney General should be requested to resign.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Stevens


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I remind the House of some of the statements which have been made by Mr. Justice O'Sullivan as to the nature of the resolution before us, surely every member of this House of Commons will say that, rather than press on, we should secure proper legal advice. In his judgment, Mr. Justice O'Sullivan has made statements like this:
In my opinion it would be unconstitutional and illegal for her federal ministers, or for her federal parliamentarians, to give her advice in matters for which they are not responsible under our Constitution.
Mr. Justice O'Sullivan was referring to the advice that, in effect, this resolution would be coming to Her Majesty in the right of Canada.


Madam Speaker:: I am afraid the hon. member is going into the point of order which was put forward by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark) on which I said that I would rule later. I would ask him not to refer to the matter which was raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition but, if he can, to conclude his argumentation for his question of privilege.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I am well aware of your earlier ruling today concerning the point of order raised by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition; but I am just giving illustrations of the type of point on which we members of Parliament should normally call upon our attorney general to advise us, because here we have a situation where two judges in the Manitoba court of appeal have made certain statements. That entire appeal is now before the Supreme Court of Canada. As we want to know what course to follow in this House, I think it is relevant that we know what the Supreme Court of Canada may subsequently hold, should we continue with our course of action of considering the constitutional resolution, dealing with it and even passing it.
For example, at another point, Mr. Justice O'Sullivan stated, "It is constitutionally incompetent and illegal-."


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member is discussing the point of order brought up by the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition. We cannot discuss it anymore. It is under advisement and I shall rule on it later. Those examples should not be referred to, first of all, because the question is under advisement, and, second, I thought the hon. member had a new question of privilege which I am trying to understand. It would be helpful if he kept to that question of privilege so that I may rule upon it.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, if I may, I should like to have taken as read the various references I might have read into the record concerning the judgments in the Manitoba Court of Appeal. I indicated to you in my letter that my position is that I believe the Attorney General has compromised his position. I would sum up simply by saying that if you-


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: Madam Speaker, I did not realize I was so popular with members of the government!


Mr. Chenier:: Stick to banking.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: If I am that popular, I can always continue.


An hon. Member:: No, sum up.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: I know that some of my colleagues want to speak on the-


An hon. Member:: On the Constitution.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: -the question of privilege that I have raised. If I may, I should like to once again emphasize that if you feel I have a question of privilege and if you feel that I have made a case that the Attorney General of Canada who should have this impartial neutrality-


Erik Nielsen: He is so impartial, he is not even here.


Sinclair McKnight Stevens: [DOT]-I could read to you various quotations from Professor Edwards in a booklet he prepared for the McDonald commission setting out the clear role of the Attorney General in Canada and how he has this rather unique role as adviser to Parliament. I could read those sections into the record, but I know we want to get on with the business of the House. In summary, if you find that I have a prima facie case, I would propose to move:
That the increasing tendency of the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada to act in a manner incompatible with the separate requirements and traditions of each of his two portfolios, and the continued inability of the House to obtain independent legal advice from the Attorney General in keeping with the proper constitutional place of that officer of the Crown, as set out in the Department of Justice Act and in particular Section 5 thereof, be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.


Madam Speaker:: As I understand the grievance of the hon. member-


Erik Nielsen: Not a grievance.


Madam Speaker:: -the question of privilege which the hon. member has just exposed, he feels that the legal advice on the resolution of the Constitution given by the Minister of Justice and Attorney General of Canada was not impartial. Whether it was or was not-


John Carnell Crosbie: Madam Speaker, I have a point of order.


An hon. Member:: Oh, come on.


Some hon. Members:: Oh, oh!


John Carnell Crosbie: I do not take my orders from the hon. gentlemen opposite.


Erik Nielsen: He has a right to be heard.


John Carnell Crosbie: Before you make a ruling, I have a submission to make on the same point. This is a very important point and a very important subject dealing with the competence of the Attorney General of Canada. I have some further evidence
March 30, 1981

that I should like to present to Your Honour before you make your ruling.


An hon. Member:: Where did you get it, South Africa?


Madam Speaker:: I take that representation very seriously but, as I said before, when the first speaker does not convince me that there is a prima facie case of privilege, I have the tendency not to listen to a second one.


John Carnell Crosbie: Maybe I would be more persuasive, Madam Speaker.


An hon. Member:: Impossible!


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Madam Speaker:: I do not doubt that the hon. member could be-


John Carnell Crosbie: I wonder, Madam Speaker, could you give me a try?


Some hon. Members:: Order, order.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I wonder whether that advice was partial or impartial, surely the hon. member for York-Peel does not expect the Chair to adjudicate that. That is not a matter on which the Chair can make any kind of pronouncement at all.
He also contends that the rebuttal which was tabled in the House by the minister, the Kershaw report, was one-sided. That might be, but am I to judge that document? I will not even say whether it is normal or not that a minister of the Crown, wanting to defend the position of the government, is quite legitimately capable of expressing an opinion in this House.
When and if we discuss the resolution, I am sure the hon. member will be able to give his own opinion about the Kershaw report. That is normal debate in the House of Commons and, therefore, I do not think the fact that that document, in the opinion of the hon. member, is one-sided, constitutes a reason for me to see a prima facie case of privilege.
He says that his words are mild compared to other words, when I cautioned him not to cast any kind of reflection on members of the House, and he quoted some other words which were not judged unparliamentary but he was speaking in terms of unparliamentary language. He says his words were rather mild.
I want to remind the hon. member that he can express opinions in this House, even very strongly, so long as he does so in parliamentary language. Opinions may be expressed, but if the hon. member wants the House to judge the action or the conduct of a minister in the House, the only way he can achieve that is by bringing forward a motion on which the House will pronounce itself. If the hon. member wants the House to judge what the hon. Minister of Justice has done in regard to advice he has given concerning the resolution on the Constitution, he would have to do it in another way.
Privilege-Mr. Dontm
The hon. member quoted the requirements of the office of the attorney general in the United Kingdom. He quoted some documents from the United Kingdom describing what the requirements of the attorney general are. I believe that the quotations referred to legal advice which the attorney general would give about a prosecution. If he were giving advice about a prosecution, he would have to be impartial and conform with all the requirements which the hon. member referred to in this document.
This is really not grounds for a question of privilege, and I did not find, in the argumentation brought forward by the hon. member, which he made very carefully and to which I listened very carefully, that there is a question of privilege in this particular case.
I have another question of privilege in the name of the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


MR. DOMM-ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS BY EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF METRIC COMMISSION OF CANADA
Mr. Bill Domm (Peterborough):: Madam Speaker, I delivered to your office this morning before the hour of one o'clock, two letters on two questions of privilege which I wish to bring up. I will bring up one now dealing with the matter of the executive director of the Metric Commission of Canada.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If you should find that I have a prima facie case, I should like to move:
That the actions of the executive director of the Metric Commission, Mr. P. C. Boire, have obstructed me in the discharge of my responsibilities and that his actions be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections.
I will endeavour to show you this evening, in as few words as possible, how the executive director has clearly overstepped the mark of propriety. He has hampered me in my ability as a Member of Parliament to function in a responsible manner. He has attempted to create an atmosphere of fear and thus created a climate of mistrust. This situation has made it very difficult for me as a Member of Parliament to pursue my responsibilities, not only to this House, but to my constituents. I cannot point out as a member of the opposition exactly what we are getting into through this dictatorial attitude of harassment on the part of the executive director of the Metric Commission.
I will be quoting from Beauchesne, Erskine May and other precedents to indicate to you why the situation deserves reference to the privileges and elections committee. If I had been the first to raise this matter of harassment, I would have some reservations about doing so when we are dealing with something as important as the Constitution of Canada. However, in the Friday, January 23, edition of the Ottawa Citizen, it was pointed out that the Professional Institute of Public Servants laid a charge of harassment against the executive director of the Metric Commission. At the time I passed over this, waiting for a decision to be made through the proper channels, which I

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Domm
am sure are being followed. I then found the same thing was happening to me as a Member of Parliament in the carrying out of my responsibilities and presenting the other side of this forced march to metric being experienced in Canada.
Before quoting from Beauchesne, I wish to place on the record and for your consideration exactly what happened in the last 30 days which causes me to appeal to the Chair for consideration in reviewing this matter.
I was invited to appear on the Jack Webster show in British Columbia on February 10. I was asked questions by phone-in listeners and was interviewed by the MC. I dealt with the matter of the Metric Commission and its attitude with regard to the implementation in the retail food sector. It was not enough that I appeared on that show to answer questions and to present evidence, but on returning here-


Madam Speaker:: Order. I would like the hon. member to state his questions of privilege. Up until now he has been debating. He is probably not very happy with the application by the Metric Commission. That is a matter for debate in the House, not a question of privilege. The hon. member will have to indicate to me very soon where his question of privilege lies.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The prima facie case I wish to make deals with this 33-page document put out to discredit a Member of Parliament by the executive director of Metric Canada. It is the method by which this document has been entered into the records to which I take objection. I feel it is a discredit to the executive director, endangers my position, hampers my ability and discredits a Member of Parliament. If that is not a question of privilege, then I beg you to bear with me as I point out some of the concerns.
It is the responsibility of a Member of Parliament to interpret matters as he or she sees them. It is not the responsibility of a senior bureaucrat to throw harassment in the face of debate. I object to the way in which this was done.
The executive director of the Metric Commission, who comes under the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce, produced a 33-page transcript, purchased a tape from the Jack Webster show at a cost of $425, called in the staff of the Metric Commission to a closed meeting, to which I was not invited or of which I was not advised, and reviewed with them false statements and facts with regard to the implementation of metric. He brainwashed those people in the Metric Commission with regard to what is going on and discredited a Member of Parliament with regard to his duties and responsibilities to interpret legislation and regulations.
I wish to read into the record from the statement of the Professional Institute of Public Servants, which appeared in the January 23 edition of the Ottawa Citizen, in support of my prima facie case of privilege affecting my responsibilities as a member of Parliament. It not only affects every member of this House but it affects also the civil service through union action by their leaders because of intimidation and harassment by the executive director of the Metric Commission.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member need not read these quotations unless he is talking about something related to the proceedings in the House. A question of privilege does not cover the kind of grievance the hon. member is now airing before the House-definitely not. There is nothing to indicate a question of privilege in anything the hon. member has said up until now. I will now not allow him to quote at length from documents he has not yet identified. The Chair is unable to know what document he is talking about or indeed what documents appear to be a harassment and impede him in his function as a Member of Parliament. The hon. member must relate to what constitutes a question of privilege. A question of privilege cannot be used to air differences of opinions or grievances about the way the government conducts its business. There are other occasions to to do that through other proceedings in the House. A question of privilege is not one of them.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I will move on and refer the Chair to Erskine May, page 147, where the following is stated:
Acts tending indirectly to obstruct members in the discharge of their duty.
Conduct not amounting to a direct attempt to influence a Member in the discharge of his duties, but having a tendency to impair his independence in the future performance of his duty, will also be treated as a breach of privilege.
-Molestation of Members on Account of Their Conduct in Parliament-It is a breach of privilege to molest any member of either House on account of his conduct in Parliament.


Madam Speaker:: Order. Has the hon. member been molested or prevented in any way? The hon. member has to make that argument, otherwise it takes ten or 15 minutes before we know whether there is a foundation for a question of privilege. Hon. members must go directly to the core of the matter. I know these quotations from Erskine May and I can refer to them when making a judgment on a question of privilege. They need not be read into the record at this particular time.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: With all due respect, Madam Speaker, it says in here at page 147:
Sending insulting letters to members in reference to their conduct in Parliament or letters reflecting on their conduct as such members-
If that is in fact an obstruction of a member's duties, then I must ask the Speaker of the House whether she will not consider these points prior to referring specifically to the statements that have been made. I am trying to give some of the background and reasoning. I would go to page 13, Citation 22 of Beauchesne, which states:
The power of the House to enforce its rules extends not only to Members and others admitted within the precincts of Parliament, but also to members of the general public who may interfere with the orderly conduct of parliamentary business.
I would like to inject here another passage from the proceedings in a case of "Breach of Privilege and Contempts" at page 148:
"Written imputations, as affecting a Member of Parliament, may amount to breach of privilege, without, perhaps, being libels at common law" (b), but to constitute a breach of privilege of libel upon a member must concern the character or conduct of the member in that capacity-
March 30, 1981


Madam Speaker:: Would the hon. member tell us what edition he is reading from because we cannot find the references to which he is referring?


William Henry (Bill) Domm: It is in respect of "Breaches of Privilege and Contempts" at page 148 of Beauchesne. It is in that part dealing with "Complaints Against Strangers Founded Upon Documents." It is at page 159 and is "Proceedings in Case of Contempt."


Madam Speaker:: I thought the hon. member was reading from Erskine May. He is now suggesting he is quoting from Beauchesne. If it is Erskine May, which I think it is because the pages given to me do not relate at all to Beauchesne, will he tell us what edition, because even there it is difficult for us to find.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: I apologize, Madam Speaker. I am referring to pages 147, 148 and 159 of Erskine May, nineteenth edition.


Madam Speaker:: It is edition eighteen, not nineteen.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: At page 159 it states:
When complaint is made of something published in a newspaper or book, a copy of the newspaper or book, and when complaint is made of a letter sent to a member, the original of the letter said to have been written, must be delivered in at the table-
1 am presenting that now as evidence and I will give you examples from this article, letter or document which clearly reflect a question of privilege and a move of harassment against a Member of Parliament.
In this particular document entitled "Bill Domm/Jack Webster Interview February 10, 1981" printed by the Metric Commission of Canada comprising 33 pages I will refer to four instances which I consider clear and simple harassment, misrepresentation of the facts by the executive director of the Metric Commission in an effort to discredit disparagingly the remarks of a Member of Parliament made in the performance of his duty as a Member of Parliament.
On the Jack Webster show I made this statement and it is quoted in here according to the executive director:
He went into a creative study for one year in which they would look at the implementations of metric and the ratifications of it. The net result of that study was that we weren't ready to proceed.
That was my statement. The Metric Commission responded to that statement by saying:
They indicate that the majority of Canadians understand metric units and the desirability of the objectives, and accept the use of the International System of Units in their daily lives.
That is not true. There are ample indications that he is misleading the people and is refuting a statement I made that is fact based on a test centre in Peterborough. There are ample surveys to indicate that my information is true while his is not, and this is an effort to discredit a Member of Parliament.
It is not bad enough that he takes this upon himself in his capacity as a senior bureaucrat, discrediting a Member of Parliament, the seriousness of this is that he does it behind closed doors with civil servants who have already charged him
Privilege-Mr. Domm
with harassment, as I referred to earlier in my remarks, namely, the Professional Institute of the Public Service. The staff is angry with him, Members of Parliament are angry with him and he is clearly and simply harassing us in our responsibility as we try to interpret what this Metric Commission is doing.
The second area in which he has clearly and plainly harassed a Member of Parliament is to be found in these words:
-whereas in Peterborough all but three (67 out of 70) stores converted back to selling by the pound.
In other words, he is saying there are three stores in Peterborough which are still using metric. That is not true.
These are the facts. In my riding of Peterborough I do not know of one store that does not show the price per pound of the food they sell, and I invite and challenge the Metric Commission and its executive director to inform me of the names of those three stores which do not print on the wall the price per pound of every pound or ounce of meat or goods they sell.
At page 8 of this same document it proceeds to harass and discredit, a Member of Parliament throwing a disparaging light on him. We find this statement made by the Metric Commission to this closed group:
-Statute Law (Metric Conversion) Amendment Act, 1976 ... was debated in Parliament over a period of nine months,
That is what it says in answer to my statement that metric is being forced on the people of Canada through order in council. My answer to that was that:
This is a particularly gratuitous example of the MCC distorting the statutory and regulatory basis for enforced conversion.
It gives the impression that Parliament debated the bill exclusively for nine months-
That is not true.
At page 9 of this same document we find another statement. I might add that the Metric Commission engaged a lawyer at $250 a day for seven days to come up with these brilliant answers. The Metric Commission says that a Dominion Stores' survey in Peterborough in January, 1980, showed that some negative attitudes prevailed. A Steinberg survey in Sherbrooke revealed a different position. In a way, the Metric Commission said, it would appear that the surveys and stores' interpretation of the results may have reflected the attitudes of the stores at that time rather than the customers' attitudes.
The truth of the matter is that the Metric Commission of Canada has also been particularly keen on maintaining that scale conversion is a program which will be instituted in close co-operation with the retail food industry, the very sector it condemns in this attempt to mitigate the adverse results of the Dominion and Steinberg surveys.
On the same page, page 9, the Metric Commission says:
Of the top thousand ... manufacturing companies in that country, more than 60 per cent are converting to the metric system.

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Domm
That is, 60 per cent of the major companies in Canada are converting to metric. The truthful answer to that is that 60 per cent of the top 1,000 companies in the United States are not converting completely to metric. A report of February 6, 1981, said that American industry is not exactly rushing to convert to the metric system. In fact, only half of the industrial buyers surveyed reported any of their dollars going toward metrication. One respondent, according to an industrial publication, summed it up as follows:
There is no need for metrication for products made and sold in the United States. This is being shoved down the throats of most Americans.
Those are the facts in the United States. In addition to that, the metric commission in the United States has advised the U.S. Congress that it should not proceed with metric in the retail food sector for at least ten years and maybe never. That is the fact, not the propaganda being spread by the executive director of the Canadian Metric Commission.
On page 18 of this same report which I am tabling in the House, the Metric Commission says:
Perhaps a look at a Buick Skylark, and Oldsmobile Omega, a Chevrolet Citation or Chevette, and their owner manuals will help to convince you that there may be some value in boning up or catching up on metric units.
That is not true. That is misleading. I drive a Buick, a General Motors product. It is a 1980 model, and I can tell on the speedometer how many miles an hour I am going down the highway. I defy the Metric Commission to move into General Motors at Oshawa and tell them that they cannot put miles per hour on speedometers the way it will try to tell the retail merchants in Canada when this act comes into place. That is clearly misleading.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


William Henry (Bill) Domm: In my performance as a Member of Parliament, I do not need to be told to bone up or catch up on metric implementation. I defy the executive director, Mr. Boire, of the Metric Commission, to take a trip to Peterborough and to ask the retail merchants there if they are overwhelmingly in support and ready to accept forced metric in the retail food stores. They are not. This document is a waste of taxpayers' money, as is the $45 million which has been spent by the Metric Commission.
To give further examples of harassment by the executive director of the Metric Commission in this report behind closed doors I would like to refer this House to page 21 of this document. I have copies available for any hon. member in this House and I would be pleased to supply them. I said the following on the Jack Webster show:
-what Peterborough has done they have gone back to imperial 100 per cent.
What does the Metric Commission do with its $250 a day lawyer who has studied this matter in great detail? He said:
MCC has been advised that there are still three stores in Peterborough which continue to sell by the kilogram.
The reason they sell in kilograms is that they cannot afford to buy imperial weigh scales because they were forced to buy metric weigh scales. They have to use them because they
cannot afford $4,000 to buy imperial weigh scales. That is why they are still doing it.


Madam Speaker:: Order. The hon. member realizes that he is debating now. He was doing very well in trying to convince me that he had a prima facie case when finally he identified the document and began to say what in the document constituted a breach of his privilege and in what way his reputation or his ability to function as a Member of Parliament had been affected by that document. If he could keep to that type of argument and not debate the fundamental question of metric conversion, which is a matter for debate in the House, and if he can continue to make that distinction, I will be able to listen to him, although I am inclined to look at his question of privilege in the light of the document. I have not seen it yet, but I will see it later on. Perhaps he could try to conclude. I think that would be helpful to the House.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I apologize for getting carried away in the heat of the moment. Going back to page 21, being very specific and reading word for word, the Metric Commission said:
MCC has been advised that there are still three stores in Peterborough which continue to sell by the kilogram.
My answer to that is that, to my knowledge, only one store in Peterborough continues to weigh in kilograms, but the fact is that not one store in the city of Peterborough displays signs in metric. There might be small print so that they can figure out the weigh scale, but in merchandising and on the signs on the wall they definitely use imperial measuring units.
On page 22 of this document of harassment, I said the following on the Jack Webster show:
More on the idea now of trying to develop some industrial strategy that will bring about some jobs.
The Metric Commission says this:
Metric conversion is an industrial strategy that is helping to create new jobs and to maintain those Canadians now have.
It has never created one productive job. It has never done one thing which could not be done in imperial weights and measures with less cost to government. My answer is that the Metric Commission of Canada has been at pains in other parts of this document to point out that theirs is only an advisory and a co-ordinating function which relies heavily on volunteers from industry. Nowhere does it say itself, nor is it said anywhere on its behalf, that it is involved in promulgating an industrial strategy. If the commission is in fact involved in such an operation, I suggest that a review of its mandate is in order. In addition, I defy the Metric Commission to produce a single job, apart from its own, which has been created as a result of metric conversion.
I hope Your Honour will refer this to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections. I would like to read a letter Mr. Boire sent me as a Member of Parliament after I had sent him two letters asking for a copy of the videotape he purchased for some $425 from the Jack Webster show. That show normally does not supply these tapes. I tried to get one and
March 30, 1981

could not. I did not have $425, but obviously the Metric Commission does.


An hon. Member:: The taxpayers do.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: The taxpayers do. After I had sent two letters to the Metric Commission and a message by courrier service to Mr. Boire personally, he sent the tape over for my observation. He also sent the document I have in my hand. This 33-page document has travelled coast to coast. I had a conversation today with the people who attended the meeting in Vancouver this past weekend, the retail trades sector of the Metric Commission, I was in conversation with a member of the voluntary group of this working retail trade sector of the Metric Commission. Just tonight I learned, as best 1 can recall, that he was advised by the Metric Commission that I had a poor researcher and that the information I was spreading across Canada about this forced march to metric in the retail food sector was improperly researched and inaccurately accounted. If this is travelling to Vancouver, then in my opinion it is clearly and simply a question of privilege. Can a senior bureaucrat in the Department of Industry, Trade and Commerce go about his function, with the bureaucracy he has around him and with a $6.5 million annual budget, discrediting a Member of Parliament?
Let me read the letter he wrote to me. It reads as follows:
I regret that I was not able to respond to your request of 1981-02-07 before now. Since your original request was received, the MCC Information staff members have been preparing a detailed commentary on your remarks in order to assist you-
This is the executive director of the Metric Commission telling me that he is going to assist me in being as factual as possible in my future interviews across Canada. As Speaker of this House, you must give serious consideration to my question of privilege.
There is a prepared brief, and I am tabling it for your information, entitled, "Public Service Union Requests Probe of Harassment by the Executive Director of the Metric Commission." Harassment of the professional institute. I will just read one paragraph:
Boire organizes an annual two day staff meeting at the RA Centre. Consists of officers from the four directorates and admin, services-includes CO's. information officers and admin, officer (A.S.). About 40 attend. There is simultaneous translation, free booze one evening. Simultaneous translation alone cost $2,000 though none of the staff asked for it. Boire organizes and orchestrates the whole show, although he states that staff do it. Boire picks the venue, the date, the subject matter to be discussed.
It must be obvious to everyone here that we have the professional institute laying a charge of harassment. We have clearly and precisely demonstrated tonight that I have been harassed in my area of responsibility as I scrutinized the Metric Commission and the regulations through statements made on the Jack Webster show. It is obvious to this House that precedents have been set for consideration of a privilege where written documents have clearly shown that a member's function has been curtailed or hampered, and the executive
Privilege-Mr. Domm
director of the Metric Commission is clearly and simply creating an atmosphere of distrust in Members of Parliament through his actions. It is bad enough that we have to fight these things by appealing to the compassion of the Chair, but it is really sad that Industry, Trade and Commerce will set up a bureaucracy and spend between $6 and $8 million a year to expound on the virtues of metric, and then spend X-thousands of dollars to discredit a Member of Parliament as he tries to delve into the justification for forced metric conversion in the retail food sector.
I really feel that if the opportunity were given to each Member of Parliament to properly represent his constituents in the various areas of Canada, whether in the agricultural, business or industrial communities, I think we would be better off if we did not have a Metric Commission. If we have to have one, it could be on a voluntary basis, truly representative of the people's concerns as they march toward forced implementation of metric conversion in the retail food sector.
I do not wish to debate at this time the pros and cons of metric conversion. I am debating the privileges of a Member of Parliament, and I appeal to the Chair to refer this matter to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections so that I can debate this subject there and present far greater evidence than I have tonight. I could have read the whole 33 pages, but I thought seven of the items in question would be enough so that you would graciously rule there is a prima facie case of privilege and you would refer it to the committee as quickly as possible.
So I would like to move that the actions of the executive director of the Metric Commission, Mr. P. C. Boire, which actions have obstructed me in the discharge of my responsibility, be referred to the committee so that we can show the facts of the case in more detail.


Madam Speaker:: The hon. member has quoted extensively from a document which I am sure would be very helpful if he would leave it with me. I will want to look at his argument in light of that document, and I will take his question of privilege under advisement.
Now, we have a second question of privilege from the hon. member for Peterborough (Mr. Domm).


MR. DOMM-RELOCATION OF PARKS CANADA OFFICE-ALLEGED MISREPRESENTATION OF FACTS BY MINISTER OF THE ENVIRONMENT
William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I am sure this will take far less time because it is far easier to get to the point on this question of privilege because your rulings have led me to where I am tonight after almost one year of frustration in trying to deal with statements in this House by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) and his parliamentary secretary. If you will bear with me, I will go back to the statement that was made in this House by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's (Mr. Simmons), which caused you to rule later on a question of privilege, that if I wished to pursue this matter of the Parks Canada move from Peterbor-

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Domm
ough back to Cornwall, I had ample opportunity to do that. On page 1014 of Hansard of May 13, 1980, Madam Speaker, you said:
The hon. member, if he is still not satisfied with the explanation that he has received, might, for instance, put a notice of motion on the order paper. .. There are also procedures to obtain those documents, under certain conditions, of course. But if those conditions are met and the minister is capable of tabling those documents, I suppose that they could be obtained through the normal procedure.
I followed all your recommendations, starting first on May 12, 1980, when the hon. member for Burin-St. George's said:
-it was the administration of which he was a part-
"He" being myself when we were in government:
-which deferred the move for ten whole months-ten painful months for the people of Canada?
That was the first statement by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's that I challenged through a question of privilege in this House. On May 13, 1980, at page 1012, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's said:
The hon. member quotes me correctly. It is my understanding based on information that was given to me-I was not here at the time as hon. members are aware.
Also the hon. member for Burin-St. George's said:
I am saying to the hon. member for Peterborough that he did quote me correctly. The hon. member reads Hansard well. The statements which I made last night were made on the basis of information with which I have been supplied. I would be pleased to make that information available to the hon. member and, in so far as I know at this moment in time, the information is correct. It was given to me by senior departmental officials-
That is the key, Madam Speaker. He continued:
-and until I have been shown otherwise I will stand by that information.
I questioned that information, and Madam Speaker's ruling was that I had a course open to me-I could ask for the production of documents. I did that, and then on November 25, 1980, as reported at page 5081 of Hansard, the hon. member for Burin-St. George's said:
-I made no commitment to him.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I am just warning the hon. member that he might talk himself out of a question of privilege. A question of privilege and the facts relating to it must be brought to the attention of the House on the earliest possible occasion. The hon. member is referring to matters which took place on May 12, 1980, and on May 13, 1980, which is a long time ago. If the hon. member has been aggrieved by any of these occurrences, he should have brought them before the House much earlier.
If he continues to go back into history, he will have talked himself out of his question of privilege. I urge him to come closer to the event which aggrieves him so that I can understand his question of privilege.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: Madam Speaker, I will bring you right up to February, 1981. I need to give the background information in order to give the facts on the question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: No, no. The hon. member should state now, quite clearly, his question of privilege, to what particular circumstances he attaches it and then, if he wants, in the course of his argument he can make some other references to earlier events. Then perhaps I could entertain it. But just now he must come directly to the question of privilege.


William Henry (Bill) Domm: If Madam Speaker feels I have a prima facie question of privilege, I would move that this Parliament has been misled by the Minister of the Environment (Mr. Roberts) in the production of documents under Order No. 27 of November 20, 1980, at which time at your suggestion I called for the production of papers which were offered to me by the hon. member for Burin-St. George's to prove his point. At your suggestion, I called for the production of papers because he volunteered those, if required.
I called for the production of papers. Finally the Minister of the Environment answered that call this year. I feel I have a question of privilege because in the production of the documents to substantiate the statements of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's, they produced the speech of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's but no confirmation of any senior official or no direction from any of the deputy assistants of the Department of the Environment. It was just a copy of his speech in the late show debate. I feel this House was misled when they produced documents which were not what was called for and what they were committed to produce.
I refer to page 178, the fourth paragraph of Citation 212 of Beauchesne's fourth edition wherein it reads:
The addition of particulars to a return, not specified in the order of the House of Commons, has been ruled by Mr. Speaker to be an irregularity.
When they produced a document to substantiate the claim that it was the Conservative government of the day which deferred the move of Parks Canada, when in reality it was the present government which deferred the move, they produce a false document. The document does not give any substantiating evidence whatsoever to the fact that it was the Conservative government which deferred the move of Parks Canada.
I have the announcement of the Conservative government which clearly indicated that the hon. member for Peterborough announced, on behalf of the then minister responsible for Parks Canada, the hon. member for Vancouver South (Mr. Fraser), that the Ontario regional office of Parks Canada would be moved to Peterborough during the summer of 1980.
For the hon. member for Burin-St. George's to say that it was our government which deferred the move and that it was their government which took action is truly false. The Minister of the Environment undertook to produce a document to substantiate that, but it in no way substantiates it.
Order No. 27 reads as follows:
That an Order of the House do issue for a copy of all correspondence, notes, transcripts and all other communications exchanged between the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of the Environment and senior departmental officials cited by the Parliamentary Secretary in the House on May 13, 1980-
The wrong document was produced. It is not the right information; it does not substantiate the statement. Your
March 30, 1981

Honour suggested guidelines for members of the opposition to follow, that if they have an argument following a question in the House, they should bring up the matter in the late show debate, which I did. Your Honour suggested also that if members have a question in the late show debate and do not get satisfaction, they should call for the production of documents, which I did. The government produced documents which have no relationship whatsoever to the facts they are committed to produce. There was a commitment to the House on November 20, 1980. After several months, they produced the speech in the late night debate of the hon. member for Burin-St. George's. The Minister of the Environment abrogated his responsibilities. He was prepared to take the instructions of the House and produce the documents as requested by the hon. member for Peterborough. So, a year and a half later hundreds of hours have been wasted on this subject. There is a clear indication in Hansard; it has been falsely documented for a year by members of the government that it was our government, when it was in power, that deferred the move. This is a gross error; it needs to be corrected.
I ask, on a question of privilege, for this entire matter to be referred to the Standing Committee on Privileges and Elections, so that we can again open the door on the whole issue of the Parks Canada move which I have claimed from the beginning is crass, political pork-barrelling. It should never have occurred. It is another Eldorado Nuclear; it is a de Havilland Dash-8; it is a shame, it is a disgrace, and it is a clear question of privilege.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear.


John Allen Fraser: I rise on the same question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: Later, later. Well, I want to speak on that now. I think that is precisely what the hon. member is doing; he is opening up the whole debate to which he is referring. From what I can see, the documents were produced on February 6, 1980, which is quite a while ago. Questions of privilege should be raised at the earliest possible opportunity. The reason for that is: if there is a question of privilege, the House could not function without having dealt with it. The hon. member has waited since November 6 until now, so I think in that itself there is some indication that there was not a real question of privilege.
The question of privilege which he described flows from a return to an order of the House which called for all correspondence, notes, transcripts and other communications. Documents were tabled, as was requested in that order, but the hon. member is not satisfied with the documents he received. It is not for me to judge whether or not the documentation given to the hon. member is complete. If the hon. member has proof that the documentation is not complete, and that there are other documents which have been voluntarily withheld by the minister in this particular case, he should have invoked that and given me an indication of the documents which have not been tabled; but he has not done this. I feel that the hon. member does not have a prima facie case of privilege.
Privilege-Mr. Speyer


John Allen Fraser: Madam Speaker, on the same question of privilege.


Madam Speaker:: It must be made quite clear that the hon. member has risen twice now saying that he wanted to speak on the question of privilege. If he wants to rise on a point of order, that is quite in order. I must warn him that he must not comment on the question of privilege which has just been raised.


John Allen Fraser: I say this with the greatest respect, Madam Speaker. My point of order is that the hon. member made it very clear that in answer to the production of documents, he did not receive any documents-


Some hon. Members:: That is not true!


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. The hon. member did say that he received a document. He did not indicate to me that he knew of other documents which had been withheld. There is no question of privilege there. The hon. member did not indicate that he felt that some documents had been withheld voluntarily by the minister and that he had been frustrated in his desire to obtain all the documents that exist with respect to this particular issue. The question of privilege has been dealt with, it is over. I cannot come back to these arguments.
The hon. member for Cambridge (Mr. Speyer) has a question of privilege as well.


MR. SPEYER-TEXTILE AND CLOTHING BOARD INQUIRY-QUESTION PRE-EMPTED BY GOVERNMENT MEMBER
Mr. Chris Speyer (Cambridge):: Madam Speaker, my question of privilege deals with a set of circumstances which culminated in question period today. I would like to ask for your patience so that I may outline the importance of the question of privilege which I wish to bring to your attention.
On August 31, 1979, pursuant to section 19 of the Textile and Clothing Board Act, Madam Speaker, the Textile and Clothing Board embarked upon an inquiry which was tabled in this House on June 30, 1980. That dealt with the inquiry regarding the effects of imports on the textile and clothing producers in Canada and upon employment in that industry.
There have been many questions raised in this House with respect to this issue, the latest being a question on February 24 put by the hon. member for Kingston and the Islands (Miss MacDonald). Recently there have been motions moved under Standing Order 43 with respect to this matter. The importance of it is highlighted in one of the recommendations in the report. That recommendation is that in the first instance the government should announce its decision no later than March 31, 1981, with respect to the recommendations of this report. Obviously, we are now at March 30, and I now wish to pose certain questions concerning the recommendations of the Board of Textile and Clothing inquiry.

March 30, 1981
Privilege-Mr. Speyer
This morning I learned that the Minister of Industry, Trade and Commerce (Mr. Gray) would not be in the House today. There are 500,000 Canadians who are employed either directly or indirectly in the textile and clothing industry. Over 2,500 of them are employed in my riding. As a result of this, I phoned the minister's office and made his assistant, Mr. Kerr, aware of the fact that I was going to pose a question with respect to when the government's position with respect to the report would be made available to the people of Canada. Second, I was going to ask a question with respect to the government's position on this important matter. As a result of that, I specifically told Mr. Kerr of the minister's office exactly what my questions would be. I asked him to notify the acting minister, so that he would not be caught unawares. I see many ministers in the House tonight. I say that I wanted to honour a tradition in this House, it being that you should give notice to a minister, who is an acting minister, so that he may be made aware of the nature of the inquiries you intend to pose.
This afternoon it transpired that when I tried to be recognized-and you know from your list. Madam Speaker, that I tried both on Friday and today-I was pre-empted in my question by the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier) who asked precisely the question that I was about to ask and of which I had given notice to the minister.


Some hon. Members:: Shame!


Chris Speyer: As I said, there are certain traditions that are honoured in order that this House functions. There are certain confidentialities that ought to have been honoured. My assertion to you, Madam Speaker, and the basis upon which I bring my question of privilege, is that my statement to Mr. Kerr this afternoon stating precisely what my questions to the minister would be, was repeated to the hon. member for Sherbrooke, whereupon he pre-empted me, although I had notified the government of the questions I would be posing this afternoon.
I say to you, Madam Speaker, if we do call members "honourable members", where is the honour when a minister or a member of his staff advises another member of the government where he can pre-empt the person who gave notice? Is there no shame on the other side when notice of a question is given and someone asks another member to ask the question, thereby pre-empting us? In my respectful submission there is an implied breach of confidence, Your Honour. There is a breach of tradition. I suggest to you that if you find a prima facie case on this important matter, I will put forward the appropriate motion.


Some hon. Members:: Hear, hear!


Madam Speaker:: I have referred to my list for this afternoon, because I was wondering if, in fact, the hon. member had not asked a question. I see that his name has not been crossed out on my list. I distinctly remember that I put his name on the list quite early in the question period and then he left the House. I came to him and I looked-


Chris Speyer: That was after.


Madam Speaker:: I looked at the hon. member's seat, since his turn had come, according to my list, and he was not in the House. After that it was too late. I had gone on to other hon. members. That is why he was not recognized. At any rate, that is not important. I am just giving the hon. member an explanation because I did wonder whether he did have a chance to ask a question this afternoon. I can see from my list that he did not. I try to go from one side of the House to the other during the question period. At any rate, I cannot see where there is a question of privilege that I can judge. If a minister or other member tipped off another member about a question that the hon. member for Cambridge thought he would ask, it is not a matter that the Chair can rule upon. I do not know ahead of time what the question will be. The hon. member will have noted that I recognized a Liberal member at about the same point I usually do. That member happened to be the hon. member for Sherbrooke (Mr. Pelletier). I remember that quite distinctly.
There is no question of privilege in the hon. member's question this evening.
The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville (Mr. Cossitt).


POINT OF ORDER
Mr. Tom Cossitt (Leeds-Grenville):: Madam Speaker, I would like to raise a point of order. This is the first opportunity I have had to do so since the matter occurred last Friday. In doing so I would like to refer to page 8711 of Hansard for March 27, 1981. At that time I raised the point that a member of this House had referred to the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton (Mr. Baker) as a "simple-minded hypocrite." At that time I said that this was unparliamentary language and the Chair agreed that it was, indeed, unparliamentary language. I then said further:
I am asking for clarification from the Chair. Would Madam Speaker be prepared to consult Hansard to see whether those words were picked up? If they were, Madam Speaker would have to hear my point of order. Is Madam Speaker prepared to do that?


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I am prepared to do that.
When I consult Hansard, page 8709, for last Friday, I find the words:


An hon. Member:: You are a simple-minded hypocrite.
This interrupted the remarks by the hon. member for Nepean-Carleton. Therefore, I obviously contend that unparliamentary language was used at that time. 1 drew the attention of the House to the fact that it was a very honourable remark from this end of the Chamber. I am sure that it was very honourable to Hansard because they have recorded it.


An hon. Member:: A member of the NDP made it.
March 30, 1981


Thomas Charles Cossitt: It was made, of course, by the New Democratic Party benchers to my left. In particular, I would like to refer, as I did at that time, to the hon. member for Skeena (Mr. Fulton), who made that remark, as was apparent to all of us. It may be contended that because Hansard reported that it was said by an hon. member, without specifically identifying the hon. member for Skeena, it is really irrelevant because we are all hon. members. I am therefore sure that the hon. member for Skeena-who is not in the House at the moment-being an hon. member, would want to acknowledge that indeed he had said this, and would want to withdraw the unparliamentary remark he made.


Erik Nielsen: First thing tomorrow morning.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would therefore suggest that tomorrow, if the hon. member for Skeena is in the House-or the day after, or as soon as he is here-he should have the opportunity to withdraw his unparliamentary remark which you, Madam Speaker, ruled as unparliamentary. To illustrate my point, of course, I would like to refer to the Hansard of July 8, 1961. At that time, Mr. Johnson, an hon. member from the riding of Chambly-Rouville in the province of Quebec, said to Lionel Chevrier:
Tell the truth, do not be a hypocrite.
At that time, the deputy speaker in the Chair replied:
I have heard a term which is certainly not parliamentary.
Then Mr. Chevrier proceeded to draw attention to the fact that he had used a similar expression on a previous day, and had been forced to withdraw it as it was indeed unparliamentary. Therefore, Mr. Johnson had to withdraw his remark. The fact that it might be contended that the hon. member for Skeena was not in his own seat at the time this remark was made would be irrelevant according to the ruling of the Speaker of the day, because the hon. member who made the remark said:
Mr. Speaker, I should return to my seat, because I am not now at my regular desk.
Then he returned to his seat and retracted the remark. Therefore, it is my contention, Madam Speaker-


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. While the hon. member was making his point of order, I was reading Hansard in order to see what was said on Friday. Yes, the hon. member is right. I said that I would be prepared to look at Hansard to see whether those words had been spoken. I see from the Hansard I have in my hand that those words had been spoken. They had not come to the ear of the Speaker. Since some hon. members insisted that they had been spoken, I said that I would look at Hansard. I now read Hansard and find that the words are not reported in Hansard under any particular hon. member's name.
Therefore, I am afraid that if it is not in Hansard-I did say that 1 would look at the blues. The blues do not report these words. Therefore, I am at a loss. I do not think I called on anyone to withdraw an expression which does not appear in Hansard and which has not been heard by the Chair.
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt
As for the term "hypocrite," I understand it is listed as both unparliamentary and parliamentary language. Hon. members will understand that that puts the Chair in a very difficult position. I would say that it is not a very appropriate expression in the House, but since it was pronounced by no one, at this point, I cannot call on anyone to withdraw it.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: With all due respect to the Chair, Madam Speaker, I must contend that the words were used, and they appear on page 8709 of Hansard. We in this end of the chamber have identified the hon. member for Skeena as having said them. I would therefore think that this matter should be held until such time as he has the opportunity to either deny that he said them, or to admit-as an hon. member would-that he did indeed say them. Then at that time, I think, it would be up to the Chair to decide whether he should be asked to withdraw the words, or whatever the case may be. It is very clear that it is an unparliamentary expression. It is very clear to all of us here that the hon. member for Skeena made those remarks. I think that he should at least have the opportunity, before the Chair makes a ruling, to say whether or not he is prepared to acknowledge that he made those remarks, if he did. If he is an hon. member and does-and I am sure he does acknowledge that-then I would think we should have a ruling from the Chair.


Madam Speaker:: Yes, I now see that on page 8709 of Hansard, at the bottom of the page, it says that an hon. member said:
You are a simple-minded hypocrite.
The hon. member must understand what kind of a predicament I am in. Whom can I ask to withdraw these words? The hon. member-


Some hon. Members:: Skeena!


Madam Speaker:: Yes, well, that is the hon. member's contention, but I cannot ascertain it because I did not hear those words. They are not identified in Hansard. Therefore, it is impossible for me to ask an hon. member, any hon. member who is not identified to withdraw his words. I can ask no one, so I cannot do that. The hon. member cannot ask the Chair to do that.
As for the expression "hypocrite", if it is on both lists, then that puts me in a position where I guess I have to determine whether it is unparliamentary, and I would say that it is; but since there is no identified hon. member, to my knowledge, who has pronounced those words, I guess the matter is closed.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: I have a second point of order. Before proceeding to it, I would like to acknowledge the statement you have made and ask if you would be prepared to wait until the hon. member for Skeena is here so that he can tell the House whether, as an hon. member, he did or did not make those remarks.

March 30, 1981
Point of Order-Mr. Cossitt


MR. COSSITT-USE OF UNPARLIAMENTARY WORDS DURING DEBATES
Thomas Charles Cossitt: I would like to proceed to my second point of order, if that is in order. It goes back again to last Friday, on the same page, page 8711 of Hansard, where the Chair is reported as having said that in order to declare words unparliamentary-and that is roughly paraphrasing your statement-they must have occurred during the course of a debate. It is my contention that the publication is that for something to occur in the course of a debate-and the rule is that it is only unparliamentary when it occurs in the course of a debate-during questions of privilege, during motions under Standing Order 43, or during points of order, we are in a position to use unparliamentary language because, technically speaking, those matters are not debates. It is my contention that in Beauchesne's rules, the word "debates" is meant to be broadly interpreted; otherwise, for example, I could look across the floor at this time and say that the President of the Privy Council (Mr. Pinard) is a liar, and 1 would be called to order; yet I am speaking on a point of order. Therefore, according to your ruling on Friday, I would be able to do it and nobody could say anything about it.
Therefore, I am asking clarification from the Chair as to whether an hon. member is saying unparliamentary words if he utters them during an actual debate rather than during a question of privilege, during a point of order or during motions under Standing Order 43 and other types of matters which are not actually debates in this House.
Now I see it is ten o'clock, Madam Speaker. If it is ten o'clock, I would prefer to finish this tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: I think we should finish it today, if hon. members will allow me not to see the clock. It is not quite ten o'clock.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Maybe I could finish my point, then.


Madam Speaker:: I think I can explain to the hon. member-order, please. The hon. member for Leeds-Grenville.


Thomas Charles Cossitt: Well, I was simply saying that I would prefer to finish tomorrow as it is ten o'clock, rather than prolonging the other proceedings which are to start now. As I understand it, at ten o'clock you must proceed to other business, unless there is unanimous consent to do otherwise. Therefore, unless I am totally blind, I see it is ten o'clock and I would ask permission to continue this matter tomorrow.


Madam Speaker:: Order, please. I have already ruled on that question so I do not think we need to pursue it tomorrow. What I said in the course of debate, and when I say "in the course of debate" I mean debate in the largest sense, was that in order that they be declared unparliamentary, words must have been said in the course of debate. I must have heard them and they must be recorded in Hansard.
I must tell the hon. member that I hear a lot of things whispered around here during the course of debate, but they
are not all recorded in Hansard. Some of them might be quite unparliamentary, but they must have an official character so that they can be declared unparliamentary.
I cannot identify the hon. member who allegedly uttered those unparliamentary words, and therefore the question is obviously closed.



[Stage Direction]
A motion to adjourn the House under Standing Order 40 deemed to have been moved.

Mr. Marcel Roy (Laval):: Mr. Speaker, last March 26 I asked the Minister of National Revenue if Canadian citizens living in Quebec enjoy the same advantages as the other Canadians as far as the export market is concerned. My purpose in taking the floor tonight is to ask the Quebec government authorities whether Quebecers are considered to be on an equal footing with other Canadians when it comes to taxation or international trade expansion, or whether Canadians residing in the province of Quebec are considered as second-class citizens on the international market.
I also asked the minister if after two and a half years now more than 2,000 Quebecers and Quebec firms are being penalized because the Levesque-Parizeau government refuses to acknowledge following a written guideline that those firms or those 2,000 Quebec citizens who went to work abroad were granted non-resident status. Only Quebecers find themselves in that situation, particularly when we consider the importance for Canada to develop its manufactured products export trade, not only on the traditional American market but also on other markets abroad.
The Canadian government has set up a new structure, namely, a special committee which was to look into the possibility of creating a national trading corporation precisely to direct all our talented people, engineers, workers in small and medium-size businesses, toward export markets. The Canadian Government granted non-resident status to all Canadians who for two and a half years now have enjoyed the benefits extended through that written guideline. But unlike Ontario and all the other provinces Quebec has refused to acknowledge the non-resident status granted by Canada. The objective was to develop export markets because the Government of Canada, like the other provinces, is aware that $1
March 30, 1981

billion worth of manufactured products mean 40,000 jobs in Canada.
The Quebec government refuses to acknowledge the written guidelines. So, Mr. Speaker, during the period allotted to me, I want to ask the Levesque-Parizeau government to acknowledge a written directive which is an important component of an economic program, if Quebecers are to be considered as full-fledged Canadian citizens. Mr. Speaker, I refer to several articles that have been published during the conference held last week which was sponsored by the Chamber of Commerce, and 1 wish to point out the speech made by Mr. Marcel Sicard, president of the large firm Tecsult as well as chairman of the board of the Ahuntsic Cegep, who said about the attitude of the Levesque-Parizeau government that it reminds him of the slogan about physical fitness: Go play outside, to which one would add: Now let's lock the door.
I have in hand an item published in the newspaper La Presse of March 16 and signed by Roger Blais, who specifically mentions, and I quote:
Since I am one of the victims-
The 2,000 victims to whom I referred when I put my question to the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey). He went on to write:
-would you allow me to make some personal comments?
To leave one's country and everything is not easy; it is merely logical that the sacrifices and constraints should be compensated by some advantages which are mainly financial benefits in the form of tax exemptions granted by the Ottawa and Quebec governments.
Approvals for such purposes were officially confirmed to me by both governments in 1978; I went abroad with those duly signed assurances and I returned to Canada in 1980.
To this day, the Government of Canada has met its previous obligations to Quebecers as well as to other Canadian taxpayers. Conversely, after almost three years since its original decision, the Quebec government fails to meet its obligations to its taxpayers and is claiming back taxes from them, while charging with incompetence those responsible.
Mr. Speaker, it is my duty to sensitize my colleagues in the House of Commons, as deputy chairman of a special committee of a national trading corporation. We wish to develop the export market because we are aware of the fact that it is an important aspect of the Canadian economy. It seems to me that when the Levesque-Parizeau government refuses to acknowledge a commitment, a written guideline, it is committing a glaring injustice toward the firms and the citizens involved, who now have to reimburse an amount of $10,000. As a member of the House of Commons, representing a Quebec riding, this is the question I ask on behalf of all families who now have to reimburse the total amount of $20 million because of false representations, in view of the written guidelines issued at that time. How can anyone believe the many solemn promises now being made during the present electoral campaign in Quebec, especially when we know that we cannot even trust the written commitments made by the Levesque-Parizeau government?
Adjournment Debate


Mr. Claude Tessier (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of National Revenue):: Mr. Speaker, 1 thank the hon. member for his question and I support him when he denounces the attitude of the Quebec government in refusing to remedy an unfair situation, to say the least.
Indeed, Mr. Speaker, a recently published report reveals that the Quebec revenue department has revoked the non-resident status of some 2,000 Quebecers working in Saudi Arabia or other countries for Canadian employers; we cannot remain indifferent to this matter; quite the contrary, for we know and recognize that several of those Quebecers or Canadians made personal sacrifices and even accepted to run the risk of increased costs by accepting work outside Canada. We must recognize that those Quebecers like other Canadians will face serious financial problems if they do not obtain special tax relief in view of the circumstances.
Very briefly, Mr. Speaker, I should like to say what the Minister of National Revenue (Mr. Rompkey) and the Government of Canada have done to correct the situation and thus maintain the competitive position of Canada in the international labour market. Indeed, as it became obvious after recent court decisions that Canadian taxpayers working abroad temporarily, without any intention of cutting their ties with Canada, are not residents for tax purposes unless they work outside of Canada for more than two years, the federal Department of National Revenue took the position that when a Canadian is away from Canada for a period of at least two years he will be considered as a resident for tax purposes. However, as several taxpayers had made commitments prior to this new interpretation, in order to be fair, it was decided not to apply the new rules to those Canadians who left the country before the new policy was announced, that is before July 24, 1979. In addition, the new policy will not apply to anyone who has to leave Canada to complete a contract that is under way and must be completed.
So that Canada will remain competitive in the international labour market, the Government of Canada passed recently a new measure relating to the Income Tax Act, according to which in the 1980 taxation year and in subsequent years, the employees of taxable Canadian corporations who have been working overseas in designated countries for more than six months will be partially tax exempt in Canada. That provision will apply to those persons working on building, equipment, agricultural and engineering projects related to resource development-and exploration projects or to other prescribed activities in most developing countries as well as in other countries.


HEALTH AND SAFETY-MEASURES TO ELIMINATE HAZARD OF INFANT CRIB DEATHS
Mr. Geoff Scott (Hamilton-Wentworth):: Mr. Speaker, a week ago today, as reported at page 8496 of Hansard, I

March 30, 1981
Adjournment Debate
addressed questions to the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs (Mr. Ouellet) concerning the continued sale of these popular colonial-style infant cribs. 1 pointed out that even the manufacturers admit that the tall corner posts are hazardous. There has already been one tragic incident in Canada when a little girl was accidentally strangled with her pyjamas in Peace River, and there have been 14 similar deaths involving these colonial-style cribs in the United States.
Some manufacturers, however, are unwilling to modify the design of these corner posts on their own for fear of competitive disadvantage. Several manufacturers have asked Mr. Jim Black, head of the Consumer Affairs Department product safety branch, to press for government intervention to compel all crib manufacturers to withdraw these cribs from the market, pending some modification of the design.
In the meantime, many spring catalogues carry advertisements of these colonial-style cribs in the absence of an official order by the Government of Canada to eliminate this hazard at once.
When we are dealing with the free marketplace, I and many of my colleagues on this side of the House would argue strenuously for less government regulation, less government intervention and more freedom for crib manufacturers and, indeed, manufacturers of any household product to operate in as truly a free enterprise system as possible. I draw the line, however, when these products can affect the lives and safety of Canadians, particularly our children, the little ones who are powerless to make judgments on what may be a hazardous product and what is not. When it gets to the point where the manufacturers themselves recognize the clear danger present in the current design of these cribs and are requesting a government order to withdraw them from the market before any more tragic deaths occur, then I feel I am justified in asking the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs the kinds of questions I put to him last week.
What progress is his department making under the Hazardous Products Act in connection with these colonial style cribs, and what is behind one of the minister's departmental official's charging that there has been foot dragging on this matter and another being quoted as saying he would "try to do something, but that will be a slow process"?
The minister was unprepared to answer my questions last Monday. He said he would check with his officials on both matters raised. 1 am sorry the minister left the chamber only a few moments ago. I thought he would want to say personally where his product safety branch stands in connection with the specific issue of the colonial-style cribs.
I am told that Vancouver retailers are taking their responsibilities seriously. Many large chains are voluntarily pulling these cribs off the floors. At least one west coast retailer is offering refunds to customers if they purchased these colonial-style cribs prior to May 1. That may be happening elsewhere in Canada. It is an indication that retailers are sensitive to public pressure and will, when necessary, voluntarily pull
hazardous products off the shelves and out of the showrooms. Of course, there will be other retailers who know they have a popular thing going and, in the absence of legislation, will not remove these admittedly dangerous products.
One other thing worries me: there is nothing to prevent manufacturers who may feel compelled to withdraw these products from the domestic market from exporting these cribs to other countries. I would be interested in knowing what latitude the government will allow Canadian manufacturers to export hazardous products if, as, and when the department recognizes that these popular cribs can be dangerous.
The questions raised, however, about the high corner posts on infant cribs, in my view, go to the heart of the ability of the product safety branch to protect the public from obvious hazardous products; obvious, at least, to the manufacturers themselves and obvious, certainly, to Canadians who have experienced tragedy because of these products. I worry about the capacity of the minister's department to deal with urgent situations which arise such as the one we are discussing this evening.
Let me quote one disturbing paragraph in an article in the Ottawa Citizen of Monday, March 16, 1981-"Hazardous cribs still widely sold"-in which Dr. Kamlesh Gupta, the consumer department's chief of mechanical and electrical hazards "admitted the department has been dragging it heels on the issue. He said a lack of resources forced the department to rely on slowly evolving crib safety research being conducted in the United States." I would like to know what else Dr. Gupta, Mr. Black and others in the product safety branch are waiting for? On how many other products on the shelves, floors and showrooms of this nation must we Canadian await word from slowly evolving studies in the United States? Do we have to wait for serious injury or death in Canada to have the departments attention drawn to the need to alert and safeguard the consumer?
I realize that it is unfair to ask the minister to deal specifically with anything other than the subject matter of tonight's adjournment debate, but I serve notice that at the earliest appropriate time I will ask the Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs to table a list of products that the product safety branch is investigating, and particularly the list of products on which we have been awaiting word from the United States, such as the hazardous colonial style cribs.


Mr. Gary F. McCauley (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Consumer and Corporate Affairs and Postmaster General):: Mr. Speaker, as crib finials-or corner posts, as they are popularly known-of the type involved in the death of the child referred to by the hon. member for Hamilton-Wentworth (Mr. Scott) are not covered by regulations under the Hazardous Products Act, departmental officials have been engaged in a study of such features.
The department first learned of the child's death in July, 1980. The next month the director of the product safety branch advised manufacturers and importers of furniture for juveniles and those who had expressed an interest in product
March 30, 1981

safety matters-about 1,000 persons in all-of the potential hazard associates with cribs incorporating these design features. Manufactures and importers were asked to examine the design of their products and to eliminate voluntarily those features that could cause problems. A deadline for comments was set for September, 1980. Only three replies were received.
The director then wrote to the heads of 58 companies known to manufacture or import cribs requesting that their cribs be viewed as safety devices and that, voluntarily, they eliminate purely decorative features such as finials and posts that could put a child's life in jeopardy.
From the 27 replies received, it appeared that, in general, the industry was looking for specific guidance from the department. Colonial-style cribs are much in demand so, unless voluntary action is taken across the board, manufacturers who act in good faith could be placed at a marketing disadvantage by those who are less co-operative.
I might also mention that departmental officials have reviewed crib regulations in other countries and have found that finials and posts are only dealt with in a Swedish standard. Authorities in the U.S. are also interested in this subject and the product safety branch has been working with them in their studies.
Since the introduction of regulations on cribs in 1973, all deaths, with the exception of the one referred to, have been associated-and the hon. member should take note of this- with the use of inadequately mentioned cribs manufactured before regulations came into force.
In November of last year, the Department of Consumer and Corporate Affairs launched a major information campaign to alert consumers and retailers of used furniture to the possible hazards in the use of second-hand cribs. The department has also enlisted co-operation from the hotel and motel industry in checking the condition of their cribs to see that they are adequately maintained to ensure protection for young children.


GRAIN-COMPENSATION TO FARMERS FOR EMBARGO ON SHIPMENTS TO RUSSIA
Ramon John Hnatyshyn: Mr. Speaker, my question tonight arises out of questions that I posed to the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan) on March 10 in which I asked him once again about the long awaited payment to farmers in Canada on the grain embargo imposed by our government and for which there was a commitment to reimburse farmers for any losses they may have incurred by virtue of the imposition of that grain embargo.
I am pleased to see that the response tonight will be given by the Parliamentary Secretary to the Minister of Transport (Mr. Bockstael) who, I should point out to those watching tonight on television, is from western Canada, the city of Winnipeg, and who has the distinction-as far as I can make out, and I have been giving this a lot of thought-of being one of the few Liberals in western Canada who has not been appointed to the
Adjournment Debate
board of directors of Air Canada. Nevertheless, he will, as a western Canadian, understand the very serious concern there is across this country, in the west in particular, with respect to the untoward, unprecedented delay on the part of this government after a commitment was made by the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) in March of 1980 that the compensation would be paid.
I just want to review for you, Mr. Speaker, some of the background of this matter to show precisely that there is a long history on the part of this government of broken promises concerning payment to farmers, particularly in western Canada. Last summer the Minister of Agriculture announced that a statement would be made by August 1 with respect to the amount and time of payment of the compensation. He subsequently gave the matter some further thought and later was reported to have announced that the statement on payments would be made in November of 1980. The Minister of Transport (Mr. Pepin) during the course of that summer promised the payments to the farmers for November, 1980. Senator Argue, the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board, said in October of 1980 they would likely be made early in January, 1981. We go on then to a debate that took place in this House on December 9, 1980, and at page 5549 the Minister of Agriculture is reported to have said the following:
The Final report has yet to be submitted, and I hope this will take place within a few days.
It has been a few months since he made that statement, yet we have received no indication as to when Canadian farmers might expect the payment or, indeed, any statement on the part of the government as to the basis upon which the computation will be made.
On February 23, 1981, as reported at page 7550 of Hansard, the Prime Minister (Mr. Trudeau) said:
I understand that officials of the various departments involved, in co-operation with the farm groups, are establishing those damages and will be finished their work very soon.
On March 2, 1981, as reported at page 7771 of Hansard, the Minister of Agriculture said:
-the recommendation was made to the government this January. It is being considered by the departmental committees at the present time and I hope it will soon come forward to the government.
On March 10, the information we have is that departmental officials had told the Minister of Agriculture that the matter at that time was-and I was so informed in my office-before cabinet. What had happened was that the proposal had never been on the cabinet table prior to that time because the Privy Council office felt that there were details which had to be attended to before cabinet consideration, or there was a possibility that it would have to be considered twice by cabinet. Therefore, it went to the departmental committees for minor alterations.
Finally, on March 10, in response to questions by the hon. member for Lisgar (Mr. Murta) and myself, the Minister of

March 30, 1981
Adjournment Debate
Agriculture said that he would know the amount soon. In response to a question which I put, he said that the payment would be made no later than the end of March, and that if everything went smoothly it could be possible.
The fact of the matter is that this is a substantial amount of money to which the farmers of Canada are entitled. Saskatchewan economists have found that the amount of money payable to prairie farmers alone should be $117.5 million. It is important for this money to be received now by western farmers and by farmers across Canada to help meet the cash flow problems associated with spring operations.
In conclusion, I say that the responses of the Minister of Agriculture have been unsatisfactory. He tried to explain it by saying that farmers did not want the money to be shown in their incomes for 1980. Of course, the excuse could now be used that they do not want the money to be shown in their incomes for 1981. Do we have to wait until 1984 until we receive any kind of response from the government? When can they expect this money? Western farmers want to know.


Mr. Robert Bockstael (Parliamentary Secretary to Minister of Transport):: Mr. Speaker, on January 4, 1980, in response to U.S.S.R. military intervention in Afghanistan, the United States announced it was imposing a number of economic sanctions against the U.S.S.R. The United States government met with other major grain exporters to seek their support. Canada in support of the American action agreed to restrict its shipment of grain to the U.S.S.R. to a level which was regarded as normal and traditional.
When the decision of the Canadian government to join in restricting exports of grain to the U.S.S.R. was announced, the prime minister of the day, the Right Hon. Leader of the Opposition (Mr. Clark), announced that Canadian grain producers would be compensated for losses arising out of actions taken by the Canadian and United States governments. Subsequently, the present government made a public commitment, which has been repeated on several occasions, to compensate grain producers for losses in income which can be legitimately attributed to government actions to restrict grain shipments to the U.S.S.R. below normal levels.
By restricting shipments to the U.S.S.R., extra supplies of grain accumulated in the rest of the world and this tended to depress prices. These price-depressing effects were offset by
United States' decisions to remove some grain from the market through purchases by the Commodity Credit Corporation and by allowing more grain to enter the farmer reserves program.
Any Canadian losses due to the embargo can be divided into two categories, namely, losses in volume of sales and losses in price. Given the commitment of the government to which I have already referred, an interdepartmental committee was established to examine the basis upon which compensation was to be determined, the amount to be paid, and the method of payment. In addition, a number of other agencies and institutions have made estimates of the losses incurred by Canadian producers, and these estimates have been examined by the committee. The analysis of this issue took longer than we originally thought. Much of the data required for the analysis was not immediately available. As hon. members will appreciate, the problem is an extremely complex one and many other factors affected the market during this period, in addition to the embargo.
This means that the measurement of the impact of the embargo on grain prices was very difficult. The other factors which have influenced world grain markets since the embargo was announced on January 4, 1980, include higher interest rates-which increase the cost of holding grain inventories- early expectations of large grain crops in 1980-81 in the United States and the world, and the appreciation of the United States dollar against other major currencies.
At present, the interdepartmental committee has completed its work and a full report has been prepared. This report has been brought before cabinet by the Minister of Agriculture (Mr. Whelan), and the minister responsible for the Canadian Wheat Board. Cabinet is currently in the process of considering this memorandum and-


The Acting Speaker (Mr. Blaker):: The hon. parliamentary secretary will know that I regret having to interrupt him. I have had to do it before and I am sorry, but the rules relating to the adjournment motion are very strict indeed.
The motion to adjourn the House is now deemed to have been adopted. Accordingly, this House stands adjourned until tomorrow at two o'clock.
At 10.31 p.m. the House adjourned, without question put, pursuant to Standing Order.

Tuesday, March 31, 1981